View Full Version : American Politics during the Obama Presidency
An AP contributor, a Brit, asked here recently why people call Obama and the current Congressional majority socialists. You don't see them nationalizing everything in site as fast as they can, like, say, Lenin and the Bolsheviks did in Russia. Well, maybe the link below explains why. Leave the current bunch and their succcessors at it and in power for another 50 years, and what would things look like?
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aOp8Vr9G13z4
Jon Stewart spotted something "unusual" in FOX reporting on last week's health care protests in DC. First in the FOX piece there is video of a crowd gathered on a clear blue day and the trees are showing their fall colors. Then later you see a much larger crowd but it's cloudy and the trees are green. The second clip turns out to be from a different gathering on Saturday Sept.12, but they showed it as being from the health care protests on Thursday Nov.5. And during the video the FOX commentators are marvelling at the size of the crowd, stating the estimates were between 20000-45000 people when the Washington Post put it at 10000.
npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/11/jon_stewart_catches_sean_hanni.html
Canitasguy
11-12-09, 20:38
Jon Stewart spotted something "unusual" in FOX reporting on last week's health care protests in DC. First in the FOX piece there is video of a crowd gathered on a clear blue day and the trees are showing their fall colors. Then later you see a much larger crowd but it's cloudy and the trees are green. The second clip turns out to be from a different gathering on Saturday Sept.12, but they showed it as being from the health care protests on Thursday Nov.5. And during the video the FOX commentators are marvelling at the size of the crowd, stating the estimates were between 20000-45000 people when the Washington Post put it at 10000.
Npr. Org / blogs / thetwo-way /2009/11/ jon_stewart_catches_sean_hanni. HtmlSean Hannity says the bogus tape use was an "inadvertent mistake." Yea, like I inadvertently forgot to pull out before I came in her mouth!
Punter 127
11-12-09, 23:03
Stimulus job boost in state exaggerated, review finds.
Errors, incomplete data, estimated positions go into federal report.
While Massachusetts recipients of federal stimulus money collectively report 12,374 jobs saved or created, a Globe review shows that number is wildly exaggerated. Organizations that received stimulus money miscounted jobs, filed erroneous figures, or claimed jobs for work that has not yet started. The jobs report is just another example of how the "Radicalized Left" operates.
I am however surprised the Globe reported it.
You can read the full article at the link below.
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2009/11/11/stimulus_fund_job_benefits_exaggerated_review_finds/
I, for one, am impressed with Obama's stance on Cuba. Obama refuses to buy
into the bullshit of the Hollywood elitists I. E. Oliver Stone, Penn and that fucking fatso imbecile from Michigan, who glorify those fucking bastards Castro and Che fucking Guevara.
Obama more or less is saying what Bush said. Castro is a fucking dictator, pure and simple.
Fitting justice would be to burn Castro and fucking Che Guevara alive and feed them to pigs.
Gato Hunter
11-20-09, 12:01
The CIA already took care of Che!
Canitasguy
11-21-09, 00:38
A Bloomberg study indicates it will take 6-11 years to regain all the jobs lost since the beginning of the recession! In all the economic recoveries since WWII, the total recoveries of jobs averaged 2 years. But all of those were accelerated because the USA had manufacturing. O has further eliminated manufacturing (I. E. GM and C and related businesses) CHANGE! You got it!------Sad SidAccording to Sidney, in ten short months Obama has single-handedly been able to destroy US manufacturing. Gee I thought the twenty years of free trade policies championed by the Right played a role, but what do I know?
The tax increases are not news, only the details. If this is true, it sounds like a well thought-out plan. There are some very smart people in this administration.
Rock Harders
11-24-09, 01:00
Sidney,
Since you can find nothing better to do than rip apart the policies of the Obama administration and complain about the overpriced food and poor service everywhere in Buenos Aires, please enlighten us as to where we would be if that true brain trust, the McCain-Palin ticket, had won the election back in November 2008. What would that true genius, John McCain, have come up with to turn around what is clearly the comeuppance of decades of unsustainable policies? I am sure Sarah Palin, who has proven herself about as intelligent as your neighborhood Wal-Mart cashier, would be contributing a lot toward elaborate economic policies that would sweep in after less than a year and save the day for all of us.
The bottom line here is that the only fixes that can save the USA now are draconian austerity measures that nobody has the balls to talk about and are unfortunately politically taboo. Unsustainable policies led to a fiery crash and the only option now is to plan for the softest landing in order to preserve political position and office. This is almost like Argentina in early 2002, except at least Lavagna implemented austerity measures in their case (the dual budget and balance of payment surpluses) until Nestor fired him and flushed everything down the toilet. The USA has become so de-industrialized that almost the only economic activities outside the public sector are agriculture, services, and computer engineering (which will be done in India soon enough) What is the answer Sidney?
Suerte,
Rock Harders
Since you can find nothing better to do than rip apart the policiesYou are being too generous! All Sidney does is post news stories and then tack on his own "Oh no the sky is falling!" warning with exclamation marks. LOL.
Still, I am glad I could make him laugh.
please enlighten us as to where we would be if that true brain trust, the McCain-Palin ticket, had won the election back in November 2008.It's not about brains, it's about experience.
Anyway, since you're lobbing softballs today...
1. We wouldn't have pissed away 780 billion dollars of borrowed money with nothing to show for it.
2. We'd be admiring the results of a military surge in Afghanistan that would have been initiated months ago.
3. We wouldn't be embroiled in a derisive national argument about a fabricated health insurance "emergency", and would instead be engaged in finding a sensible, bipartisan solution to which everyone could agree.
4. We'd be watching the economy begin to recover as the Q1 and Q2 tax cuts were stimulating business activity.
Oh yeah, we'd also be enjoying a stronger dollar.
Thanks,
Jackson
==============================================
For the record, I am NOT a Rebublican, and I am NOT a conservative.
- I am against the death penalty.
- I am against any government support of religious organizations.
- I am for the legalization of recreational drugs.
- I am for the legalization of commercial sex.
- I am for a woman's right to choose.
- I am for comprehensive sex education.
- I am for a foreign guest worker program.
- I am for a universal flat tax on EVERYONE'S income.
- I am for health INSURANCE reform.
- I am for health JUSTICE reform.
I am a member of the Libertian Party, registered as an Independent.
Rock Harders
11-24-09, 04:59
Jackson,
How are you going to throw those assumptions out there without backing up a single one with some evidence, or at least policy proposals made by the McCain-Palin dynamic duo? What exact experiences do either McCain and or Palin have that would lead you to believe they would come up with superior economic policies? McCain was mediocre at everything he ever attempted in his professional and academic life; Palin is nothing more than the butt of late-night TV jokes. Surge in Afghanistan? Afghanistan has been a failed state for over a thousand years and will not be reborn as a functioning state in our lifetimes or those of our grandchildren.
If you were a diabetic plumber with 3 children and no health insurance you would probably not agree that there is no health care system emergency. Rich people like yourself always have access to the services they need. The only way to a stronger dollar is to end the wars immediately and downsize the military. What indication or proof do you have that the McCain-Palin team was going to implement that policy?
Suerte,
Rock Harders
It's not about brains, it's about experience.
2. We'd be admiring the results of a military surge in Afghanistan that would have been initiated months ago.Once we see the dramatic success of the upcoming military surge in Afghanistan I say we use our new 'surge technology' and go back and clean up Somalia. That should take a couple days. Then we could concentrate on Sudan. That might take a couple hours.
Then, what the heck, lets take care of unfinished business in Vietnam. I never liked the way those Viet Cong kicked our butts out of that country. Our new 'surge technology' should rectify that mistake in a couple of weeks.
The possibilities are unlimited.
[QUOTE=Jackson]It's not about brains, it's about experience.
2. We'd be admiring the results of a military surge in Afghanistan that would have been initiated months ago.
Once we see the dramatic success of the upcoming military surge in Afghanistan I say we use our new 'surge technology' and go back and clean up Somalia. That should take a couple days. Then we could concentrate on Sudan. That might take a couple hours.
Then, what the heck, lets take care of unfinished business in Vietnam. I never liked the way those Viet Cong kicked our butts out of that country. Our new 'surge technology' should be able to rectify that mistake in a couple of weeks.
The possibilities are unlimited.How about Cuba and Castro?
Obama's "Secret Master Plan" as the article below refers to is very simple:
Common sense and looking out for your fellow man.
Thank you for posting the gun article, this is more good news. The death and disablement that guns cause in the US every year is unbelievable. Gun ownership needs to be significantly curtailed and regulated, and increasing taxes on it is another smart idea. I think the proposed $50 tax is too low.
It's not about brains, it's about experience.Between brains and experience I'll take brains. One may have a lot of experience, but that by no means guarantees they will make the best decisions. Whereas a smart person will gather all relevant information, including consulting with those with experience, in formulating their plans.
1. We wouldn't have pissed away 780 billion dollars of borrowed money with nothing to show for it.Simply untrue. You can review this information on the government website recovery.gov. Two of the more well-known programs have addressed the important auto and housing sectors. The former stimulus has helped a wide spectrum of companies linked to the auto industry, and the latter, along with its recent renewal and expansion to repeat home buyers has and will continue to help soften the landing and put a floor in the housing market (which has significant economic ramifications).
The website also lists the total jobs created / saved due to the Recovery Act. While the exact number is open to debate and may be over-estimated, there can be no doubt the number is very large.
I'm not familiar with everything that has been spent from the funds. But I do think the two programs above are examples of smart, focused and strategic efforts to stabilize important areas of the economy at a critical time. And which have had demonstrable results.
And BTW, these results are not based on the full $787 billion from the Recovery Act. According to the website only about $220 billion has been paid out to date. There is a lot of information on the website if you take the time to look.
4. We'd be watching the economy begin to recover as the Q1 and Q2 tax cuts were stimulating business activity.Oh yes the panacea of tax cuts.
By many accounts we are already seeing the beginning of a recovery. The $787 billion actually includes $288 billion in tax benefits. But fortunately, the Recovery Act does not rely solely on this one single component. It's highly questionable whether tax cuts and other tax benefits alone would have stimulated any meaningful economic activity in this type of downturn. A risky gamble. Instead, an approach involving both tax benefits and targeted spending was adopted. I think this is much smarter in the current environment.
"In interviews, a broad range of economists said the White House and Congress were right to structure the package as a mix of tax cuts and spending, rather than just tax cuts as Republicans prefer or just spending as many Democrats do."
New Consensus Sees Stimulus Package as Worthy Step
www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/business/economy/21stimulus.html
I am astonished by the sensitivities of Obama's supporters. They rush to defend or explain whatever Obama has done or said. Furthermore, they appear to be genuinely distraught when we mere mortals cannot appreciate the wisdom of 'THE ONE'
It is my recollection, and it may be dead wrong, that the supporters of Bush or Reagon were never overly sensitive when Bush and Reagan were being criticized.
In fact, the supporters of Bush and Reagan realized they were on the right track when brain dead wind up dolls like Jesse Jackson and Sharpton were criticizing Reagan and Bush.
After all, if you were a supporter of Bush or Reagan, would you want Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton or Barney 'raise my salary' Franks agreeing with your policies.
I am astonished by the sensitivities of Obama's supporters. They rush to defend or explain whatever Obama has done or said. Furthermore, they appear to be genuinely distraught when we mere mortals cannot appreciate the wisdom of 'THE ONE'
It is my recollection, and it may be dead wrong, that the supporters of Bush or Reagon were never overly sensitive when Bush and Reagon were being criticized.
In fact, the supporters of Bush and Reagon realized they were on the right track when brain dead wind up dolls like Jesse Jackson and Sharpton were criticizing Reagon and Bush.
Afterall, if you were a supporter of Bush or Reagon, would you want Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton or Barney 'raise my salary' Franks agreeing with your policies."Perception is in the mind of the beholder" Let's wait till 2012 to see the end of America, until then, opinions are just "opinions".
I am astonished by the sensitivities of Obama's supporters. They rush to defend or explain whatever Obama has done or said. Furthermore, they appear to be genuinely distraught when we mere mortals cannot appreciate the wisdom of 'THE ONE'
It is my recollection, and it may be dead wrong, that the supporters of Bush or Reagon were never overly sensitive when Bush and Reagon were being criticized.
In fact, the supporters of Bush and Reagon realized they were on the right track when brain dead wind up dolls like Jesse Jackson and Sharpton were criticizing Reagon and Bush.
Afterall, if you were a supporter of Bush or Reagon, would you want Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton or Barney 'raise my salary' Franks agreeing with your policies.The beauty of Obama being President is to watch all the draft dodging mf. N corporate and political fat cats squirm and scream. It is not about sensitivity. For me, it is purely a generational thing. The fat corporate / political draft-dodging bastards that caused this financial mess deserve everything they are receiving. Excesses of forty some odd years are not undone overnight: Reagonomics. And for McCain, not to take anything away from what he endured, the guy is a first class asshole. He would have been drummed out of the service if it were not for his daddy, a four star Admiral. The guy is a putz. You can take Nixon, Reagan, Busch, Clinton and with distinction, daddy's little boy Busch, and stick them where the sun does not shine. Obama was not born with a silver spoon up his ass and that was all the qualifications and experience he needed for my vote. Furthermore, to place Obama in the same league as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpass is without a doubt the dumbest statement I have ever heard in quite some time. Kiss my lilly white trailer-trash ass. Squirm baby squirm.
The beauty of Obama being President is to watch all the draft dodging mf. N corporate and political fat cats squirm and scream. It is not about sensitivity. For me, it is purely a generational thing. The fat corporate / political draft-dodging bastards that caused this financial mess deserve everything they are receiving. Excesses of forty some odd years are not undone overnight: Reagonomics. And for McCain, not to take anything away from what he endured, the guy is a first class asshole. He would have been drummed out of the service if it were not for his daddy, a four star Admiral. The guy is a putz. You can take Nixon, Reagan, Busch, Clinton and with distinction, daddy's little boy Busch, and stick them where the sun does not shine. Obama was not born with a silver spoon up his ass and that was all the qualifications and experience he needed for my vote. Furthermore, to place Obama in the same league as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpass is without a doubt the dumbest statement I have ever heard in quite some time. Kiss my lilly white trailer-trash ass. Squirm baby squirm.So let me see if I understand you: In order to "punish" the "all the draft dodging mf. N corporate and political fat cats" you advocate that Obama flush our entire economy down the toilet?
Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water!
Thanks,
Jackson
Gato Hunter
11-27-09, 13:59
I do agree that the "system" needs an enema, maybe even the high colonic purge!
Some recent irony I find amusing.
We have all read about how Dubai is the latest douche on the block. Many of you are no doubt aware of that if you default on a debt in Dubai you go to jail, even if your a foriegner.
When does the Dubai Govt report in to butt rape central?
So let me see if I understand you: In order to "punish" the "all the draft dodging mf. N corporate and political fat cats" you advocate that Obama flush our entire economy down the toilet?
Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water!
Thanks,
Jackson What economy? Flushed long before Obama showed up. We do not make diddly squat anymore. Want to build a nuclear power plant? Go see Westinghouse. Pardon me, they are owned by a foreign outfit:Toshiba. The list goes on and on of corporations / politicians selling the country out over the years. We w h o r e d ourselves for a quick buck. Tired of hearing Obama this Obama that. No matter who got elected president, the story would be the same: moving deck chairs around on the Titanic. To blame Obama for all this BS is absurd. The US economy has been a train wreck waiting to happen for quite some time.
Yall have a good weekend.
Member #4112
11-27-09, 16:17
Let's start with the auto industry ie Chrysler and GM. Am I to understand it was a good idea to sell Chrysler to Fiat, a foreign company? But didn't you just rail against other industries being owned by foreign companies, yet it is Ok in your opinion if Obama does it? Am I also to understand it is ok to turn over a sizable chunk of these companies to the unions, who shoulder equal responsibility with poor management in running the firms into the ground, at the expense of the share holders and debt holders who invested in these companies and that is Ok in your opinion if Obama does it?
Funny you should mention nuclear power plants. I may be wrong but I don't think one has been built in this country in 20 years, while Europe has operated them successfully for decades. The left wing green save the planet nuts have successfully stopped the power industry from going that way for years and Obama just gives it lip service in favor of "renewable" power and this is OK with you?
And as Obama and Al Gore (you know the guy with the HUGE CARBON FOOTPINT who has become a multimillionaire from peddling the "sky is falling" global warming mantra) trip off arm in arm into the sunset singing "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead" from the Wizard of Oz as unemployment tops 10% , the economy continues to tank, and Obama triples the Federal deficit in one year and this is OK with you?
Just the ramblings of an old capitalist.
Respectfully submitted for your edification.
Doppelganger
I am not sure who Dammon is but Dammon has my vote for someone destined to move up the corporate ladder. Perhaps President and CEO of General Electric. We will forget all about Jack Walsh once Dammon, the suave, debonair icon of corporate America, makes his presence known.
The beauty of Obama being President is to watch all the draft dodging mf. N corporate and political fat cats squirm and scream. It is not about sensitivity. For me, it is purely a generational thing. The fat corporate / political draft-dodging bastards that caused this financial mess deserve everything they are receiving. Excesses of forty some odd years are not undone overnight: Reagonomics. And for McCain, not to take anything away from what he endured, the guy is a first class asshole. He would have been drummed out of the service if it were not for his daddy, a four star Admiral. The guy is a putz. You can take Nixon, Reagan, Busch, Clinton and with distinction, daddy's little boy Busch, and stick them where the sun does not shine. Obama was not born with a silver spoon up his ass and that was all the qualifications and experience he needed for my vote. Furthermore, to place Obama in the same league as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpass is without a doubt the dumbest statement I have ever heard in quite some time. Kiss my lilly white trailer-trash ass. Squirm baby squirm.
Gato Hunter
11-27-09, 17:06
The US lost its ability to make quality nuclear containment domes during the Reagan era. The remainder of the reactor besides the fuel cycle is rather simple and can be made anywhere even Iran can do it with sanctions!
In fact the only place that can make them anymore is in Japan, and there is a backlog.
I toured the facility about two years ago and it was top notch.
Gato Hunter
11-27-09, 17:22
http://www.draftcheney2012.com/
They should ship his ass to Afghanistan with a platoon of Marines and see how good he shoots!
Maybe he can "pepper" some Taliban with birdshot.
To blame Obama for all this BS is absurd. The US economy has been a train wreck waiting to happen for quite some time.Can somebody please tell me the date that the state of the economy will become Obama's responsibility?
Is it next month? Or sometime next year? Or perhaps, as the Obama worshipers apparently wish, the economy will be George Bush's fault for years to come, thus permanently freeing Obama of any accountability for the state of the economy.
Wait, I know the answer: The economy will be George Bush's fault until it rights itself in spite of the anchors that the current administration continues to throw in it's wake, at which point it will then be declared the "Obama Economic Miracle".
Thanks,
Jackson
Gato Hunter
11-27-09, 21:05
Can somebody please tell me the date that the state of the economy will become Obama's responsibility?January 20, 2009
Can somebody please tell me the date that the state of the economy will become Obama's responsibility?
Is it next month? Or sometime next year? Or perhaps, as the Obama worshipers apparently wish, the economy will be George Bush's fault for years to come, thus permanently freeing Obama of any accountability for the state of the economy.
Wait, I know the answer: The economy will be George Bush's fault until it rights itself in spite of the anchors that the current administration continues to throw in it's wake, at which point it will then be declared the "Obama Economic Miracle".
Thanks,
JacksonJackson: When I suggest, "To blame Obama for all this BS is absurd," is to point out there is more than enough responsibility and accountability for the financial mess to go around. It is not to suggest Obama is off the hook. Furthermore, it not about "worshipping" Obama. The point is, Obama should not be your only whipping boy on the block for this debacle. It so difficult to comprehend how Senators / Congressmen can sit at a hearing and question and chastise an administration official when they are the very same individuals that turned a blind eye to all the creative financing of corporate America. What were they doing when all this started to unfold over the past eight years? They all get to speak with impunity and that chaps my ass. Have no idea how they can look themselves in a mirror. It is the largest body of hypocrites on the Planet.
I am not sure who Dammon is but Dammon has my vote for someone destined to move up the corporate ladder. Perhaps President and CEO of General Electric. We will forget all about Jack Walsh once Dammon, the suave, debonair icon of corporate America, makes his presence known.Like a turd in a punch bowl
It is the largest body of hypocrites on the Planet.Correction - the largest in the US. Put all the legislatures of all the countries together and you get the largest body of hypocrites on the planet.
It's why we need SMALLER government and not bigger. It's why what Obama AND the Democratic congress is doing is so bad for the country - they're going the wrong way. They're not trying to legislate fairness, they're trying to expand the government even bigger than Bush did, which was bad enough to begin with. They're trying to get their fingers into every aspect of life so people can sit back and say "now the government will take care of us."
THAT's what we blame Obama AND the Democrtic Congress for, and it's what many of us (though unfortunately not all of us) blamed Bush for as well.
BTW - has anyone been following "ClimateGate"? The world-wide greens, in our country predominantly left-leaning democrats (and by contamination even just-left-of-center democrats) have been pushing this crap based on bad science.
I read a very interesting paper last night by a group of scientists that were studying tropospheric warming in the topics (between 20 degres north and south) which is where the current science (rightlyfully so) concentrates their studies because it is where most warming occurs.
The paper starts off its introduction describing that the current models used by other scientists (the ones screaming about global warming) have NEVER EVER come close to matching the realities of the ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS of what is ACTUALLY HAPPENING!
In fact, they conclude in their paper that the current "accepted science" on global warming predictions, specifically on the predictions of temperature increases, needs to be adjusted WAY DOWN.
And Obama is trying to spend billions of government dollars (OUR FUCKING MONEY) on bullshit green stuff with subsidies and grants, for things that cannot be commercially viable without that money. Let's not foget that Al Gore, who went from having a couple of million dollars in the bank when he left office with Clinton, to being worth close to 500 million now, is poised on the brink of making severla more fortunes because he is so heavily tied and invested in projects that can't possibly make money unless the government throws money to the greens to "combat" this bullshit man-made global warming.
And the effects of many of these policies is much more likely to increase the chance of a global economic meltdown (pun intended) But Mr. Gore and his cronies will all be rich.
I'd rather have capitalists making the money, because at least that spreads wealth around a whole lot better than what's going to happen if Obama AND the Left get their way.
El Alamo,
I am not sure who you are referring to in your observations of Obama supporters. If anything, what I have seen is a continuous and at times zealous effort to attack and fault Obama and the current administration on numerous issues. Don't assume that people who respond back to such efforts do so blindly without thinking things through.
For myself, I am not a member of any political party. I have my own values and vision of how things should be. And I'm interested in good ideas and plans that support them. Where those ideas come from is not really important. On the current topic, it just so happens that there is considerable alignment between Obama's vision and thinking and my own. Any many others as well.
I know there are smart people on this board but I am not reading too many intelligent explanations of why Obama and the current administration are on the wrong path. The fact that some detractors have resorted to a form of name calling (worshippers, "the ONE", Obamination) and mocking is another sign to me that sound, reasoned arguments are just simply lacking.
Esten, it's because we are in the battle of paradigms.
People who think Obama and his folk are doing the right thing are the kind of people who think that big government is good because government will watch out for the little guy and that "unfettered" capitalism is bad because it takes advantage of the little guy.
The kind of people who are against Obama think the opposite - that it's up to the individual to take care of himself, that government gets in the way of that and makes things worse when it tries to "protect" and make things "equal".
It really doesn't make any difference as to the specific things that Obama and his folk do, because everything they do leads to what Obama and his people believe in (whether it's from their heart or from a desire for power over others) which is opposite from what the others believe.
I think both sides are wrong. As far as I'm concerned, I'm the only one that's right and everything else is going to lead one way or another to tyranny and / or a welfare state. But I'll never convince anyone fo that who doesn't already think that way, and you are not going to convince me that the government can do anything better than private enterprise except for a VERY SMALL class of things, and so on.
It's why I haven't posted in this thread for awhile, because at the end of the day it doesn't make one lick of a difference, but I find myself every once in awhile needing to anyway because we're all proselytizers in one way or another.
Gato Hunter
11-29-09, 14:00
If "W" sent in 35k troops in the beginning instead of pussy footing around they would have gotten Bin Laden and the other high level goons at Tora Bora 8 years ago.
El Queso,
Insightful comments. I also have thought this and am glad to see someone else articulate it.
I would still argue though that despite fundamental differences in values, there is still plenty of room for intelligent discussion.
For example, saying or implying "big government is bad" is as empty as the opposite "big government is good". Instead of such sweeping generalizations, it would be more constructive to explain why a specific proposal involving the government is / is not a good idea.
Let me just add that this whole idea that Obama is for big government is a big distortion. He is for incremental involvement of government where it is needed or otherwise makes sense to achieve certain objectives. A strong private sector is still a key component.
BTW, I am 100% convinced that if the GOP had won the election there still would have been a stimulus package involving government spending.
Esten,
I appreciate your comments, and it is posible to have intelligent conversation on many of these issues, but the big government vs small government is a fundamental "meme" that conversation, even with plenty of examples, can't move one way or the other, in my opinion.
You can't tell me that Obama is not interested in growing the government to the point where it will have the say on how things are run. The biggest example is what his party is looking to put forward for healthcare, FORCING everyone to pay in one way or another for healthcare instead of truly making tort reforms (as an example) and other reforms that are desperately needed.
I have yet to see anyone name a single successful government program that really helps people and at the same time is cost effective. I'm not talking about something that just gives things to people. Those are the WORST sort.
Having lived in Argentina and seeing up close and personal what happens when government tries to control things to make things fair, instead of making laws and then making sure people obey them (which in my opinion is what government should do) to make things fair. It's a cluster fuck and the US is headed that way too. Too many special interest groups on both sides want to vote money and honey to their constituents so they keep getting elected.
There is NO interest in getting things right, not really. There is only a bunch of crap emmitted on both sides, scaring the shit out of everybody, to force people to think that they need things that they don't really need.
I see big corporations, who actually operate much more efficiently than the government can possible operate. I've been on the inside and I've worked with these corporations from the outside. I'm often amazed that they can make money, but yet they still do. But it's because they are FORCED to at least be efficient enough to make some money or they go bankrupt (or the leaders who are screwing things up are forced out by share holders, etc). Unless big brother comes in and wastes OUR money to prop them up, causing more and more problems down the line until things get too bad to deal with any more.
Government is many times larger than what I've seen in these corporations (Chevron being my biggest personal example of a company that is so screwed up on how they approach their problems and still manage to make money) and the government runs many times less efficiently.
I don't need examples of how government can make things better, because, firstly there are none, and secondly, if there happens to be an example that someone actually comes up with that turned out to be a good thing, it's the exception that proves the rule.
Government simply cannot and does not create wealth. People are not better off giving up some of their own responsibilities to the government instead of being responsible for themselves.
Most of the people who follow the Democratic party who are on the receiving end of government (I'm not saying everyone who is a democrat is like this, I'm talking about the people who vote democratic because they sense that they are "left behind" and get benefits from the government in some fashion, perceived or real) ***** and moan that they have no opportunities. But I remember having to work three freaking jobs to pay my way through school, on top of student loans I was able to get (but I was a white guy with parents who were not poor, even though they refused to pay for my college, so the loans I got were very small) and just working my ever-loving ass off the get where I wanted.
Now that I actually am making money (sometimes) and living fairly comfortable, after 25+ years of hard work, why would I ever be comfortable with giving my hard earned tax dollars to people who don't work as hard as I do to get ahead?
These are things that no example can sway from the mind. These are things that I look back on and say "you know, I did work my ass off, I sacrificed for decades, and there is no one in the US who should not be capable of doing the same if they so choose. " I don't need anyone to force me to have healthcare, and I'm not going to be someone who is a drag on the system because I present myself to a hospital without money expecting proper health care.
Big government is a scam. We should all be suspicious of ANYTHING our law makers do. Our founding fathers were. In fact, we should absolutely make things as difficult as possible for our law makers for that very reason.
But I'll never convince ANYONE of the correctness of that statement, who believes that government can do things well and actually make things better for anyone (again, except for a small list of things) The examples abound, it's up to everyone to think critically and make the right decisions. Whch is almost impossible to rely on because people see things differently.
Mike Pence mocked the idea of a jobs summit in the GOP Thanksgiving address. His solution? Lower taxes.
No president in any administration should be held 100% responsible for the unemployment rate. There are too many factors over which there is too little control. While many companies had to lay off people, many others are just trimming the bottom line and hoarding cash. Bringing people together to get all the best ideas on the table is a smart idea.
I expect annoucements in the next several months on initiatives stemming from the jobs summit and other subsequent followup meetings. In addition to the ideas themselves, I think there is some amount of 'be part of the team / solution' persuasion that will play a role and this is another good reason for in-person meetings.
The GOP's mocking of this effort is sad but not surprising. It is clear their primary motive is political gain.
