View Full Version : American Politics during the Obama Presidency
If everyone were equal, there would be no more "haves" and "have-nots". Crime would disappear and everyone would get along. People would be more productive because their jobs would be less stressful and more enjoyable. Health care costs would go down and productivity up, growing the "pie" and increasing prosperity for everyone.
People would still be motivated to work hard, because they would have a shared purpose of maintaining and growing the pie for everyone. Kind of like an Amish community.Esten,
I have come to respect you for being a "True Believer", as opposed to most "Democrats" who are either "Beneficiaries" or "Vested Interests".
That having been said, I have to ask you: "What color is the sky in your world?"
Anyway, your statements exemplify something that I came to understand many years ago: Liberal policies have always failed in the past, and will always fail in the future, and the reason is very simple: Liberals always devise solutions to problems that are based on manifestly inaccurate models of human behavior.
Thanks,
Jackson
Canitasguy
08-24-10, 15:52
models of human behavior.So do we really think mongers and their chicas are "models of human behavior?"
Philosopher Jackson - how's the view there up on Mount Olympus.
You are too fucking funny!
[blue]============================================
Hi Ricardo,
I can appreciate your position.
With one simple statement, I've cut right throught all your years of professional liberal bullshit, and there isn't anything funny about that.
To address your other point: Yes "mongers and their chicas" stand as a perfect demonstration of realistic "models of human behavior".
Thanks,
Jackson
Just 70 days until Election Day on Tuesday November 2nd, 2010!
Wild Walleye
08-24-10, 16:15
People would still be motivated to work hard, because they would have a shared purpose of maintaining and growing the pie for everyone. Kind of like an Amish community.More like the Soviet Union, China and Cuba. All great models of motivation through oppression.
You are suggesting that the productive portion of America's society should eat bitterness and like it for the greater good.
If everyone were equal, there would be no more "haves" and "have-nots". Crime would disappear and everyone would get along. People would be more productive because their jobs would be less stressful and more enjoyable. Health care costs would go down and productivity up, growing the "pie" and increasing prosperity for everyone.And we could all ride unicorns into the sunset! Vote for Esten!
Our new No-nation anthem:
"Imagine there's no countries.
It isn't hard to do.
Nothing to kill or die for.
And no religion too.
Imagine all the people.
Living life in peace."
I hope I can get into one of the gulags near the ocean, I like the smell of the salt air while I toil for the greater good.
I have come to the conclusion that Esten is just toying with us. Nobody, not even Fidel Castro, could believe this equality bullshit.
Esten is probably waiting to see how long it takes us to wake up and realize that his comments are solely for comedy relief.
Stan Da Man
08-24-10, 17:40
I have come to the conclusion that Esten is just toying with us. Nobody, not even Fidel Castro, could believe this equality bullshit.
Esten is probably waiting to see how long it takes us to wake up and realize that his comments are solely for comedy relief.The same thought crossed my mind. No one could be that foolish. Still, if you've read this thread for a while, you might be convinced otherwise.
Canitasguy
08-24-10, 22:00
So do we really think mongers and their chicas are "models of human behavior?"
Philosopher Jackson - how's the view there up on Mount Olympus.
You are too fucking funny!
[blue]============================================
I've cut right throught all your years of professional liberal bullshit, and there isn't anything funny about that.
Yes "mongers and their chicas" stand as a perfect demonstration of realistic "models of human behavior".Did you see how today Ron Paul ripped the state-side equivalents of the Argentine Private rag-head bashers, a few million new assholes for their never-ending anti-muslim rants? And he is spot on about the war-mongers who fuel those flames! He is my new hero!
And thanks for the flattery. I am touched that you recognize me as the "professional" I am. Such a complement coming from a distinguished amateur economist, sociologist, philosopher, human behavior observer, political scientist, pundit, prognosticator, know-it-all is humbling!
(And who's Ricardo. Heheh)
Of course my last two posts were not serious.
It gets boring repeating the same political arguments and being serious all the time. I've said before I enjoy dry humor, and when Punter responded to Jackson's ridiculous college story, I decided to as well. I had a good laugh, don't know about others. I can't read what I wrote without laughing. Although it's not 100% surprising some took me seriously. There are some grains of truth in what I wrote, just like in Jackson's story. But do I really subscribe to that view - of course not and that should be obvious to anyone who has followed what I have written before.