Do you think that maybe they were mocking a jobs summit and instead talking about lower taxes because they think (supposedly) that government doesn't create jobs, but lowering taxes and giving companies a break from spending their money on government might give them a chance to hire some people back, thereby actually recovering (even though not creating) jobs?
Again, it's the meme of the government can fix things versus the supposed free market can do a better job.
There can be no real intelligent discussion on this as long as we count an intelligent discussion as something where both sides bring information to the table, exchange it back and forth, and we actually all come away with some changes in our thinking as a result.
Without those sort of results (to a lesser or greater degree) there is no intelligent discussion, merely discussion between intelligent individuals which might be considered a form of mental masturbation.
I've heard the arguments about wasteful government before. I agree there are many examples that demonstrate this. However I don't believe that government is de-facto, inherently wasteful. It all depends on how its run.
I've heard the arguments about efficient private enterprise before. I agree there are many examples that demonstrate this. However I'm also aware there are important needs that the private sector cannot, or has not, addressed in a fair and effective manner.
So in trying to address important needs, I do not start with the position that the government should not play a role. What's important is that the needs are addressed in a fair and effective manner. If the private sector can't do so then other options should be considered.
As El Queso has pointed out, e mails from the nazi, neo-com global warming fanatics have shown that these thugs have stooped to cooking the books, throwing out data and destroying the peer review publication process in their attempt to force the ridiculous idea of man made global warming down our throats.
Now the imbecilic United Nations enforcer of global warming says that the peer review system guarantees publication of valid science. What a much of bullshit. The Nazi, neo-com enforcers of man made global warming emphaized in their emails that eliminating reviewers not sympathic to man made global warming was of utmost importance.
Why are these people so determined to ram this bullshit down our throats. The anwer is simple. Greed. Environmentalits have never seen so much grant money and as long a they hold their noses and pretend to accept the nonsense of man made global warming - grant money will appear.
As for Al Gore. That fucking bastard has the social conscience of the crooks in China who sold tainted milk causing hundreds of infant deaths. Gore is the poster boy for out of control greed. He makes Halburton and the other whipping boys of the fucking liberals look like Mother Teresa.
What is Al Gore's favorite Green project. Green in his pocket.
P.S. the global warmin fanatics, who used to have fairy tales about temperature increases of several degrees Centigrade, have now tried to draw a line in the sand. They claim that over the last 150 years, while we were coming out of a little Ice Age, the world's temperature has risen 0.8 degrees Centigrade.
Whoops, that was before they admitted that even 0.8 degrees Centigrade was a completely fabricated number with absolutely no basis in science.
Stan Da Man
12-01-09, 00:06
I've heard the arguments about wasteful government before. I agree there are many examples that demonstrate this. However I don't believe that government is de-facto, inherently wasteful. It all depends on how its run.
I've heard the arguments about efficient private enterprise before. I agree there are many examples that demonstrate this. However I'm also aware there are important needs that the private sector cannot, or has not, addressed in a fair and effective manner.
So in trying to address important needs, I do not start with the position that the government should not play a role. What's important is that the needs are addressed in a fair and effective manner. If the private sector can't do so then other options should be considered.[Commence Rant] One of the larger differences between the public and private sector is that the laws of supply and demand apply directly to private enterprise but not to governments. It's sort of like Darwinian economics at play.
Businesses must compete directly against other businesses. Those that are more efficient in greater business aspects -- cost control, sales, innovation, etc. -- tend to survive and thrive. Those that are less efficient tend to fail. Survival of the fittest. I know that sounds simple, but it definitely applies to most businesses. There are exceptions, and there are different rules at play when large enterprises are competing against small enterprises. But, these are the unwritten rules that everyone in business understands, even if they aren't always good at any of these business fundamentals.
Governments, by contrast, need not play by these rules. States compete against other states for employers only at the margins, just as cities don't really compete much with other cities. The federal government really doesn't compete against anyone directly. For this reason, governments tend to be inefficient. Why? Because they don't have to be efficient.
Why would anyone trust anything the government has to say about job creation? What do politicians and bureaucrats know about this? Virtually nothing. If they did, they would be in the private sector creating jobs and running businesses. Those who can, do. Those who can't, run for office or seek public sector work where the laws of supply and demand are suspended.
As but one example, take a look at public sector employees in California. The unions full of public sector employees negotiate with politicians and bureaucrats over salaries, cost of living increases, pensions and health care. In reality, there is no real negotiation, as evidenced by the amount of pensions many of these folks leave the system with after 20-25 years of work. It is truly appalling, but it goes on and on until the state goes bankrupt. But for the fact that California is constitutionally prevented from filing for bankruptcy, it would already have done so. The state is truly messed up, and the majority of the cause are the set-asides allocated to public employees and a failing school system. The notion that anyone involved in this train wreck in California over the past 30 years has the faintest notion of how to run a business borders on the absurd. Is the federal government any better? Hardly. The only difference is that those rogues can print money and raise taxes with near impunity.
The health care mess is just the latest impending debacle. I'm too cynical to believe that the vast majority of Democratic politicians think they will really be doing anything that benefits anyone. Instead, they want to create a new entitlement constituency that they can count on in future elections, even if it does bankrupt the country. Likewise, I don't believe in any Republican do-gooders on this issue. They're not trying to prevent financial collapse. They just don't want to see the Democrats succeed in creating a new dependency that votes largely Democrat.
At base, the questions I ask are these:
1. When have taxes ever really gone down? There may have been blips here and there over the past 90 years, but the answer is "Never."
2. Have higher taxes really helped anything? Are roads better? Are schools better? Are social services more effective? Are we a more competitive country, overall? Does the postal system work better? How about medicare, medicaid and social security?
Will cap and trade help? Will health care "reform" help? Perhaps to some, the answers are not so obvious. For me, there is no doubt. Reagan had it right: Government is the problem.[/ End Rant]
Stan, very elegantly stated.
Stan Da Man
12-02-09, 16:06
Plus a lotta bullshit! Is this a CHANGE he promised? Oh well, ''he is a really smart guy''! It must be a ''smart'' idea! --------Synical SidActually, this is one of the changes he promised. He's been pretty consistent all along that the focus needs to be on Afghanistan -- from the campaign trail to now. There's nothing inconsistent with what he outlined last night. You may disagree with it, but this is exactly the change he promised.
I hope Obama has finally realized that job creation will occur in the private sector. Government does not create one new sustainable job by throwing money at sidewalk repair, mowing lawns or collecting garbage.
Jobs, real jobs, are the domain of the private sector. For crying out loud, reduce taxes on individuals and businesses so that businesses do not have to lay off workers and consumers have disposible income.
Somebody tatoo on Obama's forehead - GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM
At the same time we can send Pelosi, fucking Barney Franks and the idiot Reid from Nevada on a 50 year factfinding mission somewhere in the depths of the Amazon - wearing only Speedos.
I hope Obama has finally realized that job creation will occur in the private sector. Government does not create one new sustainable job by throwing money at sidewalk repair, mowing lawns or collecting garbage.
Jobs, real jobs, are the domain of the private sector. For crying out loud, reduce taxes on individuals and businesses so that businesses do not have to lay off workers and consumers have disposible income.
Somebody tatoo on Obama's forehead - GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM.
At the same time we can send Pelosi, fucking Barney Franks and the idiot Reid from Nevada on a 50 year factfinding mission somewhere in the depths of the Amazon.Of course he knows the importance of the private sector; to suggest otherwise is absurd. The stimulus package was designed as a temporary measure, with multiple objectives.
As I recall, it was government that stepped in to stabilize the financial crisis, avoiding a significantly more dire scenario.
Very likely, the administration's engagement of the private sector on the jobs issue is going to lead to some creative and effective initiatives. And there is the 'team' element I mentioned before. The train has arrived and soon people will realize they have an opportunity to get on board. Then some people will get on board, followed by others. Momentum will pick up. At some point, many will determine the risks of not getting on board outweigh the risks of doing so. This will be the major topic of 2010 and we will see the goverment playing a key role in facilitating the process.
I see the GOP thought the jobs summit was such a good idea, they had one themselves. Accompanied by the usual partisan attacks and efforts to seize on any angle they can to portray the administration's efforts in a negative light. How pathetic. Now is the time to be working together, not attacking.
Now is the time to be working together, not attacking.Then why didn't Obama invite the US Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, or the National Association of Manufacturers to attend the "Jobs Summit"?
Failing to invite the three largest business organizations in the country to a "Jobs Summit" is like failing to invite the NFL to a "Football Summit".
Thanks,
Jackson
Did you hear that analogy on FOX? I did. If you want to play that analogy then I would say they invited the team owners not the NFL commissioner.
According to one report, this was not out of line with the administration's established approach — speaking directly with top CEOs instead.
Let's wait and see how things develop and what involvement such organizations may or may not eventually have, before rushing to judgement.
According to one report, this was not out of line with the administration's established approach — speaking directly with top CEOs instead.That only illustrates my point: The Obama administration mistakenly believes that it's more productive to talk about job creation with the top CEOs of a small number of huge, bailout prone corporations instead of talking with the owners of 1.7 million small and medium size business who in fact actually create 70% of all the jobs in the country.
The stimulus package was designed as a temporary measure, with multiple objectives.The so-called "stimulus package" would have been more accurately titled as "The Government Employee Job Security Act", which allowed state governors and city mayors to avoid making politically difficult decisions about their own government payrolls, but which unfortunately did nothing to stimulate private sector economic growth.
Obama: the dumbest most inexperienced President ever!
Thanks,
Jackson
==============================================
For the record, I am NOT a Rebublican, and I am NOT a conservative.
- I am against the death penalty.
- I am against any government support of religious organizations.
- I am for the legalization of recreational drugs.
- I am for the legalization of commercial sex.
- I am for a woman's right to choose.
- I am for comprehensive sex education.
- I am for a foreign guest worker program.
- I am for a universal flat tax on EVERYONE'S income.
- I am for health INSURANCE reform.
- I am for health JUSTICE reform.
I am a member of the Libertian Party, registered as an Independent.
Then why didn't Obama invite the US Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, or the National Association of Manufacturers to attend the "Jobs Summit"?
Failing to invite the three largest business organizations in the country to a "Jobs Summit" is like failing to invite the NFL to a "Football Summit".
Thanks,
JacksonDo not think it can be said the US Chamber of Commerce has been ignored or shut out. Sounds as though their President (Donohue) has worn his welcome out and would not of had anything new to offer at the jobs summit.
"One of the most frequent visitors [to the White House] was U. S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas J. Donohue"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/25/AR2009112503772.html
That only illustrates my point: The Obama administration mistakenly believes that it's more productive to talk about job creation with the top CEOs of a small number of huge, bailout prone corporations instead of talking with the owners of 1.7 million small and medium size business who in fact actually create 70% of all the jobs in the country.
The so-called "stimulus package" would have been more accurately titled as "The Government Employee Job Security Act", which allowed state governors and city mayors to avoid making politically difficult decisions about their own government payrolls, but which unfortunately did nothing to stimulate private sector economic growth.
Obama: the dumbest most inexperienced President ever!
Thanks,
Jackson.
==============================================
For the record, I am NOT a Rebublican, and I am NOT a conservative.
- I am against the death penalty.
- I am against any government support of religious organizations.
- I am for the legalization of recreational drugs.
- I am for the legalization of commercial sex.
- I am for a woman's right to choose.
- I am for comprehensive sex education.
- I am for a foreign guest worker program.
- I am for a universal flat tax on EVERYONE'S income.
- I am for health INSURANCE reform.
- I am for health JUSTICE reform.
I am a member of the Libertian Party, registered as an Independent.I totally agree with what your saying, Obama is not interested in creating any jobs that are NOT under union control. Small business is the enemy (their the fat cats and didn't vote for him) and are probably employing mostly white folks.
For the record, Howard Galganov is an extremely unsuccessful ex-political candidate / radio host in CANADA and pretty extreme in his views (He ran for the separation of Quebec from Canada in 2008) I wonder where some of the stuff on your mailing list comes from some times Sid. Also, I'm not trying to hate on you or your postings but wasn't there a recent posting standard that banned straight copy paste jobs from the forum?
For the record, Howard Galganov is an extremely unsuccessful ex-political candidate / radio host in CANADA and pretty extreme in his views (He ran for the separation of Quebec from Canada in 2008) I wonder where some of the stuff on your mailing list comes from some times Sid. Also, I'm not trying to hate on you or your postings but wasn't there a recent posting standard that banned straight copy paste jobs from the forum?He may be all of those things and more, but that does not mean that what he writes is wrong. Not being a US citizen, I have followed Obama's election and period in office probably more objectively than those who he represents. Howard Galganov doesn't appear to be too far off the truth from where I am dispassionately observing the "Obama Show". Just about all the US political commentators think he hasn't achieved a great deal and most also think many of his economic decisions have failed in what he wanted to achieve.
Argento
Argento,
I'm not saying Obama is a great, or even a good president. I was just commenting on the absurdity of Galganov's editorial and its fear inducing overtones (calling him Emperor, his wife an Amazon, questioning his citizenship, and implying his is anti-christian). If you have been on the receiving end of Sid's mailing list you would understand that I was just commenting on the nonsensical nature of some of the forwards. It reminds me of the some of the stuff that my Left-wing uncle sends me (Alex Jones conspiracy theories etc). But on the opposite side of the political spectrum.
And Sid, I'm not complaining about your posts. I just have the belief that this thread is much more interesting when people are voicing their own views or at least hand-me-down views _in their own words_. Also, don't let my post count dishearten you, I've been a member of this forum since 06' and have personally known you longer than that. My lack of posts.... Well, thats my own problem. I'm posting now aren't I?
Ignore if you choose! Many of us are trying to help newbies.Help newbies do what? No one is coming to this board looking for Fox News recaps.
Stan Da Man
12-10-09, 22:52
Help newbies do what? No one is coming to this board looking for Fox News recaps.That's insulting to Fox News.
These posts, on the other hand, are pure drivel. I can't speak to whether anyone likes to read this lunatic fringe stuff or not. But, if newbies think that this sort of stuff is representative of a monger board, then I'm afraid the membership roster is going to be stagnant for quite a while.
I read a magazine called Analog Science Fiction / Science Fact. The magazine is edited by a well-respected scientist named Stanely Schmidt. Most of the fiction stories are "hard" science, which means that the stories contain real science for the most part, as far as we know today. In it they have two "regular" science fact articles per month. There are often more written, but as they are submitted - these two are always there and one of them, called the "Alternate View" is alternatey between two authors, one of whose name is Jeffery Kooistra.
Kooistra is a skeptic on global warming.
In the November issue, Kooistra talks about a serious flaw in the gathering of temperature data across the US. A meteorologist he knows was wondering if anyone really looked at these official weather stations and validated that they are performing correctly. Of course, the data they collect are a large part of the world-wide system that is used for global warming calculations.
Here is the article:
http://www.analogsf.com/0911/altview_11.shtml
Read what it says. It's interesting. Particularly the last sentence, which I love:
"What's really ironic is that, if someone claims to see a flying saucer, which hurts no one and costs nothing, debunkers come out in force. But let a former vice-president claim environmental apocalypse is upon us, and suddenly we're appropriating billions and changing our lifestyles."
Wild Walleye
12-15-09, 15:50
Whatever your political beliefs, there can be no excuse for accepting fraud as the basis for something that will cost Americans trillions of dollars and perhaps millions of jobs.
I have been an environmentally conscious individual since the early seventies and have always tried to do my part to be a good steward of the earth. I considered persuing a post graduate degree in environmental studies, but did not. I have not, however, ever bought into any of this global warming baloney not due to political bias or ideology but simply because global warming is neither true nor is it based on facts. I came to my conclusions long ago independent of any political persuasion and long before I had any idea of the magnitude of the potential global financial damage Warmist may do. Global warming has been a dishonest premise from the beginning. What then happened is that it became a religion for the godless on the left and became the runaway train that it now is.
I believe that anyone with an open critical mind will come to the same conclusion. And that the discussion needs to start over with facts.
I will share with you four anecdotal items that cover a few of the bases, but by no means are the complete body of work.
ElQueso highlights one of many problems. How was the data gathered? What is the data.
As it pertains to US temperatures, Anthony Watts conducted a study (I think I first read about it in late 2006) that found:
"We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.
In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail to meet the National Weather Service's own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating / reflecting heat source.
In other words, 9 of every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures because they are badly sited."
Similarly, one of the key global warming models (and arguments) is built upon the tree ring data (using very old trees in Siberia, I think) whereby the density of tree rings is considered to be directly correlated to ambient temperatures. Warmists believe that they can accurately deduce from these tree rings, climate data from 2000 years ago (obviously we don't have any instrument climate data from back then against which to compare it) The only problem is that since we have had instrument climate data (150 years or so) we have noticed sustained periods where tree ring patters are both correlated and inversely correlated with temperatures. Of the 150 years of data, the last 50 years (1/3 of the time) show that the tree rings have been inversely correlated to temperatures. The only thing we can really prove is that correlation does not imply causation.
Further, look at the actions of warmists and the outcomes of warmist policies such as the compact fluorescent light bulb. We are being forced to use these and there are threats to outlaw the incandescent light bulb. Why? We are told because they are more efficient. Oh, ok. However, the efficiency data is murky and in my experience they do not last as long as incandescent bulbs and cost much more. Further, the dirty little secret that gets swept under the rug is that CFLs, like all fluorescent bulbs, contain mercury. "Due to health and environmental concerns about mercury, it is unlawful to dispose of fluorescent bulbs as universal waste in the states of California, Minnesota, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Spent lamps should be properly disposed of, or recycled, to contain the small amount of mercury in each lamp, in preference to disposal in landfills. In the European Union, CFLs are one of many products subject to the WEEE recycling scheme. The retail price includes an amount to pay for recycling, and manufacturers and importers have an obligation to collect and recycle CFLs."
You could look at hybrid cars for another example where the environmental impact of manufacturing the cars and disposal of the nickel metal hydride batteries outweigh the reduced emissions of the car itself. The warmist also exclude from their calculations the actual emissions caused by the car since they do not factor in the increased demand for coal burning electric power generation to recharge the batteries (yes, the power that comes out of the wall socket has to come from somewhere)
Lastly, if you start out with something called "global warming" that is going to cause the "End of Days" in a matter of years, why would you change the name of it to "Climate Change?" The same reason why the Soviets left the crosses on the turrets of the Kremlin.
Please don't bother responding with generalities that I am spouting rightwing or GOP talking points. If you can refute specific elements of my thinking or can show me where I am being political and not analytical, please feel free.
WW, you're on the right track for sure. As far as global warming / climate change goes, I (and others) have been posting about it for quite awhile, little tidbits here and there.
After I posted the previous post on Kooistra's article about Watts and his efforst to show how the data collection was bad, I found a paper (which I accidentally lost when I closed my damned browser) that was talking about the "hockey stick" controversy.
This was written back in 2005 and talked about how the data and graphs from one of the big warming proponents, Mann, was requested by a group wanting to see his raw data that he processed in 1998 and try to arrive at the same conclusions that Mann did. They couldn't do it. Mann gave them the data and they tried and failed. After telling Mann of their difficulties, they were told that they were using the wrong data sets (even though they used what he gave them) They got access to his FTP site (newly discovered after Mann told them they had the wrong data) and reviewed the datasets there and still couldn't arrive at the same conclusions. The Mann told them that they ddin't have the code that he wrote to process the data and that was why they failed. Of course, at that point, he refused (and still refuses today) to share his algorithms.
The "Hockey Stick" controversy is directly related to Mann's data showing that there is a sharp rise of temperatures in the early 20th century, culminating in 1998, which was supposed to be the hottest year in 1000 years!
The IPCC had a graph at one time, based on Mann's data, that showed the reality was that from 1000 AD to about 1400 AD, things were MUCH HOTTER than 1998, by far. That part of the graph was later removed, conveniently starting at about 1450 AD when the temperatures had dropped already (what's known as the "Little Ice Age") and began rising slowly again, to rise into modern times.
One thing this paper mentioned was that there may actually be benefits to rising temperatures. As the CO2 level increases, that also menas that growing seasons and biomass increase, and that fertile soils from all this rotting vegetation will come about. It appears more and more that temperature rise causes the CO2, not the other way around.
Also, the paper mentioned that it appears the best estimate for man-made contribution to greenhouses gases can be no more than 5% of natural processes that already contribute the CO2 that exists and will exist.
To me, all of these bastards have various reasons to keep supporting this fallacy of a runaway greenhouse effect caused by humans. Many of the scientists are caught up in not wanting to go against the consensus of those in their field - career suicide. Others want the money that the governments are putting out for this. Others probably honestly believe that global wamring is man-made and are trying to tailor their data to remove what is, to them, some uncomfortable inconsistencies.
But people like Gore are the worst of all. Purporting to understand the science, which is obviously way over his head, investing in companies that will make him hundreds of millions of dollars, and then going around and telling everyone that we're fucked if we don't spend all this money on projects that could never be commercially viable without the stupid politicians throwing money out there.
People like Gore and the others who are only interested in scaring the shit out of people so they can control them like little sheep.
Anyone want to talk about nuclear fusion and the idiocies that the US government continues to perpetuate with grants to study Tokamak fusion reactors? Decades of money thrown away because the government has decided that this is the way to go, based on some influencial scientists that had a stake in the matter in terms of grants and keeping everyone thinking this was the only way to go. When programs that are much smaller and more efficient actually produce better results, but can't get enough funding to finish because it all goes to the Tokamak guys.
Science isn't any better off today than it was in the time of Galileo.
QuakHunter
12-16-09, 19:13
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." --James Madison
Lunatic Fringe SidA nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
Nothing could be more correct or obvious. Governments by definition are wolves. If Castro and Chavez are not wolves I don't know who is. They have one goal: obtain power and turn their countries into slave plantations.
The wolves in the United States would be our Senators and Representatives who shove a health care system down our throats that they, the Senators and Representatives, want nothing to do with.
In many town hall meetings the wolves were asked why they, the wolves, didn't ditch the all inclusive health care they receive as Senators and Representatives and accept the health care system they are trying to shove down our throats.
Fatso, fucking Barnie Franks answered that question as follows: We, your elected officials (wolves) are more important than you and deserve better health care. You (the sheep) have to accept whatever crumbs we decide to give you i.e. an inadequate health care system.
And there are people who don't understand that government IS the problem.
Pardon my "religious reference", but I'd say God has a sense of humor.
Dec. 17 (Bloomberg) -- World leaders flying into Copenhagen today to discuss a solution to global warming will first face freezing weather as a blizzard dumped 10 centimeters (4 inches) of snow on the Danish capital overnight.
"Temperatures will stay low at least the next three days," Henning Gisseloe, an official at Denmark's Meteorological Institute, said today by telephone, forecasting more snow in coming days. "There's a good chance of a white Christmas."
Delegates from 193 countries have been in Copenhagen since Dec. 7 to discuss how to fund global greenhouse gas emission cuts. U. S. President Barack Obama will arrive before the summit is scheduled to end tomorrow.
Denmark has a maritime climate and milder winters than its Scandinavian neighbors. It hasn't had a white Christmas for 14 years, under the DMI's definition, and only had seven last century. Temperatures today fell as low as minus 4 Celsius (25 Fahrenheit)
DMI defines a white Christmas as 90 percent of the country being covered by at least 2 centimeters of snow on the afternoon of Dec. 24. I wouldn't wish any serious harm on the participants; but if Obama, Pelosi, et al. come back with a severe case of the sniffles - I will get a severe case of the giggles.
Wild Walleye
12-18-09, 12:15
Pardon my "religious reference", but I'd say God has a sense of humor.
I wouldn't wish any serious harm on the participants; but if Obama, Pelosi, et al. come back with a severe case of the sniffles - I will get a severe case of the giggles.Let's hope he comes away with a outcome similar to those garnered by his 'valiant' efforts to prop up the Chicago mob visa vi the Olympics.
It is one thing to support American organized crime but quite another to fund it around the world (but it's only $100B per year under this deal.)
Why does Pelosi need to be there? Why did she need between 2 and 5 jets to get there?
If you redeployed the millions of dollars wasted sending Obama, Pelosi, Bloomberg and Swartzeneger to this farce, you could put lots of people to work.
This is more egregious and tone deaf than the car execs taking private jets to DC to plead for money from the Govt.
This is more egregious and tone deaf than the car execs taking private jets to DC to plead for money from the Govt.Believe it or not Mr. WW, totally agree with you. Please do not go into cardiac arrest.
When your attempt at recreating the Congress of Vienna with a third-rate cast of extras turns into a shambles, when the data with which you have tried to terrify the world is daily exposed as ever more phoney, when the blatant greed and self-interest of the participants has become obvious to all beholders, when those pesky polar bears just keep increasing and multiplying – what do you do?
According to Al 'I invented the internet' Gore those pesky polar bears should be starving or drowning.
Obviously the polar bears have another script.
This manmade climate charge nonsense would be hilarious if it weren't for the fact that some people still believe this bullshit.
Health care reform is moving along quite well. Market has been flat for the past few months. However, the health care index seems to be bucking the trend. From all indications, there is a lot of money to be made in health care after it is reformed by our lawmakers in Washington. Glad to see they have my best interest at heart. Must remember, "be careful what you ask for damman."
Cigna's (CI) up by 19 %
Aetna (AET) up 13 %
WellPoint (WLP) up 12 %
UnitedHealth (UNH) up 11 %
Canitasguy
12-19-09, 18:38
I was away for a while and didn't check up on the AP gang. Good to see you are all still as whacked as ever. The asylums must be empty!
Have some fun for Santa!
There's a delicious irony in the Copenhagen snowstorm, just as "The Anointed One" and his Congressional Disciples showed up for the finale to the Convocation of the Defenders of the MMGW Faith.
Probably they flew home to Washington on Friday - and what showed up Saturday? The biggest blizzard Washington has seen in December! I, for one, shoveled 18 inches (45 cm) of "MMGWflakes" off my sidewalks and my parking place.
Now, I don't "take this as proof" of the flawed science of the "Warmists". The proof is elsewhere - for example, one climatologist's experiment that found that the switch from whitewash to latex paint on National Weather Service weather stations can account all by itself for the 1.2°C "rise in temperatures" over the past century! Or the high percentage of stations that were set up too close to artificial heat sources (such as, in the middle of asphalt parking lots) The East Anglia e-mail controversy just underlines the "Warmist agenda" as a kind of scientific jihad, doesn't it?
But I do love the irony! It almost makes up for my aching muscles.
(Sarcasm ON - Too bad that the delegation didn't have to shovel their own sidewalks. But "America's Ruling Class" have lackeys to deal with such menial tasks. Sarcasm OFF.)
Let's hope he comes away with a outcome similar to those garnered by his 'valiant' efforts to prop up the Chicago mob visa vi the Olympics.
It is one thing to support American organized crime but quite another to fund it around the world (but it's only $100B per year under this deal.)
Why does Pelosi need to be there? Why did she need between 2 and 5 jets to get there?
If you redeployed the millions of dollars wasted sending Obama, Pelosi, Bloomberg and Swartzeneger to this farce, you could put lots of people to work.
This is more egregious and tone deaf than the car execs taking private jets to DC to plead for money from the Govt.
Wondering what the "carbon-cap" is for a volcanic eruption?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/philippines-on-high-alert-for-major-volcano-eruption/article1406803/
I'm sure that we are going to hear that global warming is behind the eruption to begin with! After all, that 1.2 c temperature climb over the last century has been steadily softening the Earth's crust, making volcanoes much more likely to erupt as the hot magma from the mantle, once held back by a stiffer upper crust (couldn't help it! Let the hot molten rock pass to the surface. Feedback mechanism! Another thing to produce more CO2 that's our fault and cause a runaway heat engine like Venus!
Everyone's seen 2012, right? Although the movie didn't claim global warming as the reason behind the catastrophe itself, we can all see what happens when the Earth gets hot! After all, if it's in a movie, it has to have some basis in fact, no?
I wonder how long it will take until we start hearing that the Earth's crust is going to slip 23 degrees and the Earth's magnetic poles will reverse themselves, all in a matter of a few days, all as a result of global warming!
And I have to comment here - how many Hollywood flakes are campaigning to save the planet from global warming? They have no idea how reality functions to begin with and how science works as well.
I remember something from 2012 that made me laugh out loud in the theater (I'm paraphrasing):
"The Earth's core is warming up because the Sun is emitting mutated neutrinos that can now interact with normal matter!"
For those who don't know, neutrinos are particles that have almost no mass, are very difficult to detect, and a neutrino could pass through thousands of miles of lead (the most dense, stable element) without hitting a single lead atom!
If neutrinos were to "mutate" (as far as I know, mutations only happen in things that are alive and replicate using something like DNA as instructions, and therefore are prone to replication errors) the entire physics of the universe would have had to change! Hell, "normal matter" probably wouldn't even exist anymore.
This is the sort of thing that kills me about "science fiction" movies. They have to choose such stupid things to cause the disasters in a "disaster" movie, when there are plenty of real-life things that could cause the same catastrophes.
So why do they always go with the stupid things? Because they have absolutely zero clue about reality - and don't care. If "Hollywood" supports something, I think chances are it's the opposite of what I would support.
Global Warming or Solar Warming?
The polar ice caps on Mars are melting too. There are no humans on Mars to cause global warming. Because both Mars and Earth are warming, that would indicate the source of the warming is most likely the sun.
I say we send Pelosi, Reid, Obama and any other fucking idiot who still believes man made global warming to Mars. Perhaps their alpha beta kappa intellects can stop the ice caps melting on Mars.
Of course we should send a scout mission before we blast Pelosi, Reid and Obama into space. That scout mission could be a one man rocket without food or water. The one man would be Al Gore who should be thrilled at the prospect of blaming the Martians for melting their ice caps.
Gore, to his credit, has an explanation for the ice caps melting on Mars. It is caused by excess CO2 from planet Earth. Somebody please put this idiot out of his misery.
Wild Walleye
12-22-09, 12:37
The one man would be Al Gore who should be thrilled at the prospect of blaming the Martians for the melting of their ice caps.Don't you know? It's Bush's fault!
Gore, to his credit, has an explanation for the melting of the ice caps on Mars. It is caused by excess CO2 from planet Earth. Somebody please put this idiot out of his misery.Please tell me your joking. Did he really say that? If so he is much dumber than I thought he was (previously, I thought he was dumber than a bag of nails)
Exclusive: Rep. Parker Griffith switches to GOP.
Government is a cancer with one goal. Kill the patient.
Out of control government will turn us into a North Korea, a Cuba or a cold war Eastern Europe.
Pelosi, Reid and Obama have no qualms about putting us in 18 inch by 18 inch laying cages as long as they are in power. I am surprised they haven't spouted 'War is Peace', 'Freedom is slavery' or 'Ígnorance is Strength'
I am waiting for them to create the Ministry of Peace which concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation.
When the whole world is a North Korea the opportunity to live in freedom will be long ago and far away. Out of control government, at all levels, is bound, determined and programmed to evolve into a North Korea.
Perhaps next year's elections will turn back the tide of out of control government. However, it appears it is only a matter of time before the cancer which is government kills the patient and the entire world will be living in a North Korea.
The problem, El Alamo, as Bush helped prove during his tenure, is that the Republicans only give lip service to smaller government any more, but really only give a different flavor of the same ice cream. I don't know that there's much hope except delaying the inevitable even if the Democrats were to lose significant ground in the elections.
All politicians (or a large enough percentage to not make any difference) are only interested in what's going to get them elected and the American people in larger numbers every year think that the government is going to give them things that will take care of them, make them happy and keep them perfectly safe.
It's all just going to get worse.
Far out stuff El Alamo.
To a large extent, government was the doctor who stepped in to control the cancer of private sector greed and stabilize the patient.
We have seen an increased role of government in the administration's first year in response to the economic situation and to deliver on key reform for which they were elected. We will see a focus on debt reduction and an increasing role of a strong private sector over the remainder of the first term. Let's check in later to see if this prediction or a North Korea scenario proves more accurate.
We always have to do the time for someone else's crime: new regulations.
The big guys (JPM, C, BAC) are getting free money from the Fed, investing it in sovereign debt (Australia, New Zealand) and making money hand over fist on a carry trade. They all are crying foul because of pending regulation. Give me a break. They want all the protection and resources that the U. S can provide; however, they choose to contribute zero to the country's survival: small business loans. There is something morally wrong with their practices. Regulate the bastards out of existence as far as I am concerned: required reserves. They are a liability.
We will see a focus on debt reduction and an increasing role of a strong private sector over the remainder of the first term.ROTFLMAO!
Jackson
We are still in the first inning but taking everything into consideration, Obama doesn't look too bad to me.
1) If Obama's economic recovery plan works that will be impressive. However, the economy is a mess and Obama's cure I. E. Unsustainable debt which will be impossible to service once interest rates rise, may be worse than the disease.
2) Our health care system is, as Obama says, going to bankrupt us. Health care costs are always rising faster than the economy is growing. Without doing something health care costs would rapidly consume 20% of GNP, then 25% etc. This with a system that incurs over 50% of total health care costs in the last 30 days of a persons life.
However, a big part of reducing health care costs is tort reform and I don't think Obama is going to touch that.
3) Global warming. Obama has bought that bullshit hook, line, sinker and rowboat. Amazing when you consider that all evidence points to us entering a period of global cooling. Anyway, this is a non starter. Only imbeciles and Al Gore still believe in this nonsense and even Al Gore would drop the idea of global warming like a hot potato if he were not making a fortune off it.
Who knows, Obama may morph into a Jimmy Carter (aka village idiot) or into a Bill Clinton who, I for one, wish had been our President (without that brain dead vice president he had) during the Bush / Cheney tenure.
Member #4112
12-27-09, 14:52
El Alamo, I must respectfully disagree with your assessment of Obama. I don't believe we can borrow our way out of a recession. A recession caused by reckless spending by both Democrat and Republican parties while in power. As you so accurately point out, once interest rates rise (and they will rise) we will never dig out of this mess.
First the housing debacle which started this whole mess was primarily engineered by Democrats during the 90's under the guise to "provide affordable housing" via Fannie and Freddie to folks who would have never qualified for a loan prior to the lending practices forced by the Democrats. Next come the Republicians who permitted the "packaging" of home loans as financial securities which were then traded with abandon with little to no oversight. When the house of cards came down it brought everything else which was teetering on the financial brink with it as well as our national hunger for debt on the personal, business and governmental levels only exacerbating the problem.
Healthcare, OMG you really think "Government" run healthcare is the answer? Look at Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, AmTrak, the USPS, Freddie & Fannie as sterling examples of what our self serving politicians have given us. By the way those same self serving politicians in Washington have their own PRIVATE HEALTHCARE AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM which we pay for but in which we are not allowed to participate! They pass healthcare "reform" for us "little people" not for themselves! I agree with you tort reform would go a long way to help hold down costs but there is plenty of profiteering going on that could be addressed more readily than the government taking over the entire healthcare system. Look at the polling data, the majority understand this will raise insurance costs, save nothing and negatively impact healthcare delivery.
And what is the crap about one state no longer pays for Medicare / Medicaid while the rest of the states are required to and the real pip is the language placed in the Senate version that prohibits changing the "law" by future lawmakers after it is enacted?
I have said from the beginning Obama will make Jimmy Carter look good in retrospect! The village idiots are the people who believed a Chicago politician when he preached CHANGE. How do you like your CHANGE now guy?
Using the word "takeover" to describe the reform is pure hyperbole.
There will be no federal funding of abortion, this has been very clear.
Destroy our quality of care? Take our economy to the very brink of destruction?
How can you believe this bullshit you are posting !
Using the word "takeover" to describe the reform is pure hyperbole.
There will be no federal funding of abortion, this has been very clear.
Destroy our quality of care? Take our economy to the very brink of destruction?
How can you believe this bullshit you are posting!It's not necessary to delve into the details. In fact, you don't even need to see the legislation until an hour before we vote on it. Don't read the bill. Just vote "YES" and vote quickly! Chop chop!
As Sidney would say: "CHANGE"
This does bring up a point that everyone on the Democrat side should really, really ask themselves, no matter what they believe, no matter if they think the Democrats are above reproach, even if they think Obama is da bomb.
Why are they in such a hurry to present such far-reaching changes with such potentially huge results in such a short time? Even if what they are doing is a good thing to them, with a significant portion of the country at best uncertain about what's happening, and a significant portion outright opposing it - why rush this through so fast that no one has a chance to really discuss and propose alternate possibilities (with a hope of being listened to) and make sure that the huge amount of money and theh huge growth of the government that is being proposed will actually do what is hoped?
Why? Because the people who are behind this are at least as bad, and I think many times WORSE, than anything that came out of 9-11, Afghanistan and Iraq put together as far as trying to control the government and the American people and put an effective dictatorship over us all. They have close to effective control of two branches of the US government, the parts responsible for actually making and enacting the laws, and have significant power in the third which is responsible for reviewing those laws made.
Even if these guys have no "dark designs" on the US, the speed of such a huge change is at best irresponsible. I think it's downright criminal, personally.
You cannot be convinced. You are ''brainwashed''! Translation: I can't formulate an intelligent argument to support my views (or can't be bothered to).
They were trying to get most of the work done by the summer, which to me would have been rushed. But the summer "deadline" was more an effort to prod focus and progress. From September through December was a period of fine tuning. There has been plenty of time for review and discussion. There were efforts to make the reform bipartisan, to engage affected industries in the discussion, and CBO review. By the time the House and Senate bills are merged it will be close to 1 year they have spent on this. If 1 year is rushed, how many years would you have them working on it?
This "rush don't read" criticism is simply another disingenious attempt by the right to discredit the administration for political purposes.
Member #4112
01-02-10, 17:01
The "Government" is about to require everyone to purchase health insurance or be fined or worse. The purpose of this grand plan is to reduce the number of "uninsured" persons in America. The Democrat's made a very valid comparison when they likened this new national requirement for healthcare insurance to that of states requirements for liability auto insurance.
Point 1
Here in Texas a report was just released regarding the number of still uninsured motorists in the state since the requirement that all vehicle owners purchase liability coverage (you have to have proof of coverage to register your vehicle each year and to have it inspected. Guess what? We went from 28% uninsured drivers before the law went into effect several years ago to 22% today, and yes you get fined and can go to jail if you are found to be without coverage – just like the federal plan. From what I have seen published in other states this is pretty much the norm regarding the reduction in uninsured drivers.
DO YOU REALLY THINK YOU WILL HAVE BETTER RESUTLS WITH NATIONALLY MANDATED HEALTHCARE INSURANCE? This translates to yes you will get some of the uninsured coverage but the total number of uninsured will not decrease dramatically any more than it did with auto liability. So why create a new huge government bureaucracy that in the end fails to accomplish its intended purpose?
Point 2
Why would you want to create a new government bureaucracy when the creation of government jobs does nothing for the economy? Government jobs do not produce a product or contribute to the GDP and grow the economy; they just drain more money from productive activities which do contribute to the GDP and do grow the economy in the form of more taxes to pay their salaries and benefits.
Point 3
How are you going to "catch" those uninsured scoundrels and fine them? I am sure you are familiar with a little governmental outfit called the Internal Revenue Service. How many tax cheats do they catch out of the number out there? Not many and they have multiple reporting requirements. You really think the government is going to do any better "catching" the uninsured?
Point 4
Now since we can be relatively certain the majority of uninsured will not be "caught" and under this program no insurance company can deny coverage due to preexisting conditions or charge more for same, the uninsured will simply wait until they are ill, sign up, get treated, then drop the insurance which means more tax increases on the rest of us to cover the short fall. In the meantime the government gets to control 20% more of the economy.
Now since most of the folks in Congress can't tie their shoes without help or a kickback from someone or pork barrel spending for their districts – do you really want to trust them with this? Much less that they did not even read the damn thing in the first place.
The point of this entire exercise is to grow government, increase its control over our daily lives and place another 20% of the economy under the greedy paws of the political hacks in Washington.
They were trying to get most of the work done by the summer, which to me would have been rushed. But the summer "deadline" was more an effort to prod focus and progress. From September through December was a period of fine tuning. There has been plenty of time for review and discussion. There were efforts to make the reform bipartisan, to engage affected industries in the discussion, and CBO review. By the time the House and Senate bills are merged it will be close to 1 year they have spent on this. If 1 year is rushed, how many years would you have them working on it?
This "rush don't read" criticism is simply another disingenious attempt by the right to discredit the administration for political purposes."Only" a year to grow the federal government significantly without really knowing what we're getting into, with basically a single plan that has been pushed from the beginning with an illusion of all of our senators and congressmen working together to come up with a plan that everyone worked on? What ever happened to tort reform, one of the big issues of healthcare, that wasn't even TOUCHED! Why a time limit on something so important anyway? And I would much rather two years than a year to make sure we got it right.
There were NO efforts to make the reform bipartisan. As soon as anyone had anything critical to say, they were being "partisan." The Democrats took a lesson from the Republicans as far as being patriotic and telling people who criticized the war that they were siding with terrorists! Can't you see the Democrats are doing the same thing while blithely saying that the Republicans are doing nothing but try to stop them and that that's the WRONG thing to do? They SHOULD be trying to stop them, to rein them in on this lunacy.
Every proposal that the Republicans made was shot down in committee without hearing and the media didn't even report what was proposed by many legislators. Intead everyone talks about how the Republicans had no ideas and were just cutting down what the Democrats want to do.
Give me a break - this is a prime example of the left taking advantage of a temporary strong majority to push something that the United States as a whole would never have gone for. It was rushed to ensure that very thing because the longer this goes on and the more scrutiny it is given, the fewer people in the country like it - and rightly so.
Watch what happens in the midterm elections and think about what would have happened if the Congress would have opened up the issue for discussion, would have examined it in open congressional sessions and really tried to come up with what was best for THE MOST PEOPLE. It would never have had a chance.
And BTW - I am NOT for the "right." The Republicans lied to us (in my opinion - I know many don't agree with me) to get us into a war, but at least they bothered to line up support before they did it. But the Republicans have been leading us into bigger government almost as fast (if not AS fast) as the Democrats.
I'm a Libertarian who is fucking sick and tired of the new ruling class taking money from mostly ignorant people who completely naively think that government is a good thing and will cure all ills. Esten, I'm not calling you ignorant, please don't take it that way - I'm talking about the masses who really have NO CLUE.
Elected officials are THE NEW RULING CLASS, the replacement of royalty and nobility, a bunch of crooks with no sense of noblese oblige (with a very small percentage of exceptions) and ANYTHING they do as a whole will NOT make the US a better country. It will only bring it down the road of ruin.
[QUOTE=El Queso]"Only" a year to grow the federal government significantly without really knowing what we're getting into, with basically a single plan that has been pushed from the beginning with an illusion of all of our senators and congressmen working together to come up with a plan that everyone worked on? What ever happened to tort reform, one of the big issues of healthcare, that wasn't even TOUCHED! Why a time limit on something so important anyway? And I would much rather two years than a year to make sure we got it right.
There were NO efforts to make the reform bipartisan. As soon as anyone had anything critical to say, they were being "partisan." The Democrats took a lesson from the Republicans as far as being patriotic and telling people who criticized the war that they were siding with terrorists! Can't you see the Democrats are doing the same thing while blithely saying that the Republicans are doing nothing but try to stop them and that that's the WRONG thing to do? They SHOULD be trying to stop them, to rein them in on this lunacy.
Every proposal that the Republicans made was shot down in committee without hearing and the media didn't even report what was proposed by many legislators. Intead everyone talks about how the Republicans had no ideas and were just cutting down what the Democrats want to do.
Give me a break - this is a prime example of the left taking advantage of a temporary strong majority to push something that the United States as a whole would never have gone for. It was rushed to ensure that very thing because the longer this goes on and the more scrutiny it is given, the fewer people in the country like it - and rightly so.
Watch what happens in the midterm elections and think about what would have happened if the Congress would have opened up the issue for discussion, would have examined it in open congressional sessions and really tried to come up with what was best for THE MOST PEOPLE. It would never have had a chance.
And BTW - I am NOT for the "right." The Republicans lied to us (in my opinion - I know many don't agree with me) to get us into a war, but at least they bothered to line up support before they did it. But the Republicans have been leading us into bigger government almost as fast (if not AS fast) as the Democrats.
I'm a Libertarian who is fucking sick and tired of the new ruling class taking money from mostly ignorant people who completely naively think that government is a good thing and will cure all ills. Esten, I'm not calling you ignorant, please don't take it that way - I'm talking about the masses who really have NO CLUE.
Elected officials are THE NEW RULING CLASS, the replacement of royalty and nobility, a bunch of crooks with no sense of noblese oblige (with a very small percentage of exceptions) and ANYTHING they do as a whole will NOT make the US a better country. It will only bring it down the road of ruin.[/ QUOTE]What do we do and where do we go?
BlackShirt - I don't have all the answers. I do have common sense and I also live in a country where people feel the need for the government to make all solutions for them and it doesn't work well at all (I live here in Argentina in case you didn't know)
The GOP offered a solution in May that has been sitting in committee and was never discussed.
It has elements that the Democrats refuse to discuss, including reform on frivolous and overly-large award lawsuits, which are a significant component of the horrible cost in health care. As I saw one conservative commentator write in a column, he sees liberals as a group of people armed with lawyers waiting for someone to slip on a rich person's sidewalk so they can redistribute his or her money.
It also deals with one of the great problems in health insurance, allowing for state based health care exchanges and federal incentives for multiple states to band together, crossing state lines, to offer more choices. And the state based exchanges would be responsible for providing group rates to people across a multitude of circumstances to reduce rates. Competition and a relaxing of restrictions.
It also includes providing help for those who cannot afford health insurance. But the Democrats don't want this because 1) it's not providing a government-run function which grows the government and helps to control lives even further, a clear goal of most liberals and 2) it provides many fiscally proper functions to ensure that people who apply for the assistance really need it.
Does anyone care about small businesses on the liberal side? Do they not see that the requirements that they are going to put on ALL businesses, big and small, are going to really harm the small businesses - like mine, for example.
What possible incentive do I have to hire someone if I HAVE to pay for their insurance on top of all the other freaking taxes and insurances and such that I have to pay when employing someone? Not just the direct money but the time and effort involved in keeping up with this crap is horrendous ALREADY! Jesus Christ on a Crutch why can no one on that side see that saddling businesses with making sure that everyone is happy who works for them is going so far past what unions, for example, were originally intended to serve.
I keep saying this: Argentina is such a prime example of where the Democratic party is leading the US. You have to live here for a period of time and try to do business here to really get it, but it's scary to think about.
Do you realize that almost all small businesses here are completely family run and operated? They can't stay open all the time, they can't work on weekends and holidays. Why? Because they can't hire employees outside their family so they are restricted in what they can do. If they do, they are forced to pay for their insurance, they are forced to pay severance (a full month per year worked, starting the first year after three months of employment) no matter how poorly an employee performs (even thought here are laws, the court system almost ALWAYS sides with the "worker") they are forced to pay them a full month of salary as a bonus every year no matter what. They are forced to pay HUGE taxes on salaries to pay for the all of the "social programs" this wonderful government provides for its people. They can't hire temporary or part time help because of the huge RISK. They have no ability to leverage credit and have any kind of large inventory and therefore are usually woefully understocked on certain items in large part because the government tries to control so many things that it fucks them all up.
The US is starting on this path. Argentina is like this because the powers that be have convinced the public, who they keep as ignorant as possible and buy their votes with outrageous promises that cannot be fullfilled by the government, that the government is their friend and is trying hard to provide for everyone.
The same thing is happening in the States because Bush fallback is so strong that a predominantly powerful Democratic party is able to push for powers for the government that dwarf what Bush did, and is doing it in the name of helping the people who can't help themselves.
Bullshit. The only people that can't help themselves are those who don't try, with a very few small set of exceptions. I worked three fucking jobs (AT ONCE! To put myself through college and continued to work my ass off all my life so that I could succeed. Opportunity used to exist, but the politicians are ruining that, election by election, as an ignorant American public think that government is there to make things all better. Instead, they are allowing it to slowly enslave them.
I have never said I have all the answers. I have never said Republicans have all the answers. I have never even said Libertarians have all the answers (though I think they're closer than most) What I have said is that the Democrats alone are going to ruin us, just like the Republicans alone would ruin us. They have too much power and this crap that they are trying to pass that supposedly will help is a HUGE step in fucking things up good.
So why are we in such a hurry? Really? Tell me why two years is too long, but 9-12 months is not too short for one fo the most important decisions the American people have ever made? Are we so pathetic that we can't take our time to really work together to figure out the best way?
Or is the Democratic Party interested in pulling more money out of the money-engine (the rich) of the country in order to pursue power, pure and simple, no matter whether the money-pump starts to cough and spit because it no longer has enough to pump.
Like Argentina.
There were NO efforts to make the reform bipartisan.Untrue. If you had said they did not try hard enough it might be more credible. But to flat out say there were no bipartisan efforts at all is untrue.
Obama would have loved to have broad bipartisan support, for obvious reasons. This effort continued up until late summer when it became clear the divisions were too strong and it just wasn't going to happen. Gallup has some interesting charts on public polling on this topic. The last chart shows how perception of sincere bipartisan effort fell for both parties, but moreso for Republicans.
www.gallup.com/poll/123032/americans-credit-obama-bipartisan-efforts.aspx
After the effort for broad bipartisan support was abandoned, Democrats still continued to work with individual Republicans to obtain their support. Republicans are just as much responsible for the lack of broad bipartisan agreement as Democrats. Have a look at some of the quotes here:
majorityleader.gov/docUploads/HCGOPBipartisan091509.pdf
I like the one from Republican Senator Jim DeMint:
"If we're able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him."
But to flat out say there were no bipartisan efforts at all is untrue.
Obama would have loved to have broad bipartisan supportYou have been drinking purple kool-aid, Esten. Obama would have had no problem passing a health care reform bill through Congress if he had gone to the other party and invited them to write one-third of the bill. Probably would have had to accept malpractice lawsuit limits and inter-state portability of insurance plans and not much more.
Instead, The One's idea of bipartisanship is "You do what I say and you'll like it."
I contrast his approach with that of Bill Clinton in the 90s, who was able to achieve true bipartisan legislative achievements such as the crime bill, the welfare reform bill, and an immigration bill.
Obama is a one-term President, his hard-left Chicago "fuck them if they don't want what I want" politics have already alienated a majority of the population. He will be dealing with a Republican Congress come November, which is an astonishing result - squandering his presidency within 10 months of taking office.
The good news is, most of the "health reform bill" which might pass Congress consists only of taxes that will be relatively easy to repeal. The "benefit" program is not scheduled to take place until 2014, long after President Petraeus takes office along with a GOP Congress.
The only thing "bipartisan" about this health bill is the opposition, which consists of members of both the Republican and Democratic parties. Obama is on his own with the left wing of his party on this, and they will suffer the consequences alone.
Couldn't agree more Hunt. I believe that time will show that you're prediction of this year and the upcoming years is spot on! Couldn't have said it better myself. The repealing of this health care socialist scam will be easily accomplished once we get this idiot out of the oval office. Once again, america has to elect a crazy liberal for all the wrong reasons to return to an appreciation of Republican leadership. This cycle has been going on for decades, however, the sad legacy of this idoit Obama is that he is truely creating damage to America that will take a couple of decades to repair. Without question, he will go down as the worst president in history. Novemeber just can't come soon enough. You really have to question his agenda regarding America. From my chair he seems hell-bent on creating as much damage to America and American values as possible. Maybe all the muslim agenda propaganda about Obama has some validity? He certainly is ensuring that his stay in power will be a short one indeed. Kinda confusing really. I used to think that the first priority of a first term president was GETTING A SECOND TERM in office. Go figure. Ten months and counting.
Happy Mongering All. Toymann
El Queso,
You make some valid points from the entrepreuner's viewpoint, I sympathize with you. But the bickering on this board is akin to what is going on in DC. The Republicans are not going to let the bill go by without watering it down and making Obama look bad, and the Democrats are anxious enough the pass whatever bill, just to claim some success. End result, stalemate and a bill that sucks! I am not a liberal, but Obama did promised changes but even the Messiah could not undo DC Politically, nothing has change, so this is very disappointing.
Couldn't agree more Hunt. I believe that time will show that you're prediction of this year and the upcoming years is spot on! Couldn't have said it better myself. The repealing of this health care socialist scam will be easily accomplished once we get this idiot out of the oval office. Once again, america has to elect a crazy liberal for all the wrong reasons to return to an appreciation of republican leadership. This cycle has been going on for decades, however, the sad legacy of this idoit Obama is that he is truely creating damage to America that will take a couple of decades to repair. Without question, he will go down as the worst president in history. Novemeber just can't come soon enough. You really have to question his agenda regarding America. From my chair he seems hell-bent on creating as much damage to america and american values as possible. Maybe all the muslim agenda propaganda about Obama has some validity? He certainly is ensuring that his stay in power will be a short one indeed. Kinda confusing really. I used to think that the first priority of a first term president was GETTING A SECOND TERM in office. Go figure. Ten months and counting. Happy Mongering All. ToymannI quote from the Internal Herald Tribune, Dec. 31, 2009. "The world's superpower (US) is focused on security. It's fastest-rising competitor (China) concentrates on commerce".
Nothing wrong being patriotic, but how did we get to where we are now. If not for the fact that we can keep printing the dollar, I would probably be sleeping under some bushes right now.
Are we so pathetic that we can't take our time to really work together to figure out the best way?I think that about sums up the whole issue. In fact I think that is where the US and Argentina have the most in common. Constant political bickering, lack of confidence in the government (by confidence I DO NOT mean dependency) and increasing apathy. In that sense we are definitely headed down the same path as Argentina.
Of course, how we end up will probably be a lot different. There are lot of cultural and institutional differences that you glossed over or ignored.
Or is the Democratic Party interested in pulling more money out of the money-engine (the rich) of the country in order to pursue power, pure and simple, no matter whether the money-pump starts to cough and spit because it no longer has enough to pump.What money engine was Bush milking to fund the massive war machine? Of course, the "liberal" Obama hasn't really cut down on that expense either.
You guys seem to think that Obama / Democrats are some sort of Robin Hood taking from the rich and giving to the poor. They are just funneling the money to a different set of constituents.
Do you realize that almost all small businesses here are completely family run and operated? They can't stay open all the time, they can't work on weekends and holidays. Why? Because they can't hire employees outside their family so they are restricted in what they can do. If they do, they are forced to pay for their insurance, they are forced to pay severance (a full month per year worked, starting the first year after three months of employment) no matter how poorly an employee performs (even thought here are laws, the court system almost ALWAYS sides with the "worker") they are forced to pay them a full month of salary as a bonus every year no matter what. They are forced to pay HUGE taxes on salaries to pay for the all of the "social programs" this wonderful government provides for its people.You should add that employers are also forced to pay the employee's mandatory union dues.
What money engine was Bush milking to fund the massive war machine? Of course, the "liberal" Obama hasn't really cut down on that expense either.
You guys seem to think that Obama / Democrats are some sort of Robin Hood taking from the rich and giving to the poor. They are just funneling the money to a different set of constituents.I made allusions to this. I think both parties are sucking us dry. It's just that it's the Democrats who are in power and they tend to do it quicker and more efficiently than the Republicans.
And I never said the Democrats WERE Robin Hoods who are stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. But that is certainly how they want their constituents to believe, and anyone else they can get to believe it as well. That looks better than saying "we're power hungry thieves."
[QUOTE=Sidney]Here is what big government did to Detroit.
An interesting piece about Detroit forwarded to me by a friend. I remember when Detroit had 1.7 million people living in it and they had jobs. The auto industry was going full out and it drove the economy of the upper Midwest, as well as other portions of our country. Today the auto industry is almost finished in Detroit. Unemployment exceeds 25% , and portions of the city looks like a "war zone" or worse. I don't think it can be fixed. Can you imagine 130 acres of Detroit real estate with an 80,000 seat covered stadium selling for $4,500 an acre? The cost of building the stadium was $55.7 million and it sold last month for $583,000. My home town of Gary, Indiana followed a similar path, the "Gary Works" steel mill is still operating, downsized to about 20% of what it was back in the 60's when I worked there. Amazing what happens to good paying jobs when you mandate, regulate and tax the industries that provide the jobs out of business. The primary growth business in America today is the Federal and State Government. In fact the Federal and State Government is increasing salaries and wages. The friend who sent me the following piece said there is now a sign in downtown Detroit that says "would the last person leaving Detroit, please turn out the light" Very sad. I hope you take the time to read the article. And please forward it if you think it might help open some closed eyes.
Editor's note: One of the most controversial pieces we published this year was Porter's essay paralleling America's decline with Detroit's complete economic and political failure. We received more heated e-mails about this Digest than any in recent memory. Some called us "racists," though everything in the below essay is fact. Others agreed with our simple message. A socialist government is dangerous.[/ QUOTE]What it doesn't say is that if the American auto industry was leading the world, would Detroit's downtown be a disaster zone?
And I never said the Democrats WERE Robin Hoods who are stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. But that is certainly how they want their constituents to believe, and anyone else they can get to believe it as well. That looks better than saying "we're power hungry thieves."Good point. It's just like the Republicans dupe their constituents into thinking they are good bible-readin' Christian folk.
Doppelganger- The potential for people going uninsured until they get sick is very much on the radar, and both the government and the insurance cos. have a vested interest in minimizing this type of abuse. It's premature to say how much of an issue it will be. Let's hope the final bill has some real teeth on this, but done fairly.