Which brings us full circle to Jackson's story. Of course the core lesson in that story about human motivation is true. There are some logical leaps of faith but the core lesson is correct. What's ridiculous about it is linking it to "Obama's socialism" and implying this is Obama's goal and we can avoid it in the upcoming elections. LOL! This is complete misinformation, just the kind that Fox News and friends love to disemminate in their attempts to shift perception. In fact that story has been circulating for awhile, the original versions merely referenced socialism but not Obama. At some point someone decided to throw in Obama's name. Neither he nor Dems have any vision or plan to eliminate inequality. If you honestly believe they do, you have absolutely been fooled by the right wing media.
Wild Walleye
08-25-10, 13:47
Neither he nor Dems have any vision or plan to eliminate inequality.Perhaps they don't believe that they can completely "eliminate" inequality but they are sure as hell are trying and will continue to try with every last breath.
Joe the Plumber got the only honest answer Obama has ever given.
If you honestly believe they do, you have absolutely been fooled by the right wing media.Guess I have been fooled. But I don't watch much TV and I almost never watch tv news (including Fox News)
Liberalism is a philosophy that is based upon going against human nature and the natural pursuit of individual best interests (not selfish interests) with the objective of creating a false and unnatural equilibrium of social and economic justice. What is completely mind boggling is that despite a myriad of clear historical examples of the failures and falsehoods of liberalism the liberal elites and media are able to indoctrinate new generations of believers.
Member #4112
08-25-10, 14:56
WW, that is the problem with the Liberal Elites, the great majority of them are no where close to being "middle class" but they are great at telling the rest of the poor unwashed masses how things should be.
I do not recall any of the Liberal Elites who wish to lord over us coming down to the level of the average "Joe" and live what they preach for others. They believe they are not the Liberal Elite but should be the Ruling Elite since the masses don't have the sense God gave a goose and need their "enlightened" direction.
Yes I can hear one now as he wings his way over the huddled masses, who wait on his pearls of wisdom, on his private jet. "How distressing, my Perrier is tepid. Be a good man and fetch me another."
Is that you Esten?
I think some of you are simply too stubborn and set in your ways to make a real effort to understand the liberal philosophy of Dems in the US.
I'm a bit surprised at how many misconceptions I see here. But perhaps I shouldn't be, given the abundance of spin and misinformation in the right wing media.
I'm wondering if there is even a single person here who can accurately articulate - without exaggeration - the philosophy of most Dems in the US today? Walleye and Doppel have already dq'd themselves, but anyone else who wants to give it a shot please do.
Wild Walleye
08-26-10, 02:15
I think some of you are simply too stubborn and set in your ways to make a real effort to understand the liberal philosophy of Dems in the US.
I'm a bit surprised at how many misconceptions I see here. But perhaps I shouldn't be, given the abundance of spin and misinformation in the right wing media.
I'm wondering if there is even a single person here who can accurately articulate - without exaggeration - the philosophy of most Dems in the US today? Walleye and Doppel have already dq'd themselves, but anyone else who wants to give it a shot please do.I think I nailed it, without exaggeration.
AllIWantIsLove
08-26-10, 02:17
The philosophy of almost all Dems, and Republicans, is to say what they need to say to get elected and vote the way they need to vote to get contributions from big donors.
Bob
I think some of you are simply too stubborn and set in your ways to make a real effort to understand the liberal philosophy of Dems in the US.
I'm a bit surprised at how many misconceptions I see here. But perhaps I shouldn't be, given the abundance of spin and misinformation in the right wing media.
I'm wondering if there is even a single person here who can accurately articulate - without exaggeration - the philosophy of most Dems in the US today? Walleye and Doppel have already dq'd themselves, but anyone else who wants to give it a shot please do.
Wild Walleye
08-26-10, 02:36
The philosophy of almost all Dems, and Republicans, is to say what they need to say to get elected and vote the way they need to vote to get contributions from big donors.
BobWhich is why I am neither. I am a Conservative.