El Queso- I am not 100% thrilled with the outcome either. In fact I would have preferred a single payer system but that was not going to happen. I also would have liked to see the bills address tort reform and defensive medicine. Yes- there is a Republican proposal I agree with and have stated this before. I have not read a good explanation on why it wasn't addressed. It's possible it may have introduced significant delays in the process. But I don't know- I'm stumped.
But as far as timing I don't think it was overly rushed. Perhaps they could fine tune it more with more time, but they were operating within the constraints of their party and a handful of Republicans and I suspect they had a good idea where lines were drawn and how much support various options had. There will be some more time for fine tuning as the bills are merged. And besides they need to move on, this topic cannot remain at center stage indefinately. There are other important issues that need focus going forward such as jobs and deficit reduction.
There were compromises and concessions in the bills, and possibly nobody is 100% satisfied. That doesn't automatically mean the bills don't represent significant improvements from the current system. I think the final bill WILL go a long way to achieving the original goals of the reform, and therefore be an improvement. Though I also think it will prove inferior to some of the single payer systems in other countries.
Member #4112
01-05-10, 09:03
We already have a rough approximation now based on the uninsured motorists in states with mandatory insurance laws.
Please get a grip here, this is just another governmental black hole for cash from taxpayers. Now if you really want to get my attention - advocate all federal employees including Congress are covered by the same healthcare and retirement plans (Social Security) we mear mortals do!
Wild Walleye
01-05-10, 13:01
The potential for people going uninsured until they get sick is very much on the radar, and both the government and the insurance cos. Have a vested interest in minimizing this type of abuse. It's premature to say how much of an issue it will be. Let's hope the final bill has some real teeth on this, but done fairly.1. The number that goes uninsured until sickness will be much, much larger than you or the Congress is willing to admit (even to yourselves)
2. The govt has set an agenda to eliminate the private health insurance business so the insurance companies have to make whatever they can prior to disappearing or being annexed by the govt. Looks like the public will be victimized by both. Great!
3. Everyone for whom buying insurances costs more than the fine will be susceptible to this temptation, thus pulling massive amounts of funds out of the system. Why is it premature to say so? Should we jump off the bridge because it is premature to say how much of an issue the deceleration event, caused by impacting the pavement below, will be?
4. A final bill with real teeth? Like one that violates the Constitution in forcing the American public to buy something it doesn't want and treating the States differently and arbitrarily (see: Nebraska deal via Dem. Be. Nelson) BTW, look for the Nelson / Nebraska deal to get canned based on being unconstitutional (although probably after final passage) Nelson is dead either way now, the voters want him out and if he changes his vote, Reid will take a hit out on him.
El Queso- I am not 100% thrilled with the outcome either. In fact I would have preferred a single payer system but that was not going to happen.You seem like a smart guy. If you eliminate all private insurance, what is left? Single payer.
I also would have liked to see the bills address tort reform and defensive medicine. Yes- there is a Republican proposal I agree with and have stated this before. I have not read a good explanation on why it wasn't addressed. It's possible it may have introduced significant delays in the process. But I don't know- I'm stumped.Stumped, but still willing to destroy one sixth of our economy, eliminate previously inalienable personal freedoms and trample on the Constitution. You say you would have liked to see something on tort reform like someone at McDonald's says after eating a Big Mac, "I would have liked it better with more special sauce." You're stumped but we are all screwed.
But as far as timing I don't think it was overly rushed. Perhaps they could fine tune it more with more time, but they were operating within the constraints of their party and a handful of Republicans and I suspect they had a good idea where lines were drawn and how much support various options had. There will be some more time for fine tuning as the bills are merged.No, no rush here. Despite the time spent posturing in the news, Congress spent less than 10 hours actually debating this bill. I am sure that Rahm Emanuel and as few as five (count 'em) five members of Congress, and very limited staff will do a fabulous job fine tuning this mess -- behind a total blanket of privacy (something you will never have again with your doctor, by the way) If America really wants this, why do it in private? Why do they have to bribe members of their own party with hundreds of billions of pork to vote for it?
And besides they need to move on, this topic cannot remain at center stage indefinately[sic]. There are other important issues that need focus going forward such as jobs and deficit reduction.Of course, let's just be done with it. Toss out the Constitution, there is important work to be done here.
You almost make a good point, but you don't. Why not get a few people back to work, before putting another 500k-1.0mm more out of work with health care 'reform' and cap and trade?
Deficit reduction? Come on! The first step is not spending more we don't have! Obamacare is not deficit neutral it will cost trillions that we don't have. And the recovery we were promised (max 8% unemployment, blah, blah, blah) don't hold your breath. Printing money leading to a weakened dollar, in advance of inflation, is putting the brakes on investment in the economy (something needed for a recovery)
There were compromises and concessions in the bills, and possibly nobody is 100% satisfied. That doesn't automatically mean the bills don't represent significant improvements from the current system. I think the final bill WILL go a long way to achieving the original goals of the reform, and therefore be an improvement. Though I also think it will prove inferior to some of the single payer systems in other countries."A long way toward achieving the original goals of the reform?" The original reason we were given was to insure the uninsured. If you use real numbers, that is at most 15 million Americans. The CBO says as many as 13 million Americans may be without health insurance under this plan (albeit probably a different 13 million than those already without insurance (I. E. 13 million that will lose their insurance) You call 2 million additional people covered by this plan at a cost of more than $1 trillion, significant improvement over the existing system? If so, I take back my above comment that you seem like a smart guy, you are a lemming.
On the whole though, great thinking, let's get something done for Obama (and Reid / Pelosi to a lesser extent)! He is much more important than the Constitution and much smarter than the founders. If Al Gore hadn't beaten him to it, I am sure Obama would have invented the internet.
Stan Da Man
01-05-10, 18:30
Doppelganger- In fact I would have preferred a single payer system but that was not going to happen. I also would have liked to see the bills address tort reform and defensive medicine. Yes- there is a Republican proposal I agree with and have stated this before. I have not read a good explanation on why it wasn't addressed. It's possible it may have introduced significant delays in the process. But I don't know- I'm stumped. This one's easy. It wasn't included because it would offend too much of the Democrats' biggest contributors -- trial lawyers. Democrats may not come out and say it, but the motivating force behind this legislation has virtually nothing to do with health care reform. That's just the latest vehicle they're using to buy votes. Tort lawyers are huge contributors. They weren't going to do anything to offend that money spigot.
If one looks at health care "reform" through the prism of well-meaning folks trying to do the right thing, and putting the draft bills through the sausage-grinder that results in legislation, then you will come to one or two conclusions as to whether what they are doing is worth the effort.
There was a time in my life, when I was in college and for a few years thereafter, when I would have looked at it that way. Now, I understand how utterly naive this perspective is.
I no longer have any illusion that this -- well-meaning legislators -- has any bearing on things. Sometimes, the cynical view is the reality. That's the case here. The cynical and realistic conclusion is that this is all about votes and creating a new dependency class. We don't really need health care reform -- at least not on anything that even approaches what they're trying to do. I've run a small business long enough to know this.
Regardless of your views on that, however, the legislators involved do not truly care about health care reform. Just like courting Spanish speaking voters with different legislation or appointments (e. g. An immigration bill; Sonja Sotomayor) this whole process is about creating a new dependency upon whom Democrats can count for votes. That's all there is to it. If it messes up the country, who cares? It will entrench Democrats in many different ways, not just in Congress. That's all this is about. It's a naked form of populism. In this case, it's disgusting. The only redeeming aspect of this legislation is that it will cause Democrats to be crushed in the mid-term elections, resulting in Congressional gridlock so this sort of thing can't happen again any time soon.
Wild Walleye
01-05-10, 22:54
Why no tort reform?
Stan, you make good points all leading to the one single answer "POWER." Power for a political class with a certain view as to how things "should be" with absolutely no regard for the Founders or that Constitution thingy. 'Health care reform' does no such thing. It is an attempt to permanently install the democrat in power.
Yep. All politicians are whores. In fact it is an insult to working women to compare politicians to them.
The cynical and realistic conclusion is that this is all about votes and creating a new dependency class. Nothing cynical about the truth.
We don't really need health care reform -- at least not on anything that even approaches what they're trying to do. Of course we don't need it. The system we have today may not be perfect but everyone in America (legally and illegally) can get quality treatment by walking into any emergency room, anywhere.
Regardless of your views on that, however, the legislators involved do not truly care about health care reform.Of course they don't, see above insult to whores.
this whole process is about creating a new dependency upon whom Democrats can count for votes. That's all there is to it.Yep. Who is going to vote to cut off their life blood (welfare, "free" health care, etc)
If it messes up the country, who cares? It will entrench Democrats in many different ways, not just in Congress. That's all this is about. It's a naked form of populism.Who cares? Well, believer-democrats care because they think that permanently installing their party in the leadership of the country is more important than America, the American Way, the Constitution, freedom, inalienable rights and virtually everything else that makes America exceptional.
Who cares on the other side? Looks like somewhere around 60-64% of the population, nationwide. Check out the special election to fill Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in the People's Republic of Mass or Ben Nelson's poll numbers.
In this case, it's disgusting. The only redeeming aspect of this legislation is that it will cause Democrats to be crushed in the mid-term elections, resulting in Congressional gridlock so this sort of thing can't happen again any time soon.Disgusting ain't strong enough. While I am not suggestion armed rebellion, these are the forces against which the Colonies and the Union fought not so long ago.
How will this play out? That depends on how many true believers are in the House and Senate. Ben Nelson will need a guaranteed multi-million dollar job post his defeat in 2012. 13 state attorney generals are looking to sue over the unconstitutionality of the Nebraska deal. If Brown wins Kennedy's former seat, that makes the democrat caucus 59 and the House will either need to swallow the Senate bill exactly "as is" or watch as their version of "health care reform" get's its rightful spot in the dustbin of history along with Stalin, Lenin, Castro (we can hope can't we) and their misguided leftist agendas.
With all due respect to my liberal friends, at the heart of this misguided attempt to permanently install the Democrat party is the destruction of freedom.
The Federal employee pension plan (which includes member of Congress) has included participation in Social Security since 1984. It has a fairly typical monthly defined benefit pension based on years of service and final salary + a 401K-like savings plan + Social Security. It works out much better for most government retirees than private retirees but that's more due to the nature of the government workers (a long career with a single employer) and the nature of the government as an employer (it pays what it promises)
The Federal employee health care plans are pretty much the same as the plans offered to white-collar employees at most large companies. There are usually more options in areas where there are large numbers of Federal workers but this also tends to be true for company plans as well.
Government benefit plans are good, but overall are similar to the plans offered by many large companies. If you own a small business or work for a small company, these government benefits look mighty tasty, but don't let anybody fool you into thinking that they are something that they are not. In particular, the health care plan is quite ordinary.
Wild Walleye
01-06-10, 13:21
The Federal employee pension plan (which includes member of Congress) has included participation in Social Security since 1984. It has a fairly typical monthly defined benefit pension based on years of service and final salary + a 401K-like savings plan + Social Security. It works out much better for most government retirees than private retirees but that's more due to the nature of the government workers (a long career with a single employer) and the nature of the government as an employer (it pays what it promises)Not really. The differences between "defined benefit" and "defined contribution" pension plans are huge. Big enough to help bankrupt UAL, GM, Chrysler and to make CalPERS (the California Public Employees' Retirement System) one of the biggest investors in the world (assets peaked in 2007 at $260B) which will have paid out something on the magnitude of $5.7B in pension benefits in FY2009.
The govt plan gives a "defined benefit" program where the benefit (I. E. The annual payout upon retirement) is defined. You retire, the company pays you that benefit until you die.
Regular people (those in the real world) get "defined contribution" plans whereby the contribution (I. E. what the employer will contribute to your pension) is defined. If you retire, the company stops paying and you get the income generated by your savings.
In the defined benefit model, no matter how much you contribute to the success or failure of the company, or how well the company does, it is liable to pay you that defined amount from retirement until you die (long after you stopped contributing to the company's advancement) You don't have to save anything for retirement (theoretically) because you essentially get a salary for the rest of your life, for doing absolutely nothing. Retirement age can vary from plan to plan and often you can opt to take early retirement and receive a slightly reduced defined benefit.
In the defined contribution model, when you stop working, the company stops paying. If you don't have adequate savings, you don't retire.
The former model is why you always used to hear about "underfunded" pension plans or pension liabilities (starting in in the late 70's and early 80's, particularly (although not exclusively) with regard to large unionized companies (UAL, GM, Chrysler, etc.). In the case of GM, the unfunded pension liability at the time of bankruptcy, was $13.5B (or AR$51.3B or 256 million trips to chicas at AR$200 per pop (think about that for stimulus) which could produce approximately 1 million gallons of gizz).
There are two very closely related matters herein: GM was paying out billions of dollars to people that don't work there anymore and contribute nothing to the current operations and / or success of the company and this model is unsustainable, eventually, the cost of paying retirees consumes all profits and more leading to bankruptcy. In a very simplified view of most large corporate bankruptcies: the owners (e. g. stockholders) lose all their equity invested and the assets are retitled in the name of the bondholders (e. g. debt holders) and unfunded pension liabilities could be pawned off on the government's Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp (e. g. the tax payers)
Because defined benefit plans are unsustainable in the real world, they were phased out almost everywhere except in fortified union (labor organizations not the Northern States) strongholds and the government (guess that is a little redundant."union stronghold" and government)
The federal govt plan differs from the private sector in that it is funded by the annual confiscation of real property from approximately 50% of the American citizenry. The government doesn't have to make any money at all to pay these benefits (the government doesn't make any money, unless you count printing as making)
Don't get me wrong, people that were promised something should get what they were promised (even though management and the unions knew this day would come, when they struck those deals) but this illustrates yet another ever-expanding government program / practice that could not survive in the real world but does exist in the federal government.
Soapbox is now vacated, who's next!
Member #4112
01-06-10, 14:37
Defined Benefit Plans went the way of the dinosaurs when companies could no longer afford to fund them – ie more money going out in benefits than coming in as contributions or in some cases no contributions from the employee at all. (Sound a little like Social Security? But for those who do not have to live in the real world ie Government this is never a problem since they just keep going back to the taxpayer for more money to fund the plan, a plan we pay for but in which we not allowed to participate.
This is why I have railed against the separate system for Congress in both retirement and healthcare. If we forced them to live by the same standards and laws they pass for the rest of us (Congress always exempts itself from the bills it passes) perhaps the brew-ha-ha over Social Security and Healthcare would vanish and the problems would really get fixed.
While I'm on the soapbox – anybody got a raise lately? No? Well Congress just got one. Several years ago those weasels in Washington figured out it was very unpopular for them to vote for a raise for themselves (since most folks don't think they earn it any way) so they passed a bill which sets up automatic pay raises they have vote against to not receive. Pretty slick.
If the stupid terrorists would whack Washington they might just do us all a favor!
Just kidding Janet!
While I'm on the soapbox – anybody got a raise lately? No? Well Congress just got one. Actually, Congress voted back in March to not take a pay raise in 2010.
You call 2 million additional people covered by this plan at a cost of more than $1 trillion, significant improvement over the existing system? If so, I take back my above comment that you seem like a smart guy, you are a lemming.Per the CBO December 19 2009 letter:
"... the number of nonelderly people who are uninsured would be reduced by about 31 million..." (page 8)
"... would yield a net reduction in federal deficits of $132 billion over the 2010-2019 period..." (page 2)
The letter is available on their website cbo.gov for all who care to read it. Unless all you want to do is indulge in conspiracy theories...
Per the CBO December 19 2009 letter:
". The number of nonelderly people who are uninsured would be reduced by about 31 million." (page 8)
". Would yield a net reduction in federal deficits of $132 billion over the 2010-2019 period." (page 2)
The letter is available on their website cbo. Gov for all who care to read it. Unless all you want to do is indulge in conspiracy theories.Esten, are you really just Ricardo in drag? Don't you know the wrath that will be inflicted upon you by posting your "communist, liberal" mantras on this thread. By the very nature of this board, it's obvious that they aren't God fearing, but don't let that fool you. They are frothing at the right-wing mouth as much as the most devoted Tea Bagger.
If we are in an economic recovery, however anemic, I will be the first to congratulate President Obama. Job well done.
However, there is a frightening possibility we are headed for a zombie economy much like Japan has experienced for the past 20 plus years.
A zombie economy is an economy in which the government intereferes with the private sector to such an extent that the private sector becomes the walking dead - much like the public sector always is.
In Japan the government spent 20 years propping up banks and businesses which should have been allowed to fail. Even today the japanese governemnt is giving Japan Air Lines almost a trillion dollar loan to continue their failed operation.
The downside of this intervention is that Japan now has a public debt which is 2 times GNP and still has a zombie economy.
It is time to put government back in its cage and allow the markets to dictate economic growth. Of course, Ricardo probably thinks that a zombie economy is a good thing. Barnie Franks taught Ricardo that.
The irony of all this is that government put us in this mess by dictating ridiculous regulations which allowed, even forced lending institutions to make loans to people who were not creditworthy.
Government puts us in this economic mess and if that wasn't enough, it looks as though government is bound and determined to keep us in this economic mess.
Member #4112
01-07-10, 10:28
Barny should join his buddy Dodd and retire, then he can start bending over the former pages again and stop screwing with the economy!
Wild Walleye
01-07-10, 17:48
Per the CBO December 19 2009 letter:
"The number of nonelderly people who are uninsured would be reduced by about 31 million." (page 8)
"Would yield a net reduction in federal deficits of $132 billion over the 2010-2019 period." (page 2)
The letter is available on their website cbo.gov for all who care to read it. Unless all you want to do is indulge in conspiracy theories.The CBO is known for never being wrong. That said, some guy named Douglas Elmendorf (aka CBO Director) wrote a letter to some other guy named Baucus back in October including this gem "the mechanism governing Medicare's payments to physicians has frequently been modified (either through legislation or administrative action) to avoid reductions in those payments. The long-term budgetary impact could be quite different if those provisions were ultimately changed and or not fully implemented."
Translation, the $200 billion in "savings" in the Senate plan, to be generated by cuts in payments to physicians is bunk. Everyone knows that these cuts face strong bipartisan opposition in Congress and that the democrats plan is to fix this later so that they can keep the phantom $200B in "savings" in this bill. That means they say that they are going to cut it and therefore call it savings now, but they don't plan to actually go through with the cuts it in the future.
Try that next time your Madahos. Round up a couple of the dancers for a monger sandwich and promise them US$1000 each. After having several hours of fun then reconsider the wisdom of those earlier promises which, while they seemed like a good idea at the time, they look unrealistic under current circumstances and offer them AR$100 for the deuce. Please post about how that works out for you (once you get out of the hospital)
Then this Elmendorf guy writes to this other guy Reid on Dec. 20th "Correcting that error has no impact on the estimated effects of the legislation during the 2010–2019 period. However, the correction reduces the degree to which the legislation would lower federal deficits in the decade after 2019."
Translation, "while we have swallowed everything you have given us, we would like to point out that while our estimates for 2010-2019 are pie-in-the-sky, I smoked a big fat Bob-Marley joint before I did the post-2019 analysis."
The CBO conveniently leaves out the huge increases (related to PPACA) in taxes premiums, fines and direct costs to individuals (sorry, you can't have that test unless you pay cash) Further, I don't see this Elmendorf guy figuring in all of the payoffs that Ried used to get this through such as the $300 million Louisiana Purchase or Ben Nelson's deal for Nebraska (the medicare portion of his vote sale is $45MM) I am pretty sure that all 60 votes were bought and paid for with our money, as Reid said, if all of the senators didn't get their fair share of pork, then they aren't doing their jobs.
Wild Walleye
01-11-10, 19:44
I guess this is settled then.
Somebody remember to turn out the lights.
Copied from one of my other forums:
A History Lesson.
For those that don't know about history. Here is a condensed version:
Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters / gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.
The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:
1. Liberals, and.
2. Conservatives.
Once beer was discovered, it required grain, and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That's how villages were formed.
Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to BBQ at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement.
Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly BBQ's and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.
Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as girlie-men. Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided.
Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberal s are symbolized by the jackass.
Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added) but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn't fair to make the pitcher also bat.
Conservatives drink domestic beer, mostly Bud. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, pharmacists, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, athletes, members of the military, airline pilots and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.
Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America. They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.
Here ends today's lesson in world history:
It should be noted that a Liberal may have a momentary urge to angrily respond to the above.
A Conservative will simply laugh and be so convinced of the absolute truth of this history that it will be forwarded immediately to other true believers and to more liberals just to tick them off.
And there you have it. Let your next action reveal your true self.
Norman Stormin
01-11-10, 20:52
Thanks JAX. I've already forwarded around the world. Expecially my pointy headed liberal friends in Alexandria.
Wild Walleye
01-11-10, 23:27
Buddy of mine sent me something very similar some time ago. I still am laughing having been reintroduced to the truth.
It was apropos that I was drinking a US-made beer, after consuming rare beef, as I read it. Made me want to grab my gun and go harvest some vittles.
What really made me laugh was reflecting on a conversation I had earlier today. I was explaining to a liberal, that immediately upon harvesting a moose, one needs to pack the body cavity with ice or snow to help cool the meat to prevent spoilage. I am not sure what I enjoyed more, offending his sensibility with the concept of delivering a 180 grain.300 win mag projectile to the life pump of a moose or grossing him out with the concept of slicing open the carcass's body cavity (nads to sternum) and emptying out its contents.
Keep the lights on Walleye, we have another 7 years to go.
Thanks for the joke Jackson. I laughed hard! Another great example of what conservatives have to offer. ROTFLMAO!!
Buddy of mine sent me something very similar some time ago. I still am laughing having been reintroduced to the truth.
It was apropos that I was drinking a US-made beer, after consuming rare beef, as I read it. Made me want to grab my gun and go harvest some vittles.
What really made me laugh was reflecting on a conversation I had earlier today. I was explaining to a liberal, that immediately upon harvesting a moose, one needs to pack the body cavity with ice or snow to help cool the meat to prevent spoilage. I am not sure what I enjoyed more, offending his sensibility with the concept of delivering a 180 grain.300 win mag projectile to the life pump of a moose or grossing him out with the concept of slicing open the carcass's body cavity (nads to sternum) and emptying out its contents.Hey, could you be Dick Cheney. Just don't shoot your friend and host by mistake!
Member #4112
01-12-10, 12:22
Being an avid hunter myself and hailing from the great state of Texas I can assume from your Dick Cheney comment you have never hunted quail in Texas. FYI the other hunter Cheney accidently injured was both a liberal and an attorney from Austin (one of the few bastions of liberals in our great state) who refused to comment on the situation beyond the accident was his fault for getting out formation, did not sue his friend Dick Cheney and was more upset with the media than the accident. This has got to say something for the bond among hunters. But this is one of those things – if I have to explain it to you, you just won't understand.
Being an avid hunter myself and hailing from the great state of Texas I can assume from your Dick Cheney comment you have never hunted quail in Texas. FYI the other hunter Cheney accidently injured was both a liberal and an attorney from Austin (one of the few bastions of liberals in our great state) who refused to comment on the situation beyond the accident was his fault for getting out formation, did not sue his friend Dick Cheney and was more upset with the media than the accident. This has got to say something for the bond among hunters. But this is one of those things – if I have to explain it to you, you just won't understand.You are correct, I am not a hunter or a liberal. I know accidents can happen. But the tone of of the post evoke the image of Dick Cheney and his way of speaking through the side of his mouth, almost a sneer at the rest of the world. All I know is that if not for the fact that his daughter is gay, he would be glad to shoot them all. All right, since your post, I am now projecting the image of Teddy Roosevelt with his leg on a lion in one of his big game safaris.
Wild Walleye
01-12-10, 12:53
But the tone of of the post evoke the image of Dick Cheney and his way of speaking through the side of his mouth, almost a sneer at the rest of the world.Really, a sneer? It was more an expression of taking pleasure via a tried and tested juvenile prank, grossing out your companion.
All I know is that if not for the fact that his daughter is gay, he would be glad to shoot them all.OK, I know that Dick Cheney has been proven to be Beelzebub but upon what action or quote do you base your assumption? A true Christian, conservative or liberal, while disagreeing with the path that one has chosen, would not resort to violence as a corrective measure.
I am now projecting the image of Teddy Roosevelt with his leg on a lion in one of his big game safaris.Whilst I respect the rights of others to hunt for trophy game, I prefer to stick to edible species. If I don't plan to eat it, I don't shoot it. If I shoot it, I eat it. [insert your play on words here]
When I am hunting for trophies (you know, a good head to mount) I use my goo-soft ammo.
Member #4112
01-12-10, 12:54
Now I never saw it that way. But I guess you see what you wish based on your own value system.
Now I never saw it that way. But I guess you see what you wish based on your own value system.I work with a guy for a long time that claimed he and God were real "tight", but nothing in his life at work displayed that God had any influence on his dealings with his co-workers. So self proclaimations are "self proclaimations".
Anyway, have fun with the chicas in BA. Will be there soon for a cruise, unfortnately with my gf.
Member #4112
01-12-10, 17:58
As I was told once when I imported one for a few days - "why bring sand to the beach?" Of course the qualifier was my imported "sand" also liked "sand" so we had some pretty nice 3-somes. I swear that girl could find a bi girl in a bar faster than a good bird dog can find a covey of quail! - No Dick Cheney pun intended.
Good luck with GF in BA.
President Obama can sign all of the Treaties he wants. Unless he has 60 votes in the Senate. The Treaty is void. There is no way he can get those votes. Can you imagine a Senator from Montana or Louisana voting for it? They would get hung in their home states.
The Senate need to ratify it, before Osama can do something like that. Overturning State laws and such. Don't think it would pass the Senate, since the southern Democrats will join with the Republicans to block it. Don't think it could even get a majority, let alone 60 votes.
Did any of you rubes read the article? It said that the US was willing to engage in negotiations.
Even still, this is a treaty that would regulate the international arms sale. It has nothing to do with domestic arms sales. Though nice try Syd. Way to try to get everyone worked up into a frenzy to support your own delusional ideas.
You can bet your ass that if the US does end up signing some treaty, it will benefit US arms exporters. Obama's puppet masters will make sure of that.
Wild Walleye
01-15-10, 00:44
If we are talking about legislative process, it'll take a little more than 60 senators to overturn the second amendment. That said, if we skip legislative process and move directly to judicial fiat, it might not take so much. It is much more likely that the 2nd Amendment will be attacked via judicial fiat in the form of supreme court rulings that infringe upon the right to bear arms and related issues.
As for the aforementioned article, it is not directly relevant to individual gun ownership, however, it is detrimental to approximately $35b of US economic output and is indicative of the contempt that this administration has for individual liberty and freedom. That should surprise no one as this administration has declared war on the private sector.
Did any of you rubes read the article? It said that the US was willing to engage in negotiations.
Even still, this is a treaty that would regulate the international arms sale. It has nothing to do with domestic arms sales. Though nice try Syd. Way to try to get everyone worked up into a frenzy to support your own delusional ideas.
You can bet your ass that if the US does end up signing some treaty, it will benefit US arms exporters. Obama's puppet masters will make sure of that.
If we are talking about legislative process, it'll take a little more than 60 senators to overturn the second amendment. That said, if we skip legislative process and move directly to judicial fiat, it might not take so much. It is much more likely that the 2nd Amendment will be attacked via judicial fiat in the form of supreme court rulings that infringe upon the right to bear arms and related issues. What does THIS article have to do with the 2nd amendment? Last I looked, it had something to do with American citizens "keeping and bearing arms." It is not a constitutional guarantee to be able to sell arms to other countries.
As for the aforementioned article, it is not directly relevant to individual gun ownership, however, it is detrimental to approximately $35b of US economic output and is indicative of the contempt that this administration has for individual liberty and freedom. That should surprise no one as this administration has declared war on the private sector.Again, what does THIS article have to do with individual liberty and freedom? You guys keep wanting to interpret THIS article as some sort of attack against gun owners in the US.
Um, how come this hasn't prompted an alert from the NRA (nraila. Org) If it had real substance, I'd expect a bulletin and letter draft to senators and congressmen. The only issue that's surfaced is Bloomberg trying to put gun shows out of commission.
It's no secret that antigunners have tried to use the illegal gun traffic between the US and Mexico as an excuse to make gun sales harder for everyone. (The logic of which escapes me if they're already illegal. But this seems a little over the top.
Schmoj,
Such tactics are common from the right. They look for opportunities to spread doubt, fear and anger in their followers, who they erroneously refer to as "The American People" as if they were the only people in the country. They deal in emotions.
Punter 127
01-15-10, 02:20
Um, how come this hasn't prompted an alert from the NRA (nraila. Org) If it had real substance, I'd expect a bulletin and letter draft to senators and congressmen. The only issue that's surfaced is Bloomberg trying to put gun shows out of commission.Actually the NRA has been warning about the possibility of just such a backdoor attack on our second amendment rights for several years. This is just one more avenue the gun control nuts have been using in an attempt to disarm and control people worldwide.
I would have agreed with others here that it would not have a chance of passing, but if it ever had a chance I suspect now is the time, just look at the bail outs and the health care BS. Legislators voted for these actions without even reading the bills.
As long as this bunch of Chicago power hungry mob scum with all their behind closed door deals and out right vote buying are in power anything is possible, they’ve convinced me of that!
What ever happened to everything being out in the open and even on CSPAM?
Punter 127
Conservative in exile!
Schmoj,
Such tactics are common from the right. They look for opportunities to spread doubt, fear and anger in their followers, who they erroneously refer to as "The American People" as if they were the only people in the country. They deal in emotions.And we all know that liberals would never resort such a tactic themselves.
ROTFLMAO!
Thanks,
Jackson
Sidney.
It doesn't matter whether we send 10 million or 10 billion dollars to Haiti. Less than five dollars will end up where it is supposed to go. The rest will be deposited in somebodies bank account in Zurich.
Wild Walleye
01-16-10, 13:41
Esten and Schmoj give Laurel and Hardy a run for their money.
Such tactics are common from the right. They look for opportunities to spread doubt, fear and anger in their followers, who they erroneously refer to as "The American People" as if they were the only people in the country. They deal in emotions.This one had me laughing. That's a good one. The right is ruling the country (from their pick up trucks and porch furniture) via fear mongering. This from a portion of the American People that have no representation in Washington (check back next Wednesday and again on Wednesday November 3rd to see if that situation changes) and limited access to the main stream media. Why did you leave out the facts that republicans are all racist, bigoted homophobes?
The tactic used here by Esten is to smear all republicans and conservatives with vague charges and innuendo. The left uses this tactic constantly followed by repeating the lies over and over, until the state-controlled media takes them for facts.
Schmoj, why do you attempt to quote and parse my response? You don't make any sense.
What does THIS article have to do with the 2nd amendment? I clearly stated that I don't think it is directly relevant to the second amendment.
Again, what does THIS article have to do with individual liberty and freedom?
"Again?" The common definition of 'again' is: "once more, another time, anew." Why do you say again when this is the first time you posed the THIS question? Why the all caps 'THIS?' Are you trying to add emphasis? If so, are you trying to emphasize that THIS is the only article and only instance where these whackos from the right try to use the above-mentioned tactics (hat tip to Esten for the tactical information)
The relevance to the issues of individual liberty and freedom can be found in the threat that such governmental interference poses to those engaged in lawful commerce that will be effected by such a move.
You guys keep wanting to interpret THIS article as some sort of attack against gun owners in the US.What? Are you stupid or just illiterate? I am not the only conservative or republican to respond in agreement with you that this is not a direct assault on the second amendment.
As for the aforementioned article, it is not directly relevant to individual gun ownership, however, it is detrimental to approximately $35b of US economic output and is indicative of the contempt that this administration has for individual liberty and freedom. That should surprise no one as this administration has declared war on the private sector.Let me quote you again Walleye, so you'll understand. You DO mention that the article is not directly related to individual gun ownership, but in the very same sentence mention 'contempt that this administration has for individual liberty and freedom.' So, explain to me how the issue described in THAT article has anything to do with individual liberty and freedom.
I won't go as far as calling you illiterate, but you seem to either have reading comprehension problems OR you are more than happy just to make shit up to support your ideology.
Also, you are assuming that just because I point out the fact THAT article had nothing to do with your and Sydney's interpretation of it that I am a "liberal." Personally, I think most of the liberal/conservative dichotomy is smoke and mirrors. While it may be applicable to individual points of view, the political powers only care about funneling the money to the institutions that keep them in power.
Do you REALLY believe that Obama is a "liberal?"
No smear, just a plain and simple observation. Of course both sides can and do use emotion to influence. But in my attempt to distill things down to fundamental core differences between the two US political sides, what I have observed is this (and, I am not the first to note this distinction):
Reason plays a greater role for Democrats.
Emotion plays a greater role for Republicans.
Esten.
Very astute. I am impressed.
I have a question about people whose main concern is "Where is my welfare check"'. Should they be classfied as driven by emotion or driven by reason?
No smear, just a plain and simple observation. Of course both sides can and do use emotion to influence. But in my attempt to distill things down to fundamental core differences between the two US political sides, what I have observed is this (and, I am not the first to note this distinction):
Reason plays a greater role for Democrats.
Emotion plays a greater role for Republicans.No smear, but just a plain and simple question:
What color is the sky in your world?
Thanks,
Jackson
Esten.
Very astute. I am impressed.
I have a question about people whose main concern is "Where is my welfare check"'. Should they be classfied as driven by emotion or driven by reason?I think they are reasonably driven by emotion.
Or are they emotionally driven by reason?
Either way I am ROTFLMAO!
Thanks,
Jackson
Member #4112
01-17-10, 20:17
Well I guess you can say the Democrats use "Reason" if your definition of Reason is give all your money to the government because the government knows better than anyone else how to tell you to run your life, decide what is good or bad for you, and lead you around by the nose as they spend your money (sorry it's not your money it's the government's) I guess this is the same group of "Reasoned" folks whose candidate in Mass. Told the Republican running against her how dare he try to win Kennedy's seat, didn't he know that Senate seat "belonged" to the Democrats - yea I really like that kind of "Reasoning."
At least the Republicans use to be for smaller government and free markets where no one was "too big to fail", where the hell did that come from? Probably from the same folks who gave us the "Great Society" which has become one of the colossal failures of the Democrats with the exception it created huge "entitlement" programs the Democrats milk for votes to this day.
I just love these terms "entitlement" "too big to fail". The thing I love about Democrats is they are perfectly willing to spend YOUR last dime on THEIR programs!
Someone on the board wrote a very witty post about how mongering would work if the Democrats took it over. Check it out –its on point!
AllIWantIsLove
01-17-10, 20:49
No smear, just a plain and simple observation. Of course both sides can and do use emotion to influence. But in my attempt to distill things down to fundamental core differences between the two US political sides, what I have observed is this (and, I am not the first to note this distinction):
Reason plays a greater role for Democrats.
Emotion plays a greater role for Republicans.I think that it is just the opposite. Isn't there an old saying which goes something like "The Republicans have no heart and the Democrats have no brains"?
Bob
Bob.
Another saying along those lines which was coined by Jackson is (more or less)
If you are not a liberal when you are 20 years old - you have no heart.
If you are still a liberal when you are 30 years old - you have no brains
AllIWantIsLove
01-17-10, 21:48
Bob.
Another saying along those lines which was coined by Jackson is (more or less)
If you are not a liberal when you are 20 years old - you have no heart.
If you are still a liberal when you are 30 years old - you have no brainsThat may have been what I was thinking of. Although, while there may be some true philosophical differences between the parties, I think that Schmoj nailed it when he said "the political powers only care about funneling the money to the institutions that keep them in power."
Bob
I hold these truths to be self evident:
• You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom.
• What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
• The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
• When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that, my dear friend, is about the end of any nation.
• You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
Dr. Adrian Pierce Rogers (September 12, 1931 – November 15, 2005) of Love Worth Finding Ministries, Pastor Emeritus of Bellevue Baptist Church.I'm overcome with emotion just reading these words.
Jackson
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right,
Here I am, stuck in the middle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrJQDnAHrRY&NR=1
It appears that people are becoming disenchanted with Obama. From my limited perspective in Paraguay, Obama seems OK to me. Maybe if I saw the news everyday I would have a different take on this I. E. If I was beat over the head everyday with Obama's plans to make government bigger I probaby would be fed up with Obama as well.
On the other hand Obama has disappointed some far left supporters who want us out of Afghanistan immediately (as I do) out of Iraq and open travel with Cuba. Obviously Obama is not eating all the leftwing ideas they are trying to shove down his throat.
Where Obama will end up is a mystery. Another Reagon or Clinton (good) or another Jimmy 'shit for brains' Carter (bad)
Member #4112
01-18-10, 15:55
Just an FYI – got this quote off Fox News – yea I know its just a Republican mouthpiece.
"It's socialism. It starts with health care. It starts with the government bailouts," said Johnson, 43, who's retired from the military. "I work for a living and I see more and more of my money going to people who sit home and don't do it. I'm all for helping people out, but I like keeping what I earn."
Where do you think this is from, somewhere in the mid-west, a southern state perhaps, maybe some crazed right wing radical? No folks this come from the bastion of the Democratic party, from the home of the "Lion of the Senate" - yes folks it is from Massachusetts where even the party faithful are getting tired of the party line and may even (gasp) elect a Republican to fill the Senate seat vacated by Ted Kennedy in a state where a Kennedy has held the seat for over 40 years. There may be hope yet for the country!
Punter 127
01-19-10, 01:04
Perhaps we should have a party at El Alamo to watch the Massachusetts special election results, and celebrate Scott Browns victory and the saving of American? Hehehehehe, I'm trying to get a flight now.
Isn't there an old saying which goes something like "The Republicans have no heart and the Democrats have no brains"?Another Republican joke, wonderful! Keep on showing us what they have to offer.
Doppelganger's post provides a good example of what I'm talking about.
Well I guess you can say the Democrats use "Reason" if your definition of Reason is give all your money to the government Incrementally more of your money than Republicans might take, but skewed to the rich. Far from "all".
because the government knows better than anyone else how to tell you to run your life, decide what is good or bad for youNo, for the most part people pretty much make those decisions for themselves in the US. If anything, you are likely to have greater freedoms under a Democratic administration due to greater separation of church from state.
and lead you around by the nose as they spend your money (sorry it's not your money it's the government's) Money collected by government is typically given back in the form of services that people want and need. Government-bashers seem to conveniently skip over this obvious point.
Doppelganger repeats things that have been said many times before by Republicans. But such statements are so irrational, they cannot be characterized as anything other than emotional.
Member #4112
01-19-10, 02:11
Please explain "entitlements" - why is someone else entitled to another persons earnings?
Please explain to me the "success" of the Democrat's Great Society.
Please explain to me the meaning of "rich" since what is now considered "rich" by the current administration $200K to $250K for a married couple if you will check you statistics falls well into the middle of the "middle class" per your own administrations findings.
Please explain why your party has decided to reinstate the "marriage tax" - a married couples earnings are less than two single persons earnings for tax purposes. Why the discrimination?
Tell you what, you give ALL YOUR MONEY AND POSSESSIONS TO THOSE WHO NEED IT then come talk to me about it your compassion and reason.
Same old tired BS I've heard from Democrats for years.
Money collected by government is typically given back in the form of services that people want and need. Government-bashers seem to conveniently skip over this obvious point.Esten,
You're a never-ending fountain of humor.
First, the government does not "collect" money, it takes it by force from those who have earned it, and at gunpoint if one refuses to cooperate.
Second, the "services" that are "given back" suffer a huge loss in value as the government is by nature the most inefficient manager of any endeavor it undertakes.
Nevertheless, you cordially are invited to my house tomorrow night to watch the election returns on Fox News, in HD, of course
Who knows, perhaps you'll be the one that's celebrating.
Personally, I'm overcome with emotion at the prospect that we may actually be able to put the brakes on Obama's runaway train to economic disaster.
Thanks,
Jackson
Wild Walleye
01-19-10, 14:35
Let me quote you again Walleye, so you'll understand. You DO mention that the article is not directly related to individual gun ownership, but in the very same sentence mention 'contempt that this administration has for individual liberty and freedom.' So, explain to me how the issue described in THAT article has anything to do with individual liberty and freedom.Schmuck, you quote my point exactly, the government infringing on the personal liberties of those lawfully making a living via the $35B industry that the government seeks to harm.
I won't go as far as calling you illiterate, but you seem to either have reading comprehension problems OR you are more than happy just to make shit up to support your ideology.You are free to call me what you like, I have thick skin. Despite my many years taking the short bus to and from school, I did complete ninth grade grammar and do not recall a section on using "all caps" for emphasis. I seem to recall my professor telling me that if you think you need a gimmick font or syntax to convey your message, clearly your prose does not. Clearly there are exceptions such as EE Cummings (should have been a porn star with that name) however, as I am sure you already know, Cummings was not best known for his expository writing.
As far as making "shit" up to support my ideology, please feel free to peruse any of my prior postings and find inaccurate information (other than the post where I said I have a 10" member - I estimated low and measured from the top)
Also, you are assuming that just because I point out the fact THAT article had nothing to do with your and Sydney's interpretation of it that I am a "liberal."No, I based my conclusion that you are a liberal due to your poorly articulated points which are completely lacking in substance and are intended to confuse and draw attention away from the facts. I also considered the fact that despite agreeing with you that Sidney's interpretation was flawed, you continue to assume that I was making the same argument that Sidney was. When you have been corrected on the same subject numerous times and keep making the same mistake you are either ADHD [no offense to those with ADHD, as you know, this is a common trait amongst those with ADHD] or a liberal.
Personally, I think most of the liberal / conservative dichotomy is smoke and mirrors.Ding, ding, ding, I think Schmoj deserves a gold star for breaking out a 5-dollar word. Good for you.
While it may be applicable to individual points of view, the political powers only care about funneling the money to the institutions that keep them in power.I am going to go out on a limb here (making the same mistake I made before, thus making clear that I am either a liberal or I have ADHD) but I agree with you to some extent on this point. Now, please keep that point in mind when looking at issues of redistribution of wealth which are based upon extra-constitutional takings.
Do you REALLY believe that Obama is a "liberal?"No, I do not believe Obama is a liberal. I have been very clear on this point, I believe that he is a Marxist. That said, he is seeking to install a hybrid Marxist / Fascist utopia based upon corporatism (look it up) and individual serfdom.
Rock Harders
01-19-10, 15:14
Mongers,
It's no secret that I am an Obama fan and a pretty far left liberal on most issues, however, I for one am praying that the Republican wins the Senate race today in Mass so this piece of shit farce of a healthcare reform bill gets filibustered. Basically, this bill plans to spend more than $1 trillion and does not include the one thing that it should have included, something that every other civilized nation on earth has, a public sector administered, taxpayer funded health care option. So what the fuck does this bill do, other than ban excluding coverage based on pre-existing conditions (which is a good thing, but why didn't Obama just issue an executive order banning the practice? And spending $1 trillion?
Suerte,
Rock Harders
Wild Walleye
01-19-10, 15:21
As I stated in the post sited below, some six months ago (7-14-09 to be exact) the pendulum had reached its apex and was moving in the other direction. Due to the artificial heights that the left and the media took the pendulum, the acceleration and velocity on the down stroke will be extreme and will blow passed equilibrium headed the other way.
This guy is not stupid. He is seeking to destroy what makes this country great. He has contempt for every last one of us, those that despise him and those that idolize him. Every schmuck in the media has their nose up his ass. That said, America (our America) is noticing. The pendulum has swung and will cut very deep on its rebound.This special election in Massachusetts, in addition to being referendum on health care, is a refutation of Obama and his Marxist blueprint for America. It is particularly juicy that it is taking place in Massachusetts. Massachusetts is a liberal bastion created by US and State tax dollars, misappropriated by elected officials and distributed by union bosses to ensure payoffs, redistribution of wealth, public health care and perpetual democrat rule.
In short, Massachusetts is in many ways Obama's ideal. It is fitting that the people that live there are refuting that for which he stands.
This is part of the chronicles of a youthful liberal in Massachusetts who matured into a staunch conservative. Thought Ricardo might like this.
Was a volunteer for (I'm soooooo sorry) Barney Frank for – forget if it was the state senate or still just the house;
Was a volunteer for (I'm soooooo much sorrier) Barney Frank for his first successful run for Congress, which makes me partly responsible for the economic implosion;
Mongers,
It's no secret that I am an Obama fan and a pretty far left liberal on most issues, however, I for one am praying that the Republican wins the Senate race today in Mass so this piece of shit farce of a healthcare reform bill gets filibustered. Basically, this bill plans to spend more than $1 trillion and does not include the one thing that it should have included, something that every other civilized nation on earth has, a public sector administered, taxpayer funded health care option. So what the fuck does this bill do, other than ban excluding coverage based on pre-existing conditions (which is a good thing, but why didn't Obama just issue an executive order banning the practice? And spending $1 trillion?
Suerte,
Rock HardersYou took the words right out of my mouth RH. Why in the hell Obama allowed Congress to write this two thousand page piece of shit is beyond me. Shame on you Mr. President. If the thing passed everyone would need six Philadelphia lawyers to get a hang nail taken care of.
I haven't yet read a convincing argument why the proposed health care reform is not a significant improvement over the status quo, and am hoping and expecting it will soon be signed into law. It is unfortunate there will not be a public option, but they just don't have the votes.
The right is fueling and surfing a wave of anger/discontent among some voters, but continue to fail in communicating convincing arguments why their ideas are better for the country. I'll acknowledge Obama and Dems have not done a great job in communicating why their ideas are better either. I expect we will see more effort on this.
Jackson- of course collection of taxes is enforced, society would not function without it.
Thanks for the invite; unfortunately I am here in SP now. Only being able to spend a few weeks a year in BA sucks. I miss the chicas. Those of you in BA with your regulars and stables, I am a bit envious...
Why in the hell Obama allowed Congress to write this two thousand page piece of shit is beyond me.You guys make this so easy. The answer is because he's a weak decision maker, and he doesn't know what he's doing because he doesn't have any executive experience.
Still, the jury is still out on his leadership capabilities, which is an altogether different talent. Assuming that the current health bill is DOA, Obama now has a golden opportunity to take the initiative himself, to bring all parties together, appoint the study commissions, review their recommendations, hold the public hearings, and otherwise build a consensus behind a plan that more of the country can support, whatever that plan may ultimately provide.
Thanks,
Jackson
Obama: the dumbest most inexperienced President ever!
Punter 127
01-20-10, 03:18
Mongers,
But why didn't Obama just issue an executive order banning the practice? And spending $1 trillion?
Suerte,
Rock HardersBecause that type of executive order would exceed executive authority and certainly be subject to legal challenge. Also it would only last until Obama left office and could be revoked with the stroke of the pen by the next President, much harder to repeal a law.
I don't know if supporters of Scott Brown for President are serious. What is his background? What has he done?
However, when evaluating the experience needed to be President of the United States the bar is not that high. Apparently 'community organizer' is sufficient.
P.S. there is one thing Scott Brown has going for him. He can probabaly produce a birth certificate
Punter 127
01-20-10, 10:32
Brown's victory was not so much a vote for Brown, but a vote out of anger, anger of backroom deals, anger over jobs, anger over wars, anger over special deals for politicians and unions, anger over banks, and most importantly, anger because "Yes We Can" morphed into "Business As Usual, Only Worse".I think that just about says it all.
Member #4112
01-20-10, 13:15
Esten, the most elegant arguments against the current healthcare plan in Congress are provided by the Democrats themselves:
(1) Medicare / Medicaid – perfect example of the government running healthcare; inefficient, inflexible, not to mention bankrupt. When the population flips in a few years with more retirees than workers how much worse will it get, much worse. A shrinking income base for an expanding expense base.
(2) Look at all the "special deals" in play for different states to advance the legislation to the total exclusion of Republican input – how is this "leveling" the playing field. It only creates more confusion within the system, makes nothing equal, creating greater discrimination within the healthcare system between the have and have not states.
Regarding MA, Ted Kennedy held that seat for the Democrats for 47 years. Considering independents comprise 51% of the MA electorate, Democrats and Republicans split the remaining 49% at 3 to 1 respectively, if I were the Obama administration I would at least take another look around the political landscape. There has not been a Republican Senator from MA since 1972!
Obama won because of the independent vote and he has lost much of this support. The country is angry and rightfully so as the "Changes" he promised have not come to pass; an end to partisan politics (I still remember Robert Gibbs telling Republicans – "we won get over it we will do what we want") transparency in government (his has been even more secretive than the Bush Administration he despised) he is still in campaign mode and I don't think he has a governing mode and the country needs leadership –something he has yet to display. Riding into office with majorities in the House and Senate his presidency has still been paralyzed except when it comes to throwing away money we don't have in programs which are questionable at best in their effectiveness, punishing success (Ford, JP Morgan-Chase, ect) while rewarding failure (AIG, Chyrsler, GM, unions et al)
While I don't think Obama is "evil" I do believe he, like Jimmy Carter, is simply in over his head. He is unable to deliver on the grand promises which got him elected and people were foolish enough to believe.
Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, are only the first glimmers of the storm to come. The country is not interested in healthcare they are interest in the economy – remember Bill Clinton's campaign slogan "It's the Economy Stupid". 2010 will be a blood bath for the Democrats; I can only hope the Republicans coming into office will be the ones of old who were for smaller government, lower taxes and fiscal responsibility.
Perhaps Obama faced with a new House and Senate will, as Bill Clinton before him, move to the center from the far left. If not he will be a lame duck president for his remaining two years in office, which from my perspective isn't a bad thing.
, thousands without food and water, no law and order, few being treated, diseases festering, mas! Disgusting! ----------j.
''If you have ever been to Haiti you would probably think the situation after the earthquakes is pretty much the same as the situation before the earthquakes.
One thing I can guarantee you - if those phoney baloney, birdbrain Hollywood frauds are in Haiti they are living with a lot of discomfort I. E. Steaks, lobster, $1000 bottles of wine, 2000 thread sheets and goose down pillows. They feel your pain. Just make sure a slimming mirror is always within 30 inches of their bloated egos
Wild Walleye
01-20-10, 14:07
I haven't yet read a convincing argument why the proposed health care reform is not a significant improvement over the status quoI could give you one trillion reasons but, I will give you just a bunch off the top of my head.
First let's get some of the facts straight. The proposed legislation in all of it various forms does not do any of the things that it was initially "designed" to do, nor does it do any of the things it is currently purported to do.
The initial premise upon which this mess is founded is utterly false. We were first told that there was a healthcare crisis in the US and that 47 million AMERICANS [footnote to Schmoj for that nifty emphasis thing] don't have health insurance (insinuating that means they can't get care) people are dying in the streets because they are being denied care, costs are soaring out of control, and the "healthcare system" will go bankrupt if we don't do something.
The Democrats have ironically defined this "crisis" in terms of the simple medical definition of crisis, which is: "the point in the course of a serious disease at which a decisive change occurs, leading either to recovery or to death." The implication being that inaction will result in 'death' or in this case cataclysmic failure of the 'system' resulting in horrible circumstances for everyone, of biblical proportions (cats living with dogs, etc) and immediately thereafter the world will end.
That is a pretty grim picture. I am so glad that the Right is the only group using scare tactics. Could you imagine the above picture if the Left used scare tactics? They probably tell us that the polar caps will melt and we're all going to drown.
The truth (anyone remember what that is? Is that there is no healthcare crisis in the US. This bears repeating, there is no healthcare crisis in the US. I am not saying that healthcare in the US is perfect but it is pretty damn good for a huge majority of Americans.
The facts ares: there are not 45 million Americans without healthcare coverage; there are approximately 15 million Americans who either cannot get coverage and / or cannot afford coverage; every man, woman and child regardless of race, nationality, immigration status or financial means can get excellent health care, anywhere in the US twenty four hours a day, 365 days a year; costs of providing healthcare are rising due in large part to government regulation and interference; affordable private health coverage is not available to everyone because of governmental regulation. There is no "healthcare system." There is one sixth of our economy (primarily private businesses) participating in healthcare products and services employing tens of millions Americans.
We were then told that this legislation will fix all of these problems forever, by the very people who didn't write it, didn't read it and didn't participate in the details, including Obama and every senator and congressman who has opined in favor of this plan. Somehow, these people are going to magically reduce the cost of providing care (I. E. Treatment for a heart attack will cost the provider less to deliver so the patient will save) via increasing the efficiency of one sixth of our economy all while improving the quality of care. That is incredible considering it was written by special interest groups who know nothing about doing any of those things.
What is worse, these same snake oil salesmen (and women) don't tell you about the nefarious elements of the legislation the byproducts of which will do great harm to the nation via attacking the Constitution, the economy and our personal liberties.
Here are a few things that the current legislation does and does not do:
The propose legislation does not:
- provide all Americans with healthcare coverage (by their own admission, Dems say 15 million will be left out)
- lower healthcare costs.
- improve efficiency in the delivery of care.
- allow all individuals to maintain their private insurance.
The proposed legislation does:
- Transfer billions of dollars of personal property from one portion of society to another.
- increase taxes on all American tax payers.
- fines all individuals who choose not to buy insurance.
- provide US tax dollars in a sum greater than $600MM in payoffs to Louisiana and Nebraska (6.2MM people in the aggregate or ~2% of the US population)
- violates several provisions of the Constitution (which by the way still is the law of the land. For now)
- Cut medicaid and medicare by ~$500B while adding tens of millions of people to the system.
- guarantee rationing of care.
- deny individuals freedom and liberty in making their own healthcare choices.
Up until last night, the current 'bill' to which you refer wasn't really a bill in the traditional sense (as in one piece of legislation moving towards the president's desk) It is at least two bills (one House and one Senate version) The Senate bill was just a place holder for a different piece of legislation to be dropped onto the president's desk by Pelosi and Reid, without any public scrutiny. That hypothetical 'comprise' version that Reid, Pelosi and Axelrod were creating out of whole cloth is now hopefully dead.
and am hoping and expecting it will soon be signed into law. It is unfortunate there will not be a public option, but they just don't have the votes. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. There is a public option in there, you just have to know where to look for it.
The right is fueling and surfing a wave of anger / discontent among some voters, but continue to fail in communicating convincing arguments why their ideas are better for the country.The "right" is doing what? Hey genius, Massachusetts is the bluest of blue states with a 3:1 ratio of democrats to republicans. This latest electoral event has nothing to do with the right, it has everything to do with Americans across the political spectrum (with the exception of the hardcore left, where you dwell) refuting the neo-marxist agenda of this administration and the business-as-usual burning of our tax dollars for personal and political gain by the congress.
I'll acknowledge Obama and Dems have not done a great job in communicating why their ideas are better either.Obama and the Dems have done just that, communicated their vision for America and it makes most Americans sick.
Americans as a whole are not stupid, despite the left's opinion that all Americans that live in between the coasts are stupid. There are plenty of stupid and gullible Americans (69.5 million of them by last count, which was taken in Nov. 2008) that are now coming to their senses.
I expect we will see more effort on this.We can only hope
Wild Walleye
01-20-10, 14:25
Slow response, thousands of military and navy are late, simple bottlenecks are not relieved, acres of medical supplies, water, food, etc are parked at the airport, thousands without food and water, no law and order, few being treated, diseases festering, mas! Disgusting! ----------Typically late---Bloomberg today--''Gates Sends Ships.
"You cannot fully meet the needs of over 2 million people just using helicopters," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in New Delhi today after signing deployment orders for harbor- clearing ships and other vessels to help restore Port-au- Prince's devastated shipping facilities. ''Sydney, while I will gladly criticize Obama for all that the things he is doing wrong (including his current politicizing the crisis in Haiti) the logistics of rescuing a country of two million people in less than a week is something only God can do (the real one, not the false prophet in the White House)
Rescuing the Haitian people from this crisis is a very complex and massive undertaking further complicated by the international sovereignty wrinkle and the fact that Haiti is on an island some 700 miles off the US coast.
As for the immediate response, creating an infrastructure through which aid can be administered, the distant second choice behind God is the US military. There is no third choice, although as gracious as we are we will allow lots of other groups to take credit for our actions and expenditures.
Once there is some infrastructure and capability, it is time for private organizations (primarily funded by the private donations of Americans) to do the heavy lifting.
While the federal response to Katrina could have been more efficient and merited constructive criticism, the primary failures were at the state and local level and have been well documented. The political and personal attacks on Bush for his response to Katrina were without any basis in fact.
I suspect that you will not hear the same kind of attacks on Obama for his handling of the Haiti crisis even though you could make all most all of the same arguments made against Bush. That is because the opposition in this case is not left which knows no bounds of decency.
...He is still in campaign mode and I don't think he has a governing mode and the country needs leadership...Unfortunately, Obama doesn't have a "governing mode" because he's never actually governed so much as a lemonade stand.
Obama only has a "campaign mode" as evidenced by the fact that all he's ever done is run for office. In fact, as soon as he was elected to any office, he immediately embarked on a campaign for his next office, which explains why he's never actually completed any term for any office to which he was elected.
Obama: the dumbest most inexperienced President ever!
Wild Walleye
01-20-10, 20:41
Unfortunately, Obama doesn't have a "governing mode" because he's never actually governed so much as a lemonade stand.
Obama only has a "campaign mode" as evidenced by the fact that all he's ever done is run for office. In fact, as soon as he was elected to any office, he immediately embarked on a campaign for his next office, which explains why he's never actually completed any term for any office to which he was elected.