Pretty tired from my morning tennis session, and contemplating a short nap after lunch when it kind of hit me that in the last few months, we have seen electorates rejecting traditional parties and their impotence, notably England and Australia. Parties are having difficulty winning the majority of seats and have had to form coalition type of govenments. Japan have seen prime ministers come and go. All the traditional economic powers seem to have hit the ceiling with little growth and unemployment on the dinner menu. So no surprise, if the American elections reflect these same sentiments.
Member #4112
08-26-10, 07:51
Gee Esten, the "right wing" media? I just love it when you use this term. The left has had the major media outlets in their pocket for years and they completely tanked for Obama in 08, yet suddenly one media outlet (Fox) at least attempts to be fair and perhaps a little "right" so they are branded the hateful "right wing media".
This sounds suspiciously like Hillary Clinton crying out about the massive right wing conspiracy regarding Bill and Monica and we all know how that one turned out.
Wild Walleye
08-26-10, 12:49
Pretty tired from my morning tennis session, and contemplating a short nap after lunch when it kind of hit me that in the last few months, we have seen electorates rejecting traditional parties and their impotence, notably England and Australia. Parties are having difficulty winning the majority of seats and have had to form coalition type of govenments. Japan have seen prime ministers come and go. All the traditional economic powers seem to have hit the ceiling with little growth and unemployment on the dinner menu. So no surprise, if the American elections reflect these same sentiments.Coalition govts formed to create a majority for the purpose of "ruling" usually don't turn out too good. Similarly, changing the guy at the helm every six weeks (e. g. Japan and Italy) doesn't seem to work so well either (don't get me wrong, I want to change the guy at our helm, asap)
In my own feeble opinion, given to me by the propagandists, the best way to build a coalition is to be right (little "r") have the courage of your convictions, lead by example and take your message directly to the people and let the rudderless legislators fall in line behind you.
Unfortunately, getting elected and going to Washington makes sea glass out of men (and women) The sharp and irregular edges (both good and bad) get worn smooth and after a while. They become undistinguished.
Congressional gridlock will be coming to DC in November. That is a good thing in that it will stop (or at least slow) the runaway spending machine. Hopefully, there will be follow through in 2012 with the election of a real leader who will be historic in his (or her) own special way by being the first to actually cut spending.
Stan Da Man
08-26-10, 15:37
New reports show Republicans' chances of winning the Senate are increasing. http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100826/el_yblog_upshot/democrats-hold-on-the-senate-is-increasingly-at-risk
It's still a longshot, and a long way off. But, Democrats are showing that, given enough time and enough rope, they will do everything in their power to simultaneously hang themselves and step on their collective dicks -- which is no small feat. The tired 'it's all Bush's fault' excuses are now falling on deaf ears after two years of showing the public what they really meant by "change". Nonetheless, that appears to be the Dems rallying cry this fall.
Then again, Democrats have a significant funding advantage, especially after their union crook buddies at the SEIU and AFL-CIO pledged to spend $80 million to help them this fall.
Anyone who thinks the Republicans are the party of "big money" or "big corporations" is fooling themselves. Wall Street banks give far more money to Dems, as do health insurers, pharmaceutical companies, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, and a host of other connected corporate lobbies. Republicans certainly get a share, but not as much as Democrats.
This administration has taken the corrupt pay-to-play politics of the shamed Gray Davis administration to new levels. Thankfully, something will be done about it in the fall. The only question is whether we're trading one batch of crooks for another, and if the new batch will be worse. It's hard to fathom "worse" than the current crop, but politicians have a way of surprising.
I think I nailed it, without exaggeration.Of course you do. You are not only set in your ways, you are stuck in them.
There's a difference between reducing inequality and eliminating it; you seem unwilling or unable to grasp this distinction. Liberals have no inherent issue with economic inequality, it's essential for capitalism to work. What Liberals have an issue with is extreme economic inequality.
What is completely mind boggling is that despite a myriad of clear historical examples of the failures and falsehoods of liberalism the liberal elites and media are able to indoctrinate new generations of believers.Hardly convincing when unrestrained capitalism just gave us the worst recession in decades.
I have some recommended reading for you. Note the part about the mixed economy and the post-war economic expansion. What I'll add that this write up omits, is that the mixed economy modern Dems favor is one mostly based on the private sector. One need look no further than the successful efforts with the US auto industry and now GM's IPO as to their commitment to a strong private sector.