Obama: the dumbest most inexperienced President ever!On the Obama plan Scott Brown will be qualified to be president sometime next year.
If Obamacare was a chica in Bs As she'd look like this http://www.altoserver.com.ar/altosite/default1.htm and cost US$1,000 per night. If you survive the strap-on session, you only get one shot on net (remember the clause to punish hospitals that readmit patients that had been discharged? And your taxes would go up.
I aint bailing on Obama. Small setback. We will learn from our mistake. Keep your moral majority, bible thumping, born again Christian right wing Republican Party. Lou Dobbs was looking very Presidential when interviewed.
Rock Harders
01-20-10, 22:58
Mongers-
Yes, Obama allowed this attempt at healthcare reform to become so worthless and convoluted that it serves no purpose. This bill will now be filibustered and will die (as it should, see my earlier post) However, the right-wing Jesus freak crowd should hold their tongue a little longer in writing off Obama's Presidency after only a year in office. I seem to remember a young, brash President, with a similarly low class upbringing and high class education as Obama, stumbling in his first year or two in office at the end of a recession and turning it around enough after a mid-term congressional ass-whipping wake up call to be re-elected by a wide margin. If that same President hadn't got caught with his pants down (literally) he would and may still be regarded as many as one of the finest Presidents since WW2. November 2012 is still a long ways away.
Suerte,
Rock Harders
Punter 127
01-20-10, 23:43
Mongers-
Yes, Obama allowed this attempt at healthcare reform to become so worthless and convoluted that it serves no purpose. This bill will now be filibustered and will die (as it should, see my earlier post) However, the right-wing Jesus freak crowd should hold their tongue a little longer in writing off Obama's Presidency after only a year in office. I seem to remember a young, brash President, with a similarly low class upbringing and high class education as Obama, stumbling in his first year or two in office at the end of a recession and turning it around enough after a mid-term congressional ass-whipping wake up call to be re-elected by a wide margin. If that same President hadn't got caught with his pants down (literally) he would and may still be regarded as many as one of the finest Presidents since WW2. November 2012 is still a long ways away.
Suerte,
Rock HardersPerhaps, but remember the former President you speak of didn ’t get reelected from the far left, he did it by moving to the center, and I think he is smarter than Obama.
Obama and the boys will either move to the center or they will be joining Jimmy Carter.
But I actually think Obama is too arrogant to move to the center, so I suspect he will crash and burn!
But as you say 2012 is a long way off and a lot can happen between now and then.
Member #4112
01-21-10, 00:52
Perhaps this just slipped past you Obama freaks, but the Dems in the Senate are now set to take up another bill to raise the debt ceiling another $1.9 Trillion, raising it above $14.3 Trillion to cover all the bailouts, handouts, down turn in tax revenues (even as they raise taxes) and expanded government spending on other "entitlement" programs and extensions of unemployment / Cobra benefits.
Great going guys you have even outspent your own projected costs of your programs by a factor of nearly 100%. Damn you guys are good – and you only have 10+% unemployment, a near stagnant economy, your Home Land Security guys are telling Congress – Yea TSA is gonna drop the ball again on something different so don't be surprised, and how about all that infrastructure spending that went out but never got built (you know bridges, roads and stuff like that)
Man what a bargain for a three ring circus!
I vote to reinstate Ricardo in the forum, you guys are having too much of a love-fest here. Reminds me of betters trying to cash in their tickets after the 1st quarter.
It's like a riveting soap opera. What drama! What will happen next?
Doppelganger- Thank you for your civil response. As you probably can guess, I just do not take it as a given that government involvement will be wasteful. To the extent that it is, efforts can and should be made to make it more efficient. But the alternative is a private sector that fails in expanding coverage and treating people fairly. This is an inherent difference between the two sides on this issue - skepticism of government efficiency vs. skepticism of private sector effectiveness. As far as the "deals", I wish they could have got it done without them. I won't say it justifies scrapping the bill. I'm going to be following what happens with this as the reform effort moves forward. On the fiscal side, I've said before there will be a major focus on jobs and deficit reduction initiatives this year; if they don't follow through I will change my tune but I believe they will.
Walleye- First off let me say I've long considered you to be one of the more helpful posters on the board when others have posted questions. I'm therefore surprised at the derogatory comments you have included in your responses to Schmoj and I.
Many of your "facts" are just opinion. I'm more inclined to believe the CBO assessment on coverage and costs before I believe yours. And whether the word 'crisis' or some other word is used, does not strike me as particularly relevant. Both sides agree on the need for health care reform.
Of course I know the House bill has a public option. I was referring to the fact it had been conceded. I know you were eager to portray me as a dummy. You misread my statement on anger as well.
Yes, I am a genius. And stupid and gullible. Thank you. LOL
The anger is real but not of the scale nor necessarily all directed the way Republicans would like to portray it. Obama is going to call Republican's bluff and burst this bubble of BS they have been inflating. Both sides need to be seen as working together, not just Dems. If Republicans continue to be seen as obstructionist, their strategy could backfire.
Member #4112
01-21-10, 12:51
Good Lord man your party just lost a seat it held for 47 years, a seat they thought "belonged" to the Democrat Party, in the bluest state in the union and you are still in denial?
Member #4112
01-21-10, 13:33
Sidney,
I doubt Senator Brown will have much impact on the situtation. As one of the Democratic senators said when asked about the bill to raise the debt ceiling - "We have already ordered and eaten the meal, now it is a question of paying the bill'. The money is for the most part gone and the nation as a whole must now pay for the party regardless of the hangover. The only alternative is to default - something which will not happen. I can only hope the spending stops here with Brown's election and the 2010 elections later this year.
I vote to reinstate Ricardo in the forum, you guys are having too much of a love-fest here. Reminds me of betters trying to cash in their tickets after the 1st quarter.Hi Black Shirt,
You just don't get it, do you?
"Ricardo" was a pseudonym for a Liberal Democrat drone sitting behind a computer screen who was given the task of going out onto the blogosphere to join as many forums, blogs and chat rooms as possible, with the specific intent of posting whatever talking points he was provided with.
In fact, it's doubtful that "Ricardo" was actually a single individual, but more likely a multi-user pseudonym that would be activated by whomever was on duty in the virtual office these drones shared.
Didn't you ever notice that "Ricardo" never actually responded to any questions posed to him, but merely continued to post daily liberal / dem talking points disguised as "reports".
Anyway, if you want to read what "Ricardo" would be posting in this forum were I to permit his spam, all you have to do is visit the daily kooks or the HuffingtonPost websites.
With the exception of Sidney, everyone else here is expected to post only their original opinions, which virtual "Ricardo" never had.
Thanks,
Jackson
Good Lord man your party just lost a seat it held for 47 years, a seat they thought "belonged" to the Democrat Party, in the bluest state in the union and you are still in denial?Yesterday, Obama said in an interview that Scott Brown was swept into office by the same "disenchantment with government" movement that got him elected to the presidency a year ago.
Talk about being in denial!
Thanks,
Jackson
Hi Black Shirt,
You just don't get it, do you?
"Ricardo" was a pseudonym for a Liberal Democrat drone sitting behind a computer screen who was given the task of going out onto the blogosphere to join as many forums, blogs and chat rooms as possible, with the specific intent of posting whatever talking points he was provided with.
In fact, it's doubtful that "Ricardo" was actually a single individual, but more likely a multi-user pseudonym that would be activated by whomever was on duty in the virtual office these drones shared.
Didn't you ever notice that "Ricardo" never actually responded to any questions posed to him, but merely continued to post daily liberal / dem talking points disguised as "reports".
Anyway, if you want to read what "Ricardo" would be posting in this forum were I to permit his spam, all you have to do is visit the daily kooks or the HuffingtonPost websites.
With the exception of Sidney, everyone else here is expected to post only their original opinions, which virtual "Ricardo" never had.
Thanks,
JacksonYour post knocked me down for almost a full count! Your theory has no credence whatsover. And I am not trying to demean you, but in another lifetime, you could have been Joe McCarthy. Before you get too carried away, the comparison is only in the blind evangelical zeal that he displayed.
It is very unfortunate that the health reform bill is a poor shadow of what it could have been. In this particular case, Obama did not display enough leadership plus american politics do not truly represent the people anymore. So, expect continued fiascos in the coming years. I did not agree with Bush when he went to Iraq, but I supported him once the decision was made. Obama could do with more support in the first term, but then, it's up to you.
Much of the post-election news coverage has cited multiple reasons people voted for Brown. And if you had to thread together a common denominator, it would not be healthcare. It would be discontent with government. I think Obama got it just about right. Republicans have attempted to frame the MA election as a referendum on healthcare, declaring Brown's 52% win means "The American People do not want this bill". That's an exaggeration and you guys know it. And even though it was not a referendum, Obama and Dems have already signalled they could change course. I call that reacting not denying.
BTW, Brown seems like a decent guy. Let's see how he does in Washington.
I was listening to the Fair and Balanced network this evening, and heard a segment on how Democrats are in "turmoil". There was an audioclip about 2-3 minutes long composed of individual clips of various Democrats speaking on current events. In the middle of this I hear a 10 second clip of some obvious kook calling conservatives vulgar names and claiming certain FOX commentators were involved in 9-11. This short clip did not sound like the others, and did not have any reference to current events. It sounded like it had been spliced in from an audio archive. When I heard it I thought "what the hell was THAT?". BTW this was on O'Reilly's "No Spin Zone".
So what was that? An attempt to make Dems sound kooky by splicing in a kooky clip? A form of psychological programming or association?
Would hate to be stuck in a foxhole with some of these spineless democratic Senators. Turning on my man Obama left and right: Bernenke confirmation. To use a phrase coined by a member "cocksuckers."
I was listening to the Fair and Balanced network this evening, and heard a segment on how Democrats are in "turmoil". There was an audioclip about 2-3 minutes long composed of individual clips of various Democrats speaking on current events. In the middle of this I hear a 10 second clip of some obvious kook calling conservatives vulgar names and claiming certain FOX commentators were involved in 9-11. This short clip did not sound like the others, and did not have any reference to current events. It sounded like it had been spliced in from an audio archive. When I heard it I thought "what the hell was THAT?". BTW this was on O'Reilly's "No Spin Zone".
So what was that? An attempt to make Dems sound kooky by splicing in a kooky clip? A form of psychological programming or association?Esten,
Your complaint is that the montage of sound bites was lacking "balance" in that it was inaccurately slanted to make the Leftist / Liberal / Democrats look bad.
In fact, your complaint in itself represents the same type of bias that you are complaining about.
I saw the segment. The montage was a setup for the immediately subsequent interviews Bill O'Reilly did with two avowed liberals, Dr. Marc Lamont Hill and another prominent Dem who's name I do not recall at this time. The interviews were entirely dedicated to allowing said avowed liberals to espouse their reaction to the montage. In fact, there were no Conservative / Republicans participating in the discussion.
The subsequent interviews provided the balance that you are claiming was not provided.
Next time, please relay the full and balanced story yourself.
Thanks,
Jackson
Most americans have been raised (with the exception of the third, fourth and fifth generation welfare recipients) to have big dreams, and big plans and big ideas. With hard work, a lot of luck and an understanding of the concept of delayed gratification accumulating wealth has been an attainable goal.
I would hate to be the person trying to accumulate wealth under Obama's vision of America. After the tax burden passes 50% , 60% , 70% or 80% surviving becomes questionable and accumulating wealth an impossibility.
Of course the sixth generation welfare recipients are oblivious to the ever increasing tax burden. Paying taxes is a concept they have never had to deal with.
Maragaret Thatcher said it best with her observation that the problem with liberals is that sooner or later they run out of other peoples money to spend.
P.S. I forgot. Accumulating wealth is a selfish concept. Much better that we work 80 hours a week to provide welfare checks for those who choose not to work.
Stan Da Man
01-22-10, 21:13
Much of the post-election news coverage has cited multiple reasons people voted for Brown. And if you had to thread together a common denominator, it would not be healthcare. It would be discontent with government. I think Obama got it just about right. Republicans have attempted to frame the MA election as a referendum on healthcare, declaring Brown's 52% win means "The American People do not want this bill". That's an exaggeration and you guys know it. And even though it was not a referendum, Obama and Dems have already signalled they could change course. I call that reacting not denying.With all due respect, Esten, if you don't think this was a referendum on health care, it's only wishful thinking on your part. Democrats in the House and Senate already have concluded that, in fact, it was. That's why they're trying to reunite around a stripped down health care bill where they can at least engage in a charade that they tried to get bipartisan support -- something they didn't do with the last version.
In the immediate aftermath of Massachusetts, there was talk of having the House pass the Senate version unamended, and then having the Senate just give them back some of what they hoped for via amendments that would only require majority (51-vote) support. They have since abandoned that discussion. Why? Because too many House Democrats concluded that it would be political suicide, and they now know that they are quite far down the plank already. If they truly believed that this wasn't about health care, they would pursue that tack. As matters stand, enough House Democrats have come out and publicly stated that they understand it was about health care, so any effort to pass an unamended Senate bill is a non-starter for them.
I said this six months ago on this board: If they don't pass health care by Thanksgiving, it's dead in the water. They got close, but with elections around the corner, they simply can't pass something that: (a) the majority of Americans don't want; and (b) will cause high numbers of opponents to go to the polls to oust them from office. That's what all this is about now: Massachusetts demonstrated that health care will greatly increase voter turnout of its opponents, particularly among independents. When something like this happens in Massachusetts, every Democrat who expected to have even a mildly difficult re-election became nervous.
The trick now will be for Obama to pivot away from health care (without looking like he's abandoning it or licking his wounds) and focus on other things, while convincing enough people that he can genuinely bring change in the post-partisan way he promised. That last bit will be tough, and it's his own fault. He's shown Republicans that they can succeed simply by resolutely standing against his left-leaning agenda, especially when the Administration's response was "*&!*% them, we'll do it without them." He's going to have to modify that approach to have any hope of succeeding, and he's going to need some small victories to convince Republicans that their strategy will not always pay off. It can be done. His "tough" talk on banks is a good first step, but it's going to take some time.
Republicans predicted that health care would be his Waterloo. Obama did more than anyone else to prove them right. When all's said and done, it will be acknowledged that Waterloo was in Massachusetts.
Member #4112
01-22-10, 22:35
Obama is already making the pivot to the economy and jobs but has already shot himself in the foot with investors with his "tough talk" on the banking and investment industry.
Check the market lately? Worst week since Nov. '08, market dropped 400 points, the start of the reaction to Obama's anti-business "tough talk" and the uncertainty in the Federal Reserve.
What happens when investors and corporations get nervous, they pull back, ie banks don't make loans, companies don't buy capital equipment or invest in new technology, the job market continues to shrink since no one is hiring.
Obama is not leading he is jumping from one issue to another trying to please everyone and pleasing no one. He just does not have a "vision" he only has campaign slogans which is short term and produces nothing.
I agree some of the Democrats are getting the picture and many will just bail out rather than face being turned out by the voters.
Employment is not going to get better before the midterm elections regardless of what the Democrats do now, the crushing debt burden is coming into play (see earlier post on Dems raising the debt ceiling another $1.9 Trillion) and now the market is tanking again on Obama's "tough talk" to those bad old business people. Can anyone say Titanic come November?
Most americans have been raised (with the exception of the third, fourth and fifth generation welfare recipients) to have big dreams, and big plans and big ideas. With hard work, a lot of luck and an understanding of the concept of delayed gratification accumulating wealth has been an attainable goal.
I would hate to be the person trying to accumulate wealth under Obama's vision of America. After the tax burden passes 50% , 60% , 70% or 80% surviving becomes questionable and accumulating wealth an impossibility.
Of course the sixth generation welfare recipients are oblivious to the ever increasing tax burden. Paying taxes is a concept they have never had to deal with.
Maragaret Thatcher said it best with her observation that the problem with liberals is that sooner or later they run out of other peoples money to spend.
P. S. I forgot. Accumulating wealth is a selfish concept. Much better that we work 80 hours a week to provide welfare checks for those who choose not to work.I whole heartedly agree with your narrative and agree we are in over our heads with debt. However, blaming Obama for the 10 - 15 trillion dollar deficit is a stretch for this Gomer. The numbers are mind boggling. Since Obama has taken office, about two trillion has been added to the sickening debt. The primary culprit for Obama's two trillion is the country is in a deep rescession. Revenue loses are the primary culprit for the debt incurred during his time in office. Furthermore, this recession was in the works long before Obama took office. This does not let him off the hook, but the deficit spending for this physical year was in the pipe before he was even elected. Obama has not even submitted his first budget proposal yet.
For reigning in deficit spending: today. The bank bailout money ($700,000,000,000) was approved by the prior idiot's Congress (Republican) and for the most part shall be paid back, I hope. And the stimulus package money, which is Obama's deal ($800,000,000,000) is largely un-spent. Think there is about five hundred billion remaining. Whatever. I will give you the cash for clunkers BS gimmick as a waste, and some of the other BS. However, it is chump change in the scheme of things when considering the national debt. The deficit, real time, now, today, this very moment, is not the present administration's excesses. Please point the finger where it belongs: Republicans.
Being labeled a Liberal with connotations of irresponsibility pisses me off. How in the hell can I / anyone vote, support a bunch of irresponsible fucks that got us in the fix we are in today. Lying, cheating Republican bastards.
Thanks
Jackson- I provided an accurate description of the segment I listened to. After the segment ended I changed the channel.
Your attempt to re-frame my post glosses over the specific point I had an issue with. This was the deliberate inclusion of a ridiculous kooked-out clip in the middle of otherwise fairly standard fare.
This would be comparable to a series of clips of Republicans speaking on current events, and then including in the middle a short clip with a Republican saying "Obama is the devil, and Democrats were responsible for 9-11".
Such a practice is highly questionable, regardless of what follows in the program to provide "balance".
Surely you don't defend such practices. I would not if I saw them on other networks.
Member #4112
01-23-10, 03:25
Danman, check the facts - while the initial legislation was passed under Bush the majority party in Congress was the Democrats not the Republicans, they lost that durning the midterm elections two years before.
Also the Obama "Stimulus Package" funds are being spent and at an ever increasing pace, within six months or less most of that $800 Billion will be gone - don't you remember all the news reports about the Republicians bitching about the Democrats using the "Stimulus Funds" as a slush fund for pork? Now the Democrats are talking about another "Stimulus" package for "job creation" after the roaring success of "cash for clunkers" you really think that will fly. What about all that infastructure repair - the money is gone but where is the work?
How many years did it take to run up the deficit? - 8 years and Obama has added over $2 Trillion in less than one year. Do the math and the associated projections on spending at this rate.
Looks like the democrats might be able to get the health care bill passed. The house can pass the Senate bill, so it just goes to the president, no way to filibuster. Then they can add a few change to the health care bill and add it to a budget bill, which cannot be filibuster, so all they need is 51 votes.
This will satisfy the house Demarcates so they will pass the senate bill unchanged. The Senate bill will not go back to the senate, but right to Obamas desk.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/23/us/politics/AP-US-Health-Care-Overhaul.html
Doppelganger,
If you want to talk about the market, don't forget how well it recovered last year.
Here are some facts. Bush inherited a record budget surplus, and turned it into a huge deficit after cutting taxes and not properly funding his initiatives. When Obama took office in January 2009 the CBO was projecting a deficit of $1.2 trillion for the year.
The $787B Recovery Act is considered by economists to have been a worthy step to address this recession. The website recovery.gov was set up to provide transparency on the spending. Roughly a third spent or in process, a third in tax cuts, and a third unspent to date. I've seen and benefited from the infrastructure (highway) improvements myself. And Cash for Clunkers was successful in providing incentives to stimulate a key industry at a critical time, and get fuel-inefficient vehicles off the road.
I agree with Damman. The economic downturn and current deficit is largely (not solely) a Republican gift to the country. Obama and the administration have taken responsible steps, proportional to the severity of the downturn, to stabilize things.
Unfortunately the right is only interested in scoring political points and getting in the way of progress on this issue.
Member #4112
01-24-10, 21:53
Yes, Bush took a surplus and turned it into a deficit after 8 years of war, I assume you recall that little dust up on 9/11? The fault I have with Bush was not the war but funding it with debt and not paying as we went.
Depending on the economists you talk to the bailout either worked or failed to have a significate effect but only resulted in pork barrel spending in Democratic districts. So it is easy to shop for an economists with your point of view, just as it is for me.
I am not sure how I am expected to be grateful for a market which fell from nearly 15,000 to 6,500 then hobbled back up to 10,600 to begin dropping like a rock again this last week.
Both the Democrats and Republicans are at fault but I see the Democrats getting a big chuck of it due to the housing debacle "lets make housing affordable" bullshit which led to this mess. The Republicans deserve almost as much blame for spending and acting like Democrats after they came to power. Had they acted in concert with their avowed principals of smaller government, lower taxes and less spending we would not be in the mess we are no with the Democrats in control and Obama in constant campaign mode.
We need a leader, which Obama is not, lower taxes, less government programs and meddling in business. The one thing that always floors me is if something goes wrong politicians think we need a new law. What we need is to simplify and reduce the number of laws and ENFORCE them. The Fed and SEC could have stopped this in its tracts years ago by enforcing EXISTING law.
Today a huge commercial real estate development in New York City went into default. They bought an apartment complex for 5.4 billion dollars a few years ago and today it is valued at 1.8 billion. They gave it back to the lenders who will have to eat the loss.
This is the start of the second shoe everyone has been worried about. The wave of commercial real estate defaults coming down the pike.
I am getting on the bus and moving to that cabin in the mountains.
Wild Walleye
01-25-10, 13:03
The one thing that always floors me is if something goes wrong politicians think we need a new law. What we need is to simplify and reduce the number of laws and ENFORCE them. The Fed and SEC could have stopped this in its tracts years ago by enforcing EXISTING law.We have had 200+ years of law making. There are plenty of laws and very few new developments that require special law making. The Constitution is very clear on all men being created equal and other blanket protections. There is no need for most of the legislation that has been enacted over the past 20 years. Governmental interference was certainly the largest force in the economic calamity of 2009/2010 and continued governmental meddling threatens the economy's ability to pull us out of this funk. Government policies driven by the executive branch deepened and exacerbated the Great Depression. Revisionist history incorrectly gives credit for ending the GD to people who made it worse.
Review my aged posts and you will find that I am a proponent of going back to the model that the Founders envisioned of a part-time, citizen legislature. In that model the members of congress are citizens that work for a living in the private sector and spend part-time in Washington addressing pressing legislative issues (not diverting billions of confiscated citizens' wealth to their districts)
Stan Da Man
01-26-10, 00:44
Governmental interference was certainly the largest force in the economic calamity of 2009/2010 and continued governmental meddling threatens the economy's ability to pull us out of this funk.No doubt. And, while I'm no real fan of George W. Bush and the Republican majority (then minority) in the Senate while he was in office, the blame for the housing crisis can't be laid at his feet. The biggest culprit in this debacle were legislators who, for years, have created false housing incentives to curry favor with their own constituents. Starting with the the G. I. Bill, the creation of HUD, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and many, many more programs, the government did more to create this mess than anyone else. So what do they do now? Hold hearings on why the "free market" failed. Virtually no one in the predominantly left-of-center media are doing much to scrutinize government's role.
Bush II had a ton of flaws. Ignoring the risks caused by Fannie and Freddie wasn't one of them, however. The article below is from the NY Times in 2003. And, while the proposal involved the creation of a new federal agency, there was little else Bush could do. Fannie and Freddie had been legislatively created and propped up long before he came on the scene. It wouldn't have been possible to eliminate these two quasi-entities overnight, but it was possible to make them more responsible. Guess who stopped him in his tracks?
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON.
September 11, 2003
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.
The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.
"There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises," Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.
Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.
The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.
The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.
After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration's proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.
"The current regulator does not have the tools, or the mandate, to adequately regulate these enterprises," Mr. Oxley said at the hearing. "We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight," the independent agency that now regulates the companies.
"These irregularities, which have been going on for several years, should have been detected earlier by the regulator," he added.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was created by Congress in 1992 after the bailout of the savings and loan industry and concerns about regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.
At the time, the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve. Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. This year, however, the chances of passing legislation to tighten the oversight are better than in the past.
Reflecting the changing political climate, both Fannie Mae and its leading rivals applauded the administration's package. The support from Fannie Mae came after a round of discussions between it and the administration and assurances from the Treasury that it would not seek to change the company's mission.
After those assurances, Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chief executive, endorsed the shift of regulatory oversight to the Treasury Department, as well as other elements of the plan.
"We welcome the administration's approach outlined today," Mr. Raines said. The company opposes some smaller elements of the package, like one that eliminates the authority of the president to appoint 5 of the company's 18 board members.
Company executives said that the company preferred having the president select some directors. The company is also likely to lobby against the efforts that give regulators too much authority to approve its products.
Freddie Mac, whose accounting is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a United States attorney in Virginia, issued a statement calling the administration plan a "responsible proposal."
The stocks of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fell while the prices of their bonds generally rose. Shares of Freddie Mac fell $2.04, or 3.7 percent, to $53.40, while Fannie Mae was down $1.62, or 2.4 percent, to $66.74. The price of a Fannie Mae bond due in March 2013 rose to 97.337 from 96.525. Its yield fell to 4.726 percent from 4.835 percent on Tuesday.
Fannie Mae, which was previously known as the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie Mac, which was the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, have been criticized by rivals for exerting too much influence over their regulators.
"The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied," said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana Republican who has proposed legislation similar to the administration proposal and who leads a subcommittee that oversees the companies. "Being underfunded does not explain how a glowing report of Freddie's operations was released only hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not world-class regulatory work."
Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.
"These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.
"I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing," Mr. Watt said."
This is hilarious. Remember Ricardo? How Jackson says that he is probably a "generic" person who used to post Democratic talking points and probably was one of many who were trying to show "grass roots" support for Obama and his administration?
Do a search for Ellie Light on Google and see what comes up.
It appears that someone has been sending the same talking points to newspaper editorial sections and blogs. The text is almost identical and defends Obama and his policies. I read somewhere that this letter has shown up in 60+ (at last count) newspapers around the country, claiming to live in the area where the paper publishes.
A number of people are trying to track "her" web presence and discover where she's been posting from by "her" posts on blogs and such. I saw one such blog where they were linking the posts back to people who are connected loosely with Demorcats and Obama's administration. Personally, I think some of what I saw there was a bit tenuous.
I would think that if the Obama administration actually looked to do this to help tehmselves, they would have done it differently - certainly changed the name of the poster, the statements made, etc.
What I do find interesting is a comment I saw one person make related to this - what does it say about newspaper media (at least) that this letter has been published in so many newspaper's editorial sections, with all the other submissions that are presented? 60+ news papers is a LOT of newspapers around the country.
Has anyone noticed that www.recovery.gov hasn't been updated since Octoboer 30, 2009? At least as far as the home page goes, where they are supposed to be summarizing the money that has been spent and the supposed effect it's having.
This is hilarious. Remember Ricardo? How Jackson says that he is probably a "generic" person who used to post Democratic talking points and probably was one of many who were trying to show "grass roots" support for Obama and his administration?
Do a search for Ellie Light on Google and see what comes up.
It appears that someone has been sending the same talking points to newspaper editorial sections and blogs. The text is almost identical and defends Obama and his policies. I read somewhere that this letter has shown up in 60+ (at last count) newspapers around the country, claiming to live in the area where the paper publishes.
A number of people are trying to track "her" web presence and discover where she's been posting from by "her" posts on blogs and such. I saw one such blog where they were linking the posts back to people who are connected loosely with Demorcats and Obama's administration. Personally, I think some of what I saw there was a bit tenuous.
I would think that if the Obama administration actually looked to do this to help tehmselves, they would have done it differently - certainly changed the name of the poster, the statements made, etc.
What I do find interesting is a comment I saw one person make related to this - what does it say about newspaper media (at least) that this letter has been published in so many newspaper's editorial sections, with all the other submissions that are presented? 60+ news papers is a LOT of newspapers around the country.Take those blinders off! What the Democrats do, the Republicans are doing. I always thought Ricardo address directly to the issues or the post at hand. Only the "shadow cabinet" in BA could not stomach it. Obama has shown poor leadership so far, but the Nobel Peace Prize was an indicator that the rest of the world is desperate for a different American president and foreign policy.
Obama has shown poor leadership so far, but the Nobel Peace Prize was an indicator that the rest of the world is desperate for a different American president and foreign policy.Maybe so, but it also shows how much we shouldn't necessarily give a rat's ass what the rest of the world thinks! According to the prize's own guidelines, Obama wasn't even eligible for the gift. That's already been discussed. Obama should never have accepted that prize because he did not earn it.
Yes, everyone knows that the committee giving Obama the prize was making a statement on the few words that Obama said toward "peace" during his campaign. But in my view, he's been rather ineffective and hasn't really done much. How can anyone really say he's lived up to a Nobel Prize?
Sorry, it was a blatant use of a peace prize to influence events rather than recognize events and those who reacted to them and actually did something of use. I personally think that they can kiss my ass as far as telling us that they approve of our choice of presidents in such a manner. A simple speech by those who thought that way would have been fine.
Take those blinders off! What the Democrats do, the Republicans are doing. I always thought Ricardo address directly to the issues or the post at hand. Only the "shadow cabinet" in BA could not stomach it.The Republicans AND the Democrats have people who post the party line, undoubtedly. Of course there are lists of party talking points. But there has been no Republican proponent that has gone around to newspapers and blogs with the same wording, from the same person, defaming the President (opposite of what this person is doing). At the very least it just looks juvenile.
I agree with you related to Ricardo - I don't think he was the puppet that Jackson sees him as. However, I do believe that he was somehow affiliated with organizations whose aims are to do what I described above. Not a rote poster, but an arguer, of party points. Nothing more. He never posted on other things except jokes.
He obviously wasn't a monger and never showed an interest in getting together with any of us, which I took to mean he either wasn't interested and / or he didn't even live or visit BA. After all, he could have lived here and not been interested in mongering, but the only real draw for this website for such a person should be because he makes some friends among us, as I have (those who know me know I'm not a monger, although I am very sympathetic to the sport)
Which means he was only on the forum to defend the Democratic Party and Obama on a website for mongers and posters about other aspect of life in Argentina. It was stirring up more angst than normal in the politics forum and that was overpowering the actual purpose of the website - mongering and information about living / staying in Argentina. I think Jackson had every right to kick him out and indeed did the right thing.
Maybe so, but it also shows how much we shouldn't necessarily give a rat's ass what the rest of the world thinks! According to the prize's own guidelines, Obama wasn't even eligible for the gift. That's already been discussed. Obama should never have accepted that prize because he did not earn it.
Yes, everyone knows that the committee giving Obama the prize was making a statement on the few words that Obama said toward "peace" during his campaign. But in my view, he's been rather ineffective and hasn't really done much. How can anyone really say he's lived up to a Nobel Prize?
Sorry, it was a blatant use of a peace prize to influence events rather than recognize events and those who reacted to them and actually did something of use. I personally think that they can kiss my ass as far as telling us that they approve of our choice of presidents in such a manner. A simple speech by those who thought that way would have been fine.I have been travelling a great deal, the rest of the world is truly excited by Obama and what it could represent. The Nobel Prize is ridiculous, but can't you understand why the masses are so stimulated when you are not? Time, they achanging (Bob Dylan) don't get caught in a time warp.
Wild Walleye
01-26-10, 14:50
I have been travelling a great deal, the rest of the world is truly excited by Obama and what it could represent. The Nobel Prize is ridiculous, but can't you understand why the masses are so stimulated when you are not? Time, they achanging (Bob Dylan) don't get caught in a time warp.As soon as they immigrate legally to the US, obtain citizenship and the right to vote, I'll give a sh*t about what they think about the US.
There are obvious reasons that foreigners aren't supposed to vote in our elections (of course there are exceptions for foreigners and the dead in Chicago) US elections are supposed to be individual expressions of self interests, which when taken in the aggregate (directly and via the electoral college) should indicate the direction the nation or particular portions of the nation want to go.
Since much of the nation cedes its individual self interests when it comes time to vote (think unions) this doesn't always work out perfectly. I can think of a recent example of this. These groups are aided by the main stream press.
As for Team Obama's spam campaign, it shouldn't surprise anyone that none of the 60+ media outlets that ran the piece bothered to verify anything about it. "If it is pro-Obama, it's good enough to print, air or carve in stone" has been the mantra of the main stream press since he started his campaign. If a high school teacher can use the internet to find out if a student has plagiarized a paper, an editorial staff can use that same internet to check any piece to see if it has run elsewhere or if the work belongs to someone else. To do anything less when considering running what could be pro-regime propaganda is tantamount to actively participating in the propaganda effort.
Member #4112
01-26-10, 18:01
Guys,
Let's get a grip here. Every nation's foreign policy is an exercise in self interest, regardless of what their citizens believe about other countries leaders (in this case Obama).
After Obama's world apology tour resulted in a net gain of nada, we have the Muslim apology tour which netted us another attempted airline bombing and the same old "Death to the Great Satan". Got a lot of traction on that one, didn't he?
For all you flower children, hippies in a time warp, and peaceniks, the world does not work that way. America's foreign policy should be the same as every other nations: a policy of self interest. It is our government's duty to take care of its citizens, not another countries. We act in concert with others for our own benefit. That is just how it is.
If you don't believe the above, then prove it by giving up all your worldly possessions to the poor, joining the Peace Corps, go to some under developed country and help the natives.
Guys let's get a grip here. Every nation's foreign policy is an exercise in self interest, regardless of what their citizens believe about other countries leaders (in this case Obama)
After Obama's world apology tour resulted in a net gain of nada, we have the Muslim apology tour which netted us another attempted airline bombing and the same old "Death to the Great Satan", got a lot of traction on that one didn't he?
For all you flower children, hippies in a time warp, and peaceniks, the world does not work that way. America's foreign policy should be the same as every other nations, a policy of self interest. It is our governments duty to take care of its citizens not another countries. We act in concert with others for our own benefit. That is just how it is.
If you don't believe the above then prove it by giving up all your worldly possessions to the poor, joining the Peace Corps, go to some under developed country and help the natives.Now, I have never smoke pot in my life, and quoting Bob Dylan does not make me a flower child. I am not naive enough not to know that countries act in their self interest, Iraq was a perfect example, it was all about oil. Ah, I had a difficult time convincing all those people driving SUVs who were cursing him. So, maybe, Bush was a Boy Scout once upon a time and you bought cookies from him. And if you still think nothing has changed since the Berlin War came down, you just qualify to work for the State Dept. By the way, I am in the process of donating all my worldly possessions to the poor (but only to well-developed women) in undeveloped countries. And thank you, I am my own Peace Corp and you are welcome to join me.
I guess what we're trying to say, Black Shirt, is that of all the reasons to think positive about Obama, saying that the rest of the world is excited about what Obama can do (for them! Is one of the emptiest, shallowest, and for American interests, farthest reasons to like Obama.
The rest of the world would have been happy with anyone who didn't represent Bush's ideals (and I've said before that neither did I like Bush and what he did with Iraq) The fact that the rest of the world at one point endorsed Obama doesn't put any meat in the thought that Obama might actually have something to contribute. Their only interest, personal / country interest, was that the US would not be as strong internationally with Obama in the driver's seat.
For us, those who are citizens of a country that was once proud of being made up of individuals who cared about being personally responsible for themselves and making conditions right for the pursuit (not the guarantee) of happiness, we've gone down the wrong road. We seem now to be a bunch of whiny pussies who want the government, Big Papa, not even Big Brother, to put His big strong arms around us and take care of us.
I guess what we're trying to say, Black Shirt, is that of all the reasons to think positive about Obama, saying that the rest of the world is excited about what Obama can do (for them! Is one of the emptiest, shallowest, and for American interests, farthest reasons to like Obama.
The rest of the world would have been happy with anyone who didn't represent Bush's ideals (and I've said before that neither did I like Bush and what he did with Iraq) The fact that the rest of the world at one point endorsed Obama doesn't put any meat in the thought that Obama might actually have something to contribute. Their only interest, personal / country interest, was that the US would not be as strong internationally with Obama in the driver's seat.
For us, those who are citizens of a country that was once proud of being made up of individuals who cared about being personally responsible for themselves and making conditions right for the pursuit (not the guarantee) of happiness, we've gone down the wrong road. We seem now to be a bunch of whiny pussies who want the government, Big Papa, not even Big Brother, to put His big strong arms around us and take care of us.Like you, I am a believer of individual responsibility, old fashioned work ethics and initiative. The wrong road can be explained this way, " wealth & life becoming too easy". In Chinese folklore, a fortune can be lost within 3 generations. Before the days of trust funds, insurance, etc. The lazy, well-fed and foolish 3rd generation could be counted to squander the fortune that their grandparents made, and their parents protected.
Yes, Obama is still a question mark. Right now, the opposition would love to see him fail, but what would that accomplish? Another 4 years down the drain.
Here's how the world really works:
- We shouldn't care (and I certainly don't care) how the rest of the world "feels" about the USA, because their "feelings" are irrelevant to us.
- The rest of the world doesn't care what we "feel" about them, because our "feelings" are irrelevant to them.
- No country ever cares how any other country "feels" about them, because to them the other country's "feelings" are irrelevant.
In summation:
- Every country in the world makes every decision about their country based on their own self-interests.
- No country ever makes any decision based on their "feelings" about any other country.
Get it?
Obama doesn't, but then he's...
Obama: the dumbest most inept President ever!
Thanks,
Jackson
I am a believer of individual responsibility, old fashioned work ethics and initiative.Liberals always say that, it's just that they never actually mean it when it comes to patronizing their constituency groups.
Here's how the world really works:
- We shouldn't care (and I certainly don't care) how the rest of the world "feels" about the USA, because their "feelings" are irrelevant to us.
- The rest of the world doesn't care what we "feel" about them, because our "feelings" are irrelevant to them.
- No country ever cares how any other country "feels" about them, because to them the other country's "feelings" are irrelevant.
In summation:
- Every country in the world makes every decision about their country based on their own self-interests.
- No country ever makes any decision based on their "feelings" about any other country.
Get it?
Obama doesn't, but then he's.
Obama: the dumbest most inexperienced President ever!
Thanks,
JacksonIt is a given that self interest is the basic fundamental ruling each country's foreign policy. But the world is a very diverse place, and different cultures demand different approaches. Acting like armed missionaries with a divine mission everywhere, we will not only get our asses spank, but it will drain our resources.
Without getting into a bunch of detailed arguments, I'll just say it makes a lot of sense for a new US president to be setting a tone of peaceful cooperation and collaboration on the world front.
Dear Sid- Will you be watching Obama's speech tomorrow?
I am looking forward to your detailed and impartial analysis.
You know, as far as Obama representing the US internationally, I think this says an awful lot:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/11/obama-emperor-akihito-japan.html
The President of the United States, elected to serve and protect the Constitution (the only power any citizen of the United States should ultimately be under fealty to) leader of a country who threw off the shackles of King George and chose to be beholden to no monarchy, submitted to the Japanese Emperor.
Look at that bow. It's idiotic. He bows so low the elderly gentleman Japanese Emperor Akihito probably couldn't have matched it if he wanted to! Obama didn't even bow to the point where he could have still looked into the emperor's eyes, as two opponents would do in tae kwon do, for example, when sparring. I'm not suggesting they should be sparring, but in the world of martial arts, he submitted completely and left himself open to attack. As I'm sure everyone is aware, Japan has quite a martial tradition. To me this seems a disgrace.
Look down farther in the article where they show how other world leaders greet the emperor.
I don't like Bush's approach to getting us into Iraq. I think it was wrong. But at least he wasn't a pussy and I didn't feel like he was inviting dangerous elements to feel more comfortable in attacking us. Yes, definitely I believe he could have done it with a lighter footprint.
But let me just say that I think Obama is a pussy foreign policy-wise and I don't think it bodes well for the United States.
He needs to take the middle ground with foreign policy as well, not giving in, not submitting, but acknowledging firmly that we need a change and moving forward boldly in something.
I sure don't see any of that. I see a lot more bowing.
Member #4112
01-27-10, 14:00
George Washington said it in his departing address to the people and it was repeated by Ronald Reagan in his departure speach, Big Government is the enemy of freedom, for the larger the governmet becomes the smaller each individuals freedom becomes.
Obama is the sultan of Big Government.
Member #4112
01-27-10, 15:01
If you want to "Freeze" spending then you have to get Congress to bring down "entitlement" spending which accounts for the largest part of the budget. Also stop any additional spending of "bailout" or "stimulus" funds.
Obama's "Freeze" is smoke and mirrors, at total of $250 billion over 10 years isn't a drop in the bucket as far as what is needed!
You can be sure of 100% bullshit, health care idiocy, budget saving tokenism, minimal green jobs crap, and more maniacal spending! And his mentally deprived and blind parishioners will applaud with mucho gusto!
Objective SidObjective, self-proclaimed as usual. At this moment, American Idol could use you.
Well, the speech is over, the opposition rigid and stoneface. My thoughts were that had it been James Earl Jones delivering the speech rather than the youthful Obama, the whole chamber would have been one chanting evangelical gathering with the Republicans rushing to kiss his feet.
Wild Walleye
01-28-10, 13:48
In the middle of the road, this was a spectacular speech in the same way that Sienfeld was a show of substance.
This episode was entitled "The absurdity of hope. "
Obama telling us that we need more clean nuke plants, we'll have to make hard decisions about off shore drilling and we need to be fiscally responsible was high comedy. Does he think anyone believes him?
"We're gonna save $250B." Interesting concept. But, if we passed your healthcare plan, we'd spend another $1T, so the net outflow of taxpayer money is still $750B. Makes me wonder if he learned 'new math' at those fancy schools.
Then he launches into healthcare and repeats the same lies he's been throwing around for months (it is budget neutral, fixes medicaid, brings down premiums, covers all Americans) He has the balls to say that we should go back and pass the legislation that is before the Congress. Err. What? You mean the one that has cost the Dems NJ and VA gubernatorial elections and "Teddy Kennedy's seat" in the Senate? [Side note, David Rodham Gergen might have been correct when he called it "Teddy Kennedy's Seat" I think I saw a receipt for it at the Kennedy museum, seems that Big Joe bought it back when he was a bootlegger during prohibition.] 2012 is a long ways away but logic like this is going to help him really become JC II (no, not Jesus, I mean Jimmy Carter)
Obama was trying to pull a Clinton. That is to say he was trying to take the high ground (strategic not moral) from the Republicans on energy, the economy, etc. While trying to slide his agenda underneath it and throwing a few organic, gluten-free bones to the cook left (repeal 'don't ask don't tell' -- yeah, I've been hearing the masses call for that.)
He followed this with a good five minutes of blaming Bush for all of his problems.
The cherry on top was 'transparency." I can't believe he had the bad sense to touch on "transparency" anywhere in this speech. Politically speaking, I'd have left that for another day (I. E. Never) He is so isolated in his 'cone of brilliance' (copyright wildwallye 2010) that he doesn't even realize that his form of 'transparency' (Reid, Pelosi and Rahm Emanuel making executive decisions (and payoffs) that would effect every American, with no oversight, in a smoke-filled, union-bought room) was perhaps one of the most crystallizing elements of his colossal and spectacular healthcare reform failure (which was to our mutual benefit)
He came off as arrogant and aloof (a comment from a democrat friend last night) and made sure that he was "perfectly clear" that he is a snake oil salesman. I don't think too many viewers missed that.
In my opinion, he failed miserably. Which (again in my opinion) is good for the country.
Wild Walleye
01-28-10, 19:06
I am sure that my friends and admirers on the left will chalk my following comments up to a knee-jerk reaction due to my rabid bigotry, homophobia, misogyny and host of other fatal flaws. However, as a student of many things, executive management success and failure among them, I see many things about Obama that lead me to believe that he is predisposed to be a dreadful chief executive (whether POTUS or CEO of an evil company in the private sector)
I heard 'someone' make an excellent point today: no matter the subject nor the audience (excluding his teleprompter presentation to third graders) Obama is the least experienced person in the room. He doesn't have actual first hand knowledge or expertise in anything, other than community agitating. He may look the part and sound 'presidential' (just add re-verb) but the assumed knowledge and experience bestowed upon him by an adoring media is absolutely unfounded. Pick a subject: economics, international relations, national defense, business, and US government. He has no experience (other than OTJ training he's got over the last year at our great, mutual expense) in any of these areas and it shows.
I have worked with many senior executives at large corporations, over the years. Every so often, I come across one that leaves me scratching my head and wondering "how the f*ck did this knucklehead get this gig?" The typical profile of guys within this group is: white, 40-something, well groomed, looks 'good' in a suit (with standard issue Hermes tie) jocular, college ring (in these cases, I think this is an attempt to verify that the wearer actually attended college) and modest intelligence (able to discern the need for an umbrella when his head gets wet walking outside, etc) These guys aren't stupid but woefully inadequate for their jobs. They have themselves up on a pedestal and probably spend a good part of the day staring out the window thinking about how important they are. But, when it comes down to the business at hand, they are completely incapable. A fact that becomes embarrassingly obvious when subordinates start doing the things that the boss should be doing and when the boss looks to the subordinate for approval on an idea or opinion.
Sooner or later, their shortcomings become too glaring for their employers to overlook any more. Usually, these guys get moved around within the company to avoid to getting sued for firing an oldster and to prevent them from putting the firm in harms way. Some bounce from company to company (they must be good at interviewing and look the part because they keep getting hired).
I have not undertaken a study of how these guys get to these positions (married boss's daughter, screwed boss's wife, fraternity brother, social promotion, whatever) but they are everywhere. While, I am certain that there are plenty of them throughout Washington (and on both sides of the aisle) I never really contemplated the possibility of one of these guys holding the office of the POTUS, but here we are.
My lefty brethren, I respect personal opinions that differ from mine and your right to voice them. I have lots of liberal friends (or at least lots of friends who happen to be more liberal than me -- joking) and have greatly enjoyed humanities throughout my life (90% of which are taught or produced by liberals) That said, let me be clear (can you hear the ringing re-verb in my voice?), Obama is one of these guys (albeit with a dangerous twist, his agenda and his hatred of what America stands for and what makes America exceptional) and his boss (the 65% of the electorate that is not hopelessly stuck in the extreme left, lunatic fringe) has figured it out. We can't fire him for a few more years, but we can try to ensure that he does no more damage to the country.
I am sure that my friends and admirers on the left will chalk my following comments up to a knee-jerk reaction due to my rabid bigotry, homophobia, misogyny and host of other fatal flaws. However, as a student of many things, executive management success and failure among them, I see many things about Obama that lead me to believe that he is predisposed to be a dreadful chief executive (whether POTUS or CEO of an evil company in the private sector)
I heard 'someone' make an excellent point today: no matter the subject nor the audience (excluding his teleprompter presentation to third graders) Obama is the least experienced person in the room. He doesn't have actual first hand knowledge or expertise in anything, other than community agitating. He may look the part and sound 'presidential' (just add re-verb) but the assumed knowledge and experience bestowed upon him by an adoring media is absolutely unfounded. Pick a subject: economics, international relations, national defense, business, and US government. He has no experience (other than OTJ training he's got over the last year at our great, mutual expense) in any of these areas and it shows.
I have worked with many senior executives at large corporations, over the years. Every so often, I come across one that leaves me scratching my head and wondering "how the f*ck did this knucklehead get this gig?" The typical profile of guys within this group is: white, 40-something, well groomed, looks 'good' in a suit (with standard issue Hermes tie) jocular, college ring (in these cases, I think this is an attempt to verify that the wearer actually attended college) and modest intelligence (able to discern the need for an umbrella when his head gets wet walking outside, etc) These guys aren't stupid but woefully inadequate for their jobs. They have themselves up on a pedestal and probably spend a good part of the day staring out the window thinking about how important they are. But, when it comes down to the business at hand, they are completely incapable. A fact that becomes embarrassingly obvious when subordinates start doing the things that the boss should be doing and when the boss looks to the subordinate for approval on an idea or opinion.
Sooner or later, their shortcomings become too glaring for their employers to overlook any more. Usually, these guys get moved around within the company to avoid to getting sued for firing an oldster and to prevent them from putting the firm in harms way. Some bounce from company to company (they must be good at interviewing and look the part because they keep getting hired)
I have not undertaken a study of how these guys get to these positions (married boss's daughter, screwed boss's wife, fraternity brother, social promotion, whatever) but they are everywhere. While, I am certain that there are plenty of them throughout Washington (and on both sides of the aisle) I never really contemplated the possibility of one of these guys holding the office of the POTUS, but here we are.
My lefty brethren, I respect personal opinions that differ from mine and your right to voice them. I have lots of liberal friends (or at least lots of friends who happen to be more liberal than me -- joking) and have greatly enjoyed humanities throughout my life (90% of which are taught or produced by liberals) That said, let me be clear (can you hear the ringing re-verb in my voice? Obama is one of these guys (albeit with a dangerous twist, his agenda and his hatred of what America stands for and what makes America exceptional) and his boss (the 65% of the electorate that is not hopelessly stuck in the extreme left, lunatic fringe) has figured it out. We can't fire him for a few more years, but we can try to ensure that he does no more damage to the country.Yes, Father Knows Best, that program while great is now extinct.
Yes, Father Knows Best, that program while great is now extinct.A great program from the past, extinct. Kind of like great men from the past (our founding fathers) - they are extinct as well. Does that mean their ideas are extinct?
I have a few questions. I really wish someone who is so enamored and hopefull regarding Obama would answer a few questions honestly:
1. How do you feel about Obama's multiple, very high-profile promises that the healthcare reform process was going to be open and televised on C-SPAN? And the fact that that particular process turned out to be one of the most hidden processes, full of back-room deals and far from transparent? Showed up on C-SPAN for a few moments at a dog-and-pony show.
2. How do you feel about the fact that Obama promised no lobbyists in his adminsitration. That he wouldn't take money from them and they wouldn't find a job in his administration. The fact that he broke this promise.
3. What about his promises to ban earmarks? The first spending bill that he signed had 9000 earmarks in it! He knew how to use his pen to approve the bill - could he not have vetoed it? Is he more concerned about doing things rapidly with no thought in lieu of doing what's right?
4. He blames Republicans for not being able to get his "projects" passed. How can that be when the Democrats, for a year, have had a super majority? Up until Scott Brown, they couldn't even fillibuster! Is it because what he's trying to do in many cases goes against too many people who call themselves independents and Democrats that those in power know it would be political suicide to do all this crap?
5. How do you feel about ANY president who basically says "I'm going to ignore the feelings of large portions, perhaps even a majority, of the populace and push hard for what I think is right for you whether you want it or not. And I'm going to do all this behind your backs, in back rooms, making deals to get it done?" And you folks are the same ones who had problems with Bush pushing Iraq down your throats?
6. How do you feel when the president is so wrong about the Supreme Court ruling recently related to campaign finance/advertisement when he says that that is going to leave our election process open to influence from foreign corporations? The law actually says that foreign corporations cannot contribute to candidates or pay for political advertisements AT ALL. Who is writing his speeches, and how does someone who is supposedly so up on the law make such a big mistake? Does he care about free speech at all? Would he like to see that no one can tell the truth about candidates when it gets close to election time, so that lies can't be exposed?
Now, think about all of these questions above - and what is it, exactly, that makes you feel like anything he said in the SOTU address is honest?
Can you get me a job on American Idol? Sid, you could be the new Simon Cowell! Ripping into every young hopeful with brutal honesty. Ratings would go through the roof!!
A great program from the past, extinct. Kind of like great men from the past (our founding fathers) - they are extinct as well. Does that mean their ideas are extinct?
I have a few questions. I really wish someone who is so enamored and hopefull regarding Obama would answer a few questions honestly:
1. How do you feel about Obama's multiple, very high-profile promises that the healthcare reform process was going to be open and televised on C-SPAN? And the fact that that particular process turned out to be one of the most hidden processes, full of back-room deals and far from transparent? Showed up on C-SPAN for a few moments at a dog-and-pony show.
2. How do you feel about the fact that Obama promised no lobbyists in his adminsitration. That he wouldn't take money from them and they wouldn't find a job in his administration. The fact that he broke this promise.
3. What about his promises to ban earmarks? The first spending bill that he signed had 9000 earmarks in it! He knew how to use his pen to approve the bill - could he not have vetoed it? Is he more concerned about doing things rapidly with no thought in lieu of doing what's right?
4. He blames Republicans for not being able to get his "projects" passed. How can that be when the Democrats, for a year, have had a super majority? Up until Scott Brown, they couldn't even fillibuster! Is it because what he's trying to do in many cases goes against too many people who call themselves independents and Democrats that those in power know it would be political suicide to do all this crap?
5. How do you feel about ANY president who basically says "I'm going to ignore the feelings of large portions, perhaps even a majority, of the populace and push hard for what I think is right for you whether you want it or not. And I'm going to do all this behind your backs, in back rooms, making deals to get it done?" And you folks are the same ones who had problems with Bush pushing Iraq down your throats?
6. How do you feel when the president is so wrong about the Supreme Court ruling recently related to campaign finance / advertisement when he says that that is going to leave our election process open to influence from foreign corporations? The law actually says that foreign corporations cannot contribute to candidates or pay for political advertisements AT ALL. Who is writing his speeches, and how does someone who is supposedly so up on the law make such a big mistake? Does he care about free speech at all? Would he like to see that no one can tell the truth about candidates when it gets close to election time, so that lies can't be exposed?
Now, think about all of these questions above - and what is it, exactly, that makes you feel like anything he said in the SOTU address is honest?I am not going to answer point by point as I have not follow domestic politics for the last 3 years. All this time, I have been on the road, and there are periods in which I actually have not read any good papers or watch american tv. However, I do have better understanding and interest on American foreign policy. Instead, I will make some points about Obama that will put my viewpoints in perspective to those venom (sometimes) spouted by the very vocal majority on the board.
1. No doubt, Obama is inexperienced but he is our president and there is some learning pains. Romney would have been my choice. McClain was 8 years too late, and Palin is a joke. I think the fiscal crisis was a disaster for Obama, in the same way, that 9/11 was a boon to Bush. Both came at the same time in their presidency.
2. Somehow, Obama has to show that he is boss, I believe he has been undercut by his own party over his agenda. Reid and Pelosi have their own interests and they are very powerful. He light reprimanded them in his speech, there was alot of flinching when he call upon both parties to solve the problem of gridlock and self interest. Nobody is volunteering to do the right thing. There seem no cure for this American political disease. You know, the Romans were in total control, they build their cities to last, and their civilization decline because their political institutions got weak.
3. So we are coming home from Afghanistan and Iraq, and what do have to show for it. Since there have been no successful repeats of 9/11, perhaps, you could term the war on terrorism a major win. But the US is concentrating on security, while China is concentrating on commerce. They are due to overtake Japan as the #2 economy in the world anytime soon. By the way, how many of the forum have travelled to China more than the token visit to Hong kong. So our foreign policy.
While not answering directly to your valid questions, I believe Obama promised too much, and is now in disaray for now. However, I supend final judgement.
"The more one talk, the more one show that they know nothing". So I stop while perhaps still ahead.
Republicans still don't get it. They are not the only people in the country. There are many people, in the middle as well as on the left, who understand Democratic viewpoints and values and want to see them expanded.
Having lost power, angry in the face of a shift away from their values, the right has gone into full spin and attack mode. This shows their true colors. This strategy has had some success, but risks backfiring as most people are getting real tired of the partisan bickering.
Obama promised many things and hasn't delivered on some of them. I agree. He was too optimistic. Including, he did not get away from 'Washington politics' like he said he would. He loses points here. Those that only focus on these things alone are going to give him a poor grade. Those that take a broader view of all his efforts, in the context of the recession and deficits he inherited, are likely to give him a higher grade. He gave himself a B+. I tend to agree with this.
Obama supporters are not 'enamored' with him. Stop with these silly characterizations. He has had some mis-steps. But on balance, we view his positions and direction as more progressive and therefore superior to those from the right.
The left is not satisfied with the status quo, which the right is seeking to protect.
Republicans still don't get it...angry in the face of a shift away from their values...Esten,
Do you really interpret the Gubernatorial elections in Virgina and New Jersey, and Scott Brown's election in Massachusetts as proof that the country is shifting away from conservative values?
Thanks,
Jackson
Wild Walleye
01-29-10, 14:47
Although I doubt he know what great sense he makes in his first salvo:
Republicans still don't get it. They are not the only people in the country.You are correct many republicans (and most democrats) do not get it. However, if you dispense with your preconceived notions (I. E. Bible-thumping, homophobic bigots who want old people to eat dog food) about what a conservative is, you will find that conservatives do get it.
True conservatism, at least from my perspective, is based consistent historical conservative values (no, not that homosexuality is evil, etc. Which are founded upon the strength of the individual, which of course is rooted in freedom. The bigger and more intrusive the government the smaller and more limited the personal freedom.
With freedom comes responsibility. Personal freedom demands personal responsibility (I. E. You have to take care of yourself and your own well being) That said, as a moral and just society, it is incumbent upon us to take care of those that cannot care for themselves. The bounty of America's greatness has enabled us, throughout our history to care for the weaker members of society (although not perfectly) However, the big government has encroached upon our liberties over many years and the demarcation between those that can and those that cannot fend for themselves has been artificially raised. While the stated intent of those enacting such policies may have been founded on 'good intentions,' the results have been the enslavement of millions of Americans (a constituency that is disproportionately made up of minorities) who are now dependent upon the government to survive, having been rendered unable to fend for themselves by the 'good intentions' of elitist politicians.