Modern liberalism in the United States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States
Hardly convincing when unrestrained capitalism just gave us the worst recession in decades.For the 10,000th time, the current recession was precipitated by Democratic politicians who legislatively mandated the lowering of mortgage qualification standards in pursuit of their liberal goal of increasing the country's percentage of home ownership.
This artificial distortion of the free market resulted in the unintended consequence of the housing market being flooded with new (and previously unqualified) buyers who, in competition for the same inventory of houses, resulted in an artificial run up of home prices.
It's a simple as that, and I for one am tired of liberals blaming the ensuing recession, which they perpetrated by meddling with the free market, on George W. Bush.
You can continue to foist this lie to the gullible idiots in the country, but those of us who are able to think beyond sound bites know who is really responsible.
Thanks,
Jackson
We've been through this before. Nobody forced Bear Stearns, Lehman and other Wall Street banks to take on the leverage and risk they did. When the government let Lehman fail, credit markets froze. This "financial crisis" precipitated by poor risk management and greed was the direct causal factor of the recession, not housing policies.
BTW this is my post #500. May I take a moment to say, thank you for providing this board and the open discussion we are having here.
We've been through this before. Nobody forced Bear Stearns, Lehman and other Wall Street banks to take on the leverage and risk they did. When the government let Lehman fail, credit markets froze. This "financial crisis" precipitated by poor risk management and greed was the direct causal factor of the recession, not housing policies.
BTW this is my post #500. May I take a moment to say, thank you for providing this board and the open discussion we are having here.But how about the instructions to Freddie and Fannie to finance the mortgages. That was a direct instruction from the Clinton administration and the first link in the causal chain! Let's not put the cart before the horse.
Argento
Wild Walleye
08-27-10, 19:10
Of course you do. You are not only set in your ways, you are stuck in them. So, I should change my beliefs and values because they have been the same, consistently year over year? That sounds like "change for the sake of change." What a great philosophy.
There's a difference between reducing inequality and eliminating it; you seem unwilling or unable to grasp this distinction.I believe it is you, my friend, who does not see the distinction, between enabling an individual to succeed on his own and provide for himself for life as opposed to giving him something for nothing to sate him for a day. Lao Tzu is credited with saying something like that once.
Liberals have no inherent issue with economic inequality,Then why are they so hostile to everyone trying to make a buck, except for themselves?
it's essential for capitalism to work. Ha! Please show me one liberal that has every conceded that point.
What Liberals have an issue with is extreme economic inequality.Here we can agree. Prime examples include: Mssrs. Gore, Kennedy, Soros, Edwards, Clinton, Obama.
Hardly convincing when unrestrained capitalism just gave us the worst recession in decades.There is nothing unrestrained about the US brand of capitalism. Ever heard of the IRS, FTC, FCC, EEOC, DOE, or the EPA? Any idea what their primary focii are?
One need look no further than the successful efforts with the US auto industry and now GM's IPO as to their commitment to a strong private sector.What a brilliant example. The govt expropriated the assets of GM and Chrysler from the rightful owners (bond holders) and gave them to the auto unions. The only reason why they are trying to IPO is so that the unions can liquidate their shares to diversify away from Government Motors. I can't wait to read the S-1 (that is the primary form they must file to begin the IPO process) which among other things must include potential risks to the purchasers of the securities. I can see it now:
"Purchasers of these securities face the risk of loss of capital due to pending legislation against the company and the US Govt for the illegal seizure of private property by the govt. Further, the private property stolen from the plaintiffs consists of the assets that are the underlying value in the investment you are considering making. If the plaintiffs are successful, you will lose 100% of your investment. Don't worry however, the UAW will have already effectuated a zero-cost collar on their ownership position of the Company, therefore they will not be effected by the outcome of the litigation."
So, I should change my beliefs and values because they have been the same, consistently year over year? That sounds like "change for the sake of change." What a great philosophy. Absolutely not, but you should recognize and drop the numerous erroneous beliefs you have about liberals. Which you cling to, even when presented with data and information demonstrating otherwise. That is "stuck".
I believe it is you, my friend, who does not see the distinction, between enabling an individual to succeed on his own and provide for himself for life as opposed to giving him something for nothing to sate him for a day. Lao Tzu is credited with saying something like that once.Don't dodge the discussion point. You stated that liberals were hell bent on eliminating inequality. Is that really your belief?