An anonymous Chinese proverb (often misattributed to Lao Tzu, Confucius and Guan Zhong) states: "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for a life time." Unfortunately, we have proven this and its counter argument to be true.
Thomas Jefferson knew a thing or two about the founders' vision for the future of this nascent country. They were was not looking to create a nanny state, they were looking to create a facilitator for the pursuit and fulfillment of individual interests which in the aggregate translate to national success. That goal has been realized and compounded daily within this great country for more than 200 years. Another great man put it this way: "If we look to the answer as to why for so many years we achieved so much, prospered as no other people on earth, it was because here in this land we unleashed the energy and individual genius of man to a greater extent than has ever been done before. Freedom and the dignity of the individual have been more available and assured here than in any other place on earth. The price for this freedom at times has been high, but we have never been unwilling to pay the price." Ronald Reagan, despite the repeated attempts to revise history by his detractors was right.
Reagan was also right in stating the ". Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden."
This is consistent with the quote attributed to Jefferson "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take everything you have."
That belief is held by a plurality of Americans. The latest proof of which is the Rassmusen poll that found 59% agree that government is not the solution, which is consistent with the Gallop poll of mid-2009 that had more than 50% of the US populace identifying itself as conservative (little "c" not big "C")
There are many people, in the middle as well as on the left, who understand Democratic viewpoints and values and want to see them expanded. Yes, you are correct, there are. As stated above, there seems to be proof that more than 'many,' in fact a majority, do so.
Having lost power, angry in the face of a shift away from their values, the right has gone into full spin and attack mode. This shows their true colors. This strategy has had some success, but risks backfiring as most people are getting real tired of the partisan bickering.Please cite some examples of what you mean by attack mode. As for partisan bickering, there has been none since November 2009, when the Democrat party achieved super majorities in both houses of congress (actually, due to the contested election in MN, it was later than that) The Republicans have had no voice in Washington, since the 2009 election. A point so eloquently made by our glorious leader when he said "I won, you lost" at a 'bipartisan' meeting at the White House, early this year.
Obama promised many things and hasn't delivered on some of them. I agree. He was too optimistic. Including, he did not get away from 'Washington politics' like he said he would. He loses points here. Those that only focus on these things alone are going to give him a poor grade. Those that take a broader view of all his efforts, in the context of the recession and deficits he inherited, are likely to give him a higher grade. He gave himself a be+. I tend to agree with this. He hasn't delivered on anything (thank God, and I do) He was not in office when the initial steps were taken to stabilize the financial sector (much of which I disagreed with) His contribution to the economy was the 'stimulus' bill, a $757B steaming pile of rotten pork which has hurt rather than helped the economy and exploding our deficit (contrary to his revisionist historical account the other night) He hasn't delivered on any of his promises because he cannot. He is not capable nor does he have the knowledge and / or experience to do so. Further, his ego is an impenetrable barrier to any ideas not consistent with his vision for a neo-fascist, socialist utopia. It is laughable that in the state of the union address he welcomed 'new ideas' from Republicans and tried to cast blame on them for not proffering, thus forcing democrats to go it alone. I guess he forgot about the "I won, you lost" meeting. If you want to grade his efforts and intentions, feel free. We have been busy 'dumbing' down America for years. You can give him a participation trophy for being present and for voting present. He deserves an 'incomplete' grade because he has delivered nothing.
Obama supporters are not 'enamored' with him. Stop with these silly characterizations. He has had some mis-steps. But on balance, we view his positions and direction as more progressive and therefore superior to those from the right.Yes, and you and your fellow believers (Gallop found 21% of Americans identify themselves as liberal) have every right to continue to believe in Obama (and the tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus)
The left is not satisfied with the status quo, which the right is seeking to protect.This is a completely flatulent statement. I can smell it from here and it stinks. "Not satisfied with the status quo?" That's a little broad isn't it? What is your solution? If something isn't perfect, let's destroy it because we can't afford to do nothing? Now that is change you can believe in.
Obama is OK is my book. Pelosi embodies everything that can be bad in a person and Reid should be an extra in Night of the Living Dead.
However, I have a fundamental problem with Obama. Obama was recently encouraging high school and college graduates to consider public service jobs or jobs in the public sector.
Sounds great except these public service jobs are not jobs where the graduates donate their time for the public good. These are jobs that you and I, in the private sector, pay for. Don't we, in the private sector have enough burdens. Already we are paying for the extravagancies of Pelosi (put this champagne on the taxpayers bill) and Reid when they take private jets and an entourage of hundreds to every fraudulent global warming conference that comes down the pike.
Of course, for someone like Obama who thinks that a community organizer is a real job, public service jobs probably sound like a good idea.
Obama is OK is my book. Pelosi embodies everything that can be bad in a person and Reid should be an extra in Night of the Living Dead.
However, I have a fundamental problem with Obama. Obama was recently encouraging high school and college graduates to consider public service jobs or jobs in the public sector.
Sounds great except these public service jobs are not jobs where the graduates donate their time for the public good. These are jobs that you and I, in the private sector, pay for. Don't we, in the private sector have enough burdens. Already we are paying for the extravagancies of Pelosi (put this champagne on the taxpayers bill) and Reid when they take private jets and an entourage of hundreds to every fraudulent global warming conference that comes down the pike.
Of course, for someone like Obama who thinks that a community organizer is a real job, public service jobs probably sound like a good idea.But I would do Pelosi if she came with a garter belt and stockings.
Member #4112
01-30-10, 21:15
Black Shirt, you got some serious problems there man – do Pelosi in stockings and garters!
Jackson, can we start a fund for psychiatric counseling for Black Shirt, the boy has schiz's off on us and needs help fast!
Do you really interpret the Gubernatorial elections in Virgina and New Jersey, and Scott Brown's election in Massachusetts as proof that the country is shifting away from conservative values?I was referring to the fact that Democrats now control both Congress and the Presidency, and are working to implement values they were elected on.
Black Shirt, you got some serious problems there man – do Pelosi in stockings and garters!
Jackson, can we start a fund for psychiatric counseling for Black Shirt, the boy has schiz's off on us and needs help fast!Blame it on Anne Bancroft in the The Graduate, every young man's fantasy. Don't tell me you weren't affected. For further postgraduate work, contact David33 in Lima and he will fix you up with a mother / daughter team. Hope Pelosi's tits are not too saggy and no stretch marks.
Member #4112
01-31-10, 13:30
Black Shirt,
I doubt if she has stretch marks since she has had so much plastic surgery every time she raises her eye brows - her stockings go up 2 inches.
I was referring to the fact that Democrats now control both Congress and the Presidency, and are working to implement values they were elected on.See dude, that's the problem. They weren't elected to change values SO MUCH. They were elected because the population didn't like Bush A LOT, for the most part, not because they wanted to watch an arrogant, inexperienced man lead the country closer to socialism.
So the progressive Democrats think that their overwhelming majority means they can just go as far to the left as they want and they are finding out that's not true either!
It's the problem that both Republicans AND Democrats often make - no matter the actual political affiliation of people, MOST are closer to the center than to either extreme side of their party. And then there's all the "independents" (who wouldn't necessarily be independents if there were more than two strong parties in the country) who try desperately to find something in either party they can grab on to.
I love Pelosi saying that they are going to pass health reform no matter what - whether they have to climb over the fence, catapult in, or parachute in. Of course, health reform working WITH the Republicans would be very welcome - but Obama has already demonstrated in his SOTU address that that isn't likely to happen - they are going to keep going with their idiotic crap.
The fucking gall! When over 60% of the country now says that's not what's important now - more important to focus on jobs and the economy. When a Democratic polling organization actually came back with the astounding result that Fox News was trusted over every other news organization (51% to the next closest being 39% if I remember the numbers)
They are so drunk on misunderstanding the nature of their power that they are headed for a fall and that mandate of which you speak has already started to disappear - they just don't know it. They think that Republicans are blocking them out of spite and many on the far left think it's because Obama's black and almost all on the left think because they want to see the president fail. It's the most ridiculous self-fooling shit I've ever seen, to tell the truth.
Although I was one who didn't like many of the things Bush did, I am not anti-Republican because of that alone - the whole party has gotten away from fiscal conservatism. But I am SO thankful that they have done whatever they can to reign in such a dangerous group of people from completely ruining the US and taking us even farther from the Constitution - THAT's why Republicans are blocking Obama and I applaud them as a Libertarian.
However, if you dispense with your preconceived notions (I. E. Bible-thumping, homophobic bigots who want old people to eat dog food) about what a conservative is Fringe elements aside, that is not how I view conservatives. I respect them and their views, I just don't agree with many of them.
The bigger and more intrusive the government the smaller and more limited the personal freedom.I'll agree with that to some extent. But I'll add that the smaller and less intrusive the government, the more likely there will be inequality and abuses of power in the private sector.
That said, as a moral and just society, it is incumbent upon us to take care of those that cannot care for themselves. In perfect agreement with you here.
The bounty of America's greatness has enabled us, throughout our history to care for the weaker members of society (although not perfectly) Yes, and we can do better.
However, the big government has encroached upon our liberties over many years and the demarcation between those that can and those that cannot fend for themselves has been artificially raised. While the stated intent of those enacting such policies may have been founded on 'good intentions,' the results have been the enslavement of millions of Americans (a constituency that is disproportionately made up of minorities) who are now dependent upon the government to survive, having been rendered unable to fend for themselves by the 'good intentions' of elitist politicians. The size of government itself should not be the focus of the debate. It's what the government is / isn't doing, vs. What the private sector is / isn't doing. It's how well an individual can provide for his basic needs.
Thomas Jefferson knew a thing or two about the founders' vision for the future of this nascent country. They were was not looking to create a nanny state, they were looking to create a facilitator for the pursuit and fulfillment of individual interests which in the aggregate translate to national success. That goal has been realized and compounded daily within this great country for more than 200 years. Another great man put it this way: "If we look to the answer as to why for so many years we achieved so much, prospered as no other people on earth, it was because here in this land we unleashed the energy and individual genius of man to a greater extent than has ever been done before. Freedom and the dignity of the individual have been more available and assured here than in any other place on earth. The price for this freedom at times has been high, but we have never been unwilling to pay the price." I think most people recognize the significance of what you describe here. Democrats do not want to do away with this. But here we are in 2010, and the fact is many people struggle to meet basic needs like shelter, food and healthcare. We see great extremes of rich and poor. How long will the system you describe take to address these issues? Shall we wait another 200 years?
Reagan was also right in stating the ". Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. " The implied merit of a government "for, by and of the people" seems a bit contradictory to the preceding assertion that government is the problem.
I think we all want a government that works for the people. For everyone. And if the private sector fails in some areas, then perhaps government should step in and do something.
"Not satisfied with the status quo?" That's a little broad isn't it? What is your solution? The status quo is doing little to address the inequalities and abuses of capitalism in this country. Dems want to do more. We believe this is an area where government can and should play a role. This should not be equated with abandoning the principles of individual freedom and effort.
Wild Walleye
01-31-10, 20:06
Cheeseman:
I agree in many ways. Republicans deserve credit for sticking together and not letting anyone break free from the 'NO' block (Snowe, Collins or any of those other wishy-washy phonies) but they didn't block anything on their own. The dems had their super majority plenty long enough to get this through ('this' being the socialist health care system which is really a trojan horse for permanently installing the democrat party in power) Think about it. Dems had a super majority in both houses of congress, passed bills in both houses of congress and failed to get the bill to the president's desk.
Democrats blocked it. The greed of the dems and the special interests (for whom they exist) prevented Obama, Reid and Pelosi from slam dunking this bill while they still had a super majority.
Unfortunately (and fortunately for us in this one case) it is a common occurrence that when one party controls both the legislative and executive branches, they trip on their own dicks by trying to buy everything for everyone who ever did, will or might vote for them (what happened to the 103rd congress? They started with a lot of promise) In the current case, Obama, Reid and Pelosi, in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the great depression (they kept telling us) raided the taxpayer coffers and gave $787B to the unions, trial lawyers and other friends of Reid and Pelosi. There were more than 9,000 earmarks in the first major piece of legislation signed by the president who promised to end earmarks and to be the most transparent president in history (now ranked one of the ten most corrupt politicians by Judicial Watch)
This isn't 1976, there no longer exists a media monopoly controlled by the democrats that squelches differing opinions. The American people saw what was happening and didn't like it. They didn't forget and the people that stole from them continued to abuse them and told them "if you don't want this, it is because you are too stupid to know what is good for you and we will therefore ram it down your throat."
The tea parties during the August break and the three elections (which hopefully have killed Obamacare) were successful because they were not solely republican efforts, in fact each involved large numbers of independents and democrats.
The lie of the 'health care crisis' has been exposed, while there exist many problems within health care delivery as a whole, there is no crisis anywhere near the magnitude of what the dems told us. Just look at the numbers. More than 60% say that health care is not the priority, just a couple of weeks after the president failed on this issue. But we were told 15% of the nation was on life support. If that were true, I would expect more than 3:1 (across all parties) to consider it number one.
Dems still have commanding majorities in both houses, why don't they pass it?
Because they got caught in two lies. One, the lie about the crisis and two the lie about the 'solution' for the crisis.
Maybe when times were better, the American people were willing to look the other way when one party or the other gave them an uninvited quickie in the ass. Seems to me that the American backside was still stinging when they tried for put the mother-of-all strap-ons in there (sin lube) with Obamacare.
Wild Walleye
01-31-10, 20:23
The size of government itself should not be the focus of the debate. It's what the government is / isn't doing, vs. What the private sector is / isn't doing. It's how well an individual can provide for his basic needs.Size matters (at least in this case) and is germane to the subject. Wasteful government is directly related to the size of government.
How long will the system you describe take to address these issues? Shall we wait another 200 years?Show me another country that in 200 years has gone from subsistence farming and slavery to feeding the world with a black (albeit completely unfit for office) president.
The implied merit of a government "for, by and of the people" seems a bit contradictory to the preceding assertion that government is the problem.No contradiction. I do not see any references in any of the founding documents to creating a government that will clothe, feed and shelter the populace.
I think we all want a government that works for the people. For everyone. And if the private sector fails in some areas, then perhaps government should step in and do something.Government cannot work for all the people if all the people work for the government. There are very few areas where it has been proven that the government can do something better than the private sector. Please feel free to site examples (education, ship building, train service-oops sorry, those just help to make my point) When I say private sector, I do not propose one with zero regulation. That is a dem fall back to warn of an unregulated private sector. While we are naming stuff, name a few industries that are currently under regulated.
The status quo is doing little to address the inequalities and abuses of capitalism in this country.'Capitalism' is a descriptive term used for a type of economic system based upon free enterprise. It (the term and / or the system) is inanimate and cannot abuse anyone. Further, anyone can avail themselves of a myriad of opportunities for financial gain within a capitalist system.
The fact there exist 'haves' and 'have nots' is a function of human nature. There is no where else on earth where 'have nots' are provided with more opportunities to become haves.
Dems want to do more. We believe this is an area where government can and should play a role. This should not be equated with abandoning the principles of individual freedom and effort.I believe that 'evening the playing field' and maintaining freedom are mutually exclusive
My mother was born in 1938. She was born in Maryland. She lived on a subsistence farm with 11 other brothers and sisters. They were poor. This was not an uncommon manner of living for the time, but it was becoming less common.
My grandmother passed away almost exactly a year ago. She was 92. She was born only 21 years before my mother. I have pictures of her family life. Pictures of their little house on the farm, with all the family (20-some-odd people gathered around) dressed in real-live hick clothes. She grew up in Arkansas.
The one thing I can guarantee is that there is almost NONE of that kind of poverty in the US. I'm talking about people who live in wood shacks that hardly keep out the wind, grass roofs, no electricity, no running water. Barefoot mostly. Walk to school miles to the nearest schoolhouse. So on and so forth.
In my grandmother's time, many, many people, at least everyone outside of the cities and towns, lived that way.
The descriptions of the existence of my mother and grandmother remind me so very much of what I see when I go to Paraguay, particularly in "el campo." When I see how my wife's family live. The only difference, in my opinion, is the work ethic that my other and grandmother had. Their families were Scots-Irish immigrants and worked their sorry asses off. As did everyone. To survive.
No we have poor people who live in projects given to them by the government. We have poor mothers who are given money to continue to support their children while their fathers disappear and don't take care fo them. Many of these places are dirty and falling apart. Of course, they still manage to have TVs and usually cars.
You know what? My folks would NEVER have lived that way! As poor as they were, they were proud. They cleaned and cared for what little they had. They did everything they could to be better than their parents. They would work two, three jobs if necessary to make money. They would find a way to get ahead, not sit on their asses and take their welfare checks.
My grandmother and her family were democrats. My grandfather was big in Arkansas politics. In fact, he was a pilot also and flew JFK during some of his campaining in 1959.
They would have been horrified to think that someone would give them a handout. Particularly the government.
Now, so many people believe that they are owed something. Life just shouldn't be so difficult, they say. The government should do something, they say.
As was previously stated, it wasn't government programs that got US citizens out of living life like Paraguayans do today. It was the hard work and determination of those US citizens, working themselves out of poverty.
Funded by those "evil capitalists", by the way.
Esten (and other Democrats who come down here and think they understand what poverty means) have you ever travelled outside of the "enclaves of decency" here in Buenos Aires? Do you live down the road from a family that lives in a leaky, crumbling brick house with no TV, no running water and stolen electricty? The eldest being a grandmother of 60-something who works as a maid to help feed her kids and their kids? Have you guys sat down with people living like I described above in Paraguay?
THAT'S POVERTY. It's ignorance because they don't have to live like that, but they have no hope because they don't have a government who will get out of their way and provide them opportunities! They have a government and a ruling class that keeps them purposefully ignorant so that they provide the votes that are needed to keep the government in power - because they are ignorant enough to believe the promises that government will get them out of their poverty.
"Great extremes of rich and poor." Give me a break! What you see are a lot of wealthy people, one helluva lot of people that can afford way more than the basic neccessities of life, and a fairly small percentage that can't afford even the necessities of life.
Look at the real poor countries in this world and THAT's where you see the extremes. You see wealthy people who have contacts from the past, or contacts with the government, and suck every dime they can out of their advantageous situations. You see a vast number of poor people who don't really have the basic necessities. You see a small percentage of people in the middle.
So what exactly is it that you consider a necessity? Food, shelter, clothing and education are what I consider necessities. Anything else is a luxury that one should have to work for. You aren't in a good enough job? Work harder, train more, do what you have to do to make more money. You don't want to work that hard and think that you should be entitled to my money so you can have more than the basics? Kiss my rear-end.
People in the US have very little concept of what poverty is, and how far the US has come in the last HUNDRED years (much more the last two hundred, for sure) pulling itself out of poverty by hard work and common sense, not by letting the government solve its problems.
Also, I believe, Cristina has a plan to capture a larger voting block in the city of Buenos Aires (they usually lose the city to the opposition) How will they try to win the city of BA?
Argentina is the only Mercosur country that has opened its doors fully to citizens of Mercosur countries. Over the past 4 years, Argentina has aggressively and efficiently processed and given residency to about 1 million citizens from various Mercosur countries. Probably half of these immigrants are voting adults. I believe, given the whispers out there, the National Government will at the beginning of 2011 offer citizenship to these people.
Over the past 3 months I've been asking myself why has the National Government restructured and streamlined the two agencies that deal with immigration, the Department of Immigration and the Registry of Persons. As I've mentioned before, I've never seen such a yeomen effort in making these two agencies work smoothly and process people rapidly such that they will have their residency and DNI in record time. The only answer I have is; the National Government will offer citizenship to them and since most of them reside in Buenos Aires they will end up voting for he Government that has given them not only citizenship but also survival monies and food (there are numerous benefits that immigrants receive with only temporary residency. They receive a lot more with residency and the DNI) It's a cynical observation, but this government will do whatever to win.This isn't a new concept, and in fact it is essentially the same strategy the Democrats will employ via "Immigration Reform" to win the 2012 elections in the USA.
Thanks,
Jackson
But here we are in 2010, and the fact is many people struggle to meet basic needs like shelter, food and healthcare. We see great extremes of rich and poor.Esten, where do you live in the USA where you see the abject poverty to which you have referred? I've lived and traveled in a number of parts of the USA, and I'm always impressed with the American standard of living. Lots of quality housing, mostly late model cars on the roads, etc. Even the "poor" people in the USA can typically afford a car, flat screen TVs, cable TV service, etc.
The fact is that the vast majority of both American citizens and illegal immigrants in the USA live pretty well, especially in comparison to the real poverty in many other countries as described by El Queso.
This sounds like more Democrat "rabble rousing" BS, similar to John Edwards proclaiming that homeless veterans were sleeping under bridges.
Thanks,
Jackson
Wild Walleye
02-01-10, 14:49
This isn't a new concept, and in fact it is essentially the same strategy the Democrats will employ via "Immigration Reform" to win the 2012 elections in the USA.
Thanks,
JacksonAs we have seen in the health care debacle, the left is willing to do anything (even go against a significant majority of Americans) in order to force its political agenda on the people.
While the left (those creating and shaping policy, not the sheep within the population who believe whatever they say) will trot out heart-wrenching stories about people denied health care or those victimized because they are living in the shadows (I. E. illegal aliens) they care not for those people, they care only for advancing their agendas, to the detriment of Americans, the Constitution and our country.
Leftists love to use this argument: "we are saving the [insert whatever sad-sack constituency here] from [insert horrible circumstances or affliction here] and this is the only way to do it and if you oppose us, it just proves that you are racist scum and want everyone except white males between the ages of 35 and 65 to die!
This is a particularly rancid form of corruption in that it allows politicians to drape themselves in good intentions while knowingly harming the very Constitution, which they swore to defend. What is worse is that they start to believe their own bullsh*t and get on their high horses to 'solve' their made up crises with fabulous solutions which just happen to have the byproduct of furthering their political agendas. This type of corruption is in the DNA of democrat politicians. The liberal masses have a similar DNA flaw in that they believe everything these corrupt officials tell them (no matter how many times they have been proven wrong)
You can be certain that there are absolutely no good intentions (just phony 'good intentions') at the heart of American leftists' 'immigration reform' efforts. Just as all of the left's health care efforts are designed to install the left in a permanent position of power so too are their efforts regarding immigration. These efforts have only one goal, create 20 million new democrat voters.
You will soon hear about the "illegal immigration crisis" whereby millions of people living in the shadows are denied [insert any 'entitlement that the non-producing members of our society depend upon - health care, education, human rights, etc] by racist republican policies. You will hear that this crisis will bankrupt America if we don't act fast, that criminals (that's what you call people who break the law don't you?) shouldn't be sent back to their own countries, that the only solution is to make all these criminals citizens and then we'll lock the door and only allow legal immigration in the future.
It is all BS. Reagan, whom I hold in very high regard, messed up on this issue. I hope we learned and don't make the same mistake again.
Disclaimers:
1. I have always maintained that corruption is an equal opportunity employer and continue to hold that opinion. However, the type of corruption above is usually specific to leftists.
2. I am a huge fan of legal immigration (although not Christina's type) The issue in the US is illegal immigration, not legal immigration.
Stan Da Man
02-01-10, 19:51
Great post, Queso. I subscribe to exactly this same thinking.
If I may try to state it more succinctly: Poverty is relative.
It's relative to what others in different countries have and don't have.
It's also relative to what our ancestors had and didn't have.
If you think about poverty in either of these two ways, you quickly come to the realization that we, in the U. S. really don't have any pressing issues with poverty. Sure, there are folks who go hungry, but this is a very, very small percentage of people -- less than 1%.
The only way anyone can claim that we have a significant poverty issue in the U. S. Is to look at incomes relative to others. This, then, gets back to a person's view of the role of government:
A. Is government's role to equalize the incomes between the well-off and the less well-off? Or.
B. Is government's role to simply ensure that it's citizens have the basic necessities -- food, shelter, education, access to the judicial system, etc. -- and then let economic Darwinism take its course?
Obviously, most folks' views fall somewhere between these two extremes. But, if you can get a sense of whether they stand closer to A or B, you can pretty well predict which way they'll vote.
Personally, I abhor the idea that government's role should be viewed through the prism of Scenario A. That said, however, I also understand that government needs to have a role here. If the have-nots view their situation as hopeless, society will become unstable.
For that reason, government should have an indirect role in equalizing the incomes between the haves and have-nots. It shouldn't be involved in income redistribution to any great extent, at least in my view. Instead, government's role should be to ensure that there are opportunities for the have-nots to get ahead -- not guarantees that they'll get ahead, and certainly not a car in every garage and a flat screen on every wall -- but opportunities to advance. Whether individuals take advantage of them is their choice, and their fault when they fail to do so. Likewise, there are going to be those who do their level best to take advantage of their opportunities but still fail. Life sucks. Beyond ensuring that sufficient opportunities exist and that the rules aren't unfairly slanted in favor of one side or the other, the government should have very little role in trying to promote the idea of a "fair share" between the haves and have-nots.
So sayeth Stan, at least.
Thanks Stan;)
BTW - you did include another necessity that I was taking for granted, that most real poor in truly poor countries do not have access to - a functioning legal system.
Let me understand the view being expressed here. Because we've come a long way, and are much better off than many other countries, there's no need to try and be better.
Is that it?
Needless to say, this non-progressive view is not shared by many people on the left. But not surprising from the 'screw the poor' right.
I don't want to talk at length about poverty. But according to the US Census Bureau, approximately 13% of the US population or 40 million people live in poverty. No they are not in the same 'abject' poverty (I never used that word) as in some other countries. But that's no reason to ignore them. Nobody's proposing to go give them new cars and plasma TVs. And I doubt many people want to significantly equalize incomes (I don't). But in a country as wealthy as the US, some of us would like to do a little more to ensure their basic needs are met and that they have realistic opportunities to improve their quality of life if they work for it. This isn't just about people who live in poor neighborhoods, but other groups you may not immediately think of, such as seniors and people who can't find a job. At the level of affluence in the US, some consider the persistence of poverty for tens of millions of Americans to be a national disgrace.
You have to be one cynical person to believe that politicians only look at this issue as a political opportunity, that politicians are never motivated by decent human values. That's just as bad (and inaccurate) as being naive as to think that politicians are only selfless public servants.
Stan I liked your post. Redistribution of wealth should be limited. But some people think we can and should do a little more than we are now, that's all.
Esten, in the lion's den
(that's a joke)
Wild Walleye
02-02-10, 03:32
You'll be perfectly safe, ask Miami Bob.
Let me understand the view being expressed here. Because we've come a long way, and are much better off than many other countries, there's no need to try and be better.Cute parlor tricks won't work here. Read my posts (believe me, they are worth it) I am a subscriber to 'continuous improvement' in all aspects of individual, corporate and government life.
Needless to say, this non-progressive view is not shared by many people on the left. But not surprising from the 'screw the poor' right.Wrong. The left isn't interested in continuous improvement, it looks to level the playing field by bringing down the successful, not elevating the unsuccessful.
I am the poster child for screw the poor right. My business has imploded from the global economic meltdown (thanks in large part to the Left) but that has not prevented me from continuing to do my part in helping those worse off than me.
I don't want to talk at length about poverty. But according to the US Census Bureau, approximately 13% of the US population or 40 million people live in poverty. No they are not in the same 'abject' poverty (I never used that word) as in some other countries. But that's no reason to ignore them. Nobody's proposing to go give them new cars and plasma TVs. And I doubt many people want to significantly equalize incomes (I don't) But in a country as wealthy as the US, some of us would like to do a little more to ensure their basic needs are met and that they have realistic opportunities to improve their quality of life if they work for it. This isn't just about people who live in poor neighborhoods, but other groups you may not immediately think of, such as seniors and people who can't find a job.The other comments here are accurate. However, Esten is right, we can do better. However, my idea is better is teaching these folks to fish, not giving them a fish.
At the level of affluence in the US, some consider the persistence of poverty for tens of millions of Americans to be a national disgrace.The statistics are not consistent across all nations. Our poverty line would be pure affluence in hundreds of countries on the planet. We hold ourselves to a higher mark, and we should.
You have to be one cynical person to believe that politicians only look at this issue as a political opportunity, that politicians are never motivated by decent human values. That's just as bad (and inaccurate) as being naive as to think that politicians are only selfless public servants.I hate to burst your bubble, but the proof is in the pudding. It isn't cynical, it is realistic.
Stan I liked your post. Redistribution of wealth should be limited. But some people think we can and should do a little more than we are now, that's all.Redistribution, no matter the magnitude is wrong and hurtful to both the aggrieved and the 'beneficiary.' Sometimes in order to teach a man to fish, he needs some motivation. Hunger seems to do the trick.
Wild walleye,
Is that free drinks you are offering, I am willing to be the moderator.
Anything else free?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.4 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.