On your other point here, another erroneous belief. Liberals feel strongly about enabling individuals to succeed. There are basic things such as affordable housing, health care and education that are part of that enablement. Liberal policies are not giveaways; rather they help improve the odds of success.
Ha! Please show me one liberal that has every conceded that point.Obama's own words in clarifying his remarks to Joe the Plumber:
"We don't mind people getting enormously wealthy because of their skills and talents and their drive. But we always want to make sure that playing field is such where everybody who's got a good idea has a chance to succeed. Everybody's got a chance to get financing. Everybody who works hard is able to raise a family. Everybody has an opportunity if they act responsibly to send their kids to college and retire with dignity and respect."
Here we can agree. Prime examples include: Mssrs. Gore, Kennedy, Soros, Edwards, Clinton, Obama. You forgot Buffet. And wealthy Dems, through their words, actions and votes, support the allocation of wealth in a manner that reduces extreme economic inequality.
There is nothing unrestrained about the US brand of capitalism. Ever heard of the IRS, FTC, FCC, EEOC, DOE, or the EPA? Any idea what their primary focii are?Let me re-phrase then: inadequately restrained
Have fun at the rally tomorrow.
Wild Walleye
08-28-10, 01:56
But I like the give and take.
Absolutely not, but you should recognize and drop the numerous erroneous beliefs you have about liberals. Which you cling to, even when presented with data and information demonstrating otherwise. That is "stuck". Please elaborate and enumerate (if you know what that means) on my 'erroneous beliefs."
Don't dodge the discussion point. You stated that liberals were hell bent on eliminating inequality. Is that really your belief? You're kind of slow aren't you? I think I have stated in unequivocal terms that this is the case. My last post was on point to this fact. You have provided nothing other than a weak deflection of an excellent point (which, given the fact that you are dead wrong is probably as good as anyone could expect)
On your other point here, another erroneous belief. Liberals feel strongly about enabling individuals to succeed. There are basic things such as affordable housing, health care and education that are part of that enablement. Liberal policies are not giveaways; rather they help improve the odds of success.
Obama's own words in clarifying his remarks to Joe the Plumber:
"We don't mind people getting enormously wealthy because of their skills and talents and their drive. But we always want to make sure that playing field is such where everybody who's got a good idea has a chance to succeed. Everybody's got a chance to get financing. Everybody who works hard is able to raise a family. Everybody has an opportunity if they act responsibly to send their kids to college and retire with dignity and respect."Sweet pea, I think you left out this part "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. If you've got a plumbing business, you're gonna be better off if you're gonna be better off if you've got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody's so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
You forgot Buffet. And wealthy Dems, through their words, actions and votes, support the allocation of wealth in a manner that reduces extreme economic inequality.Their actions speak louder than words. John Kerry's attempted tax dodge on his yacht is a great example.
Let me re-phrase then: inadequately restrainedWhatever, keep changing what you meant. It has little meaning anyhow.
Have fun at the rally tomorrow.What rally? I'll be celebrating MLK's "I have a dream speech." What will you be doing? Burning Reagan in effigy?
IMHO, most liberals I know wants to do "good", but seldom with their own money and commitment.
On the other hand, being born with equal rights does not mean that we are born with equal opportunites. We do not get to choose where we are born, or who our parents are, etc. Right from the start, we are not equal. Many conservatives like to think they made it on their own efforts, that everybody should be able to do so. Not true, and so, "equalling the field" is a worthwhile concept for goverments. Not through prefernce policies but fiscal policies for taxes and benefits, education and community support.
American moral degeneration is a subject that we pretend not to exist. But it's implications have led to the swamp that we find ourselves in today. It exists in every economic strata.
Not preaching, but my 2 cents.
Black Shirt, there was a neat quote attributed to Margaret Thatcher about this:
"The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples' money."
According to snopes.com this is a simplification of a statement she made in 1976. But it's a neat encapsulization of a real circumstance - that of the "social reformers" who want, expect, and demand that you "do good" by paying for the "social reforms" they advocate.
You're kind of slow aren't you? I think I have stated in unequivocal terms that this is the case. My last post was on point to this fact. You have provided nothing other than a weak deflection of an excellent point (which, given the fact that you are dead wrong is probably as good as anyone could expect)I presented the distinction between reducing and eliminating inequality, and you shifted away to your old tired story about teaching a man to fish. And I still addressed your point, but you tucked it into your next quote, ignored it and claimed I was deflecting.
Call me slow, I'll call you shifty.
What is most fascinating though is this belief you have that liberals want to eliminate inequality. So forgive me, but I need to confirm this just one last time. And let's be clear what this means in terms of economic inequality:
- That liberals would equalize pay so that everyone earned the same amount, or, if this were not possible, they would adopt tax / rebate policies to make after-tax earnings the same for all. Or they would come up with some other mechanism to ensure wealth was evenly distributed. There would be no more rich, middle class and poor - all would be the same.
I promise for the last time, could you please confirm you believe this is the intention of Obama and other liberals in the US?
Wild Walleye
08-29-10, 02:16
I presented the distinction between reducing and eliminating inequality, and you shifted away to your old tired story about teaching a man to fish. And I still addressed your point, but you tucked it into your next quote, ignored it and claimed I was deflecting.Are you pulling my johnson? Give us freaking bone here and provide just one fact or detail.
Call me slow, I'll call you shifty.Just don't call me late for dinner.
What is most fascinating though is this belief you have that liberals want to eliminate inequality.I never said that. I said that they masquerade behind the "promise" to eliminate inequality (except in their own cases) using other people's money. What they "want" is to further ensconce themselves in power and lavish riches upon themselves.
So forgive me, but I need to confirm this just one last time. And let's be clear what this means in terms of economic inequality:
- That liberals would equalize pay so that everyone earned the same amount, or, if this were not possible, they would adopt tax / rebate policies to make after-tax earnings the same for all. Or they would come up with some other mechanism to ensure wealth was evenly distributed. There would be no more rich, middle class and poor - all would be the same.That is more commie (or extreme liberalism) again, this is a false objective of liberals to garner additional power and further enrich themselves.
I promise for the last time, could you please confirm you believe this is the intention of Obama and other liberals in the US?Do you have any level of literacy or are you having a blind, mono-lingual chica read to the posts to you?
I believe that Obama is a Marxist and that he is exploiting this false objective (among many others) to enslave millions of Americans (via dependency upon the federal govt for all of their needs) garner additional power, further enrich himself and punish America for what he considers to be its foibles.
If you need further clarification on what I think of the Commie in Chief, let me know.
Canitasguy
08-30-10, 01:44
While the world's top economic analysts, theorists and decision-makers were meeting in Jackson, Wyoming trying to figure out how to get the globe out of the mess its in, they suffered from not having the sophisticated thinking that regularly appears on this post.
The discussions in Jackson made it crystal clear that the underlying theories about economics seem to be at a dead end. No one knows what is actually wrong or how to fix it.
The Keynesians are stymied that the massive spending by governments around the world (by the way guys it wasn't just that tan socialist in DC who tried it) has not produced the expected results.
The Friedman and Hayek acolytes who say cut government spending, lower taxes on the well-off and eliminate regulations, make no guarantee that we couldn't fall right back into the abyss, if their advice becomes global policy. They acknowledge that things are going to suck for a very long time, except for the people on the top and that's cool with them.
What drives them all nuts is how China - by ignoring every economic concept known to western man - is chugging along, as others fall by the wayside.
I would be more worried, if I hadn't read right here on these pages, the wise insights and prescriptions of the assembled Argentine Private economic gurus who know what's up (or at least that's what they tell us - incessantly I might add!
So I say out with Summers and Geithner and let's send the AP gang to DC to get things straight. Too bad, but Esten has disqualified himself by revealing his socialist leanings, no matter how nice a guy he is. But Jackson, Wild man, Stan, Argento, Black Shirt, Alamo and, if we can find Sidney, could be the new saviors of the US economy!
Lots of what you all write makes as much sense as a Glenn Beck blackboard lecture on the history of the Weimar Republic and its part in today's global imbalances! And think how popular he is!
I can see you guys on the Washington Mall unveiling the "Mongers Road Map To Economic Recovery." It would be so, so exciting!
Walleye's response "I never said that" contradicts his earlier statements "in unequivocal terms" that liberals "sure as hell are trying and will continue to try" to eliminate inequality. Then he shifts to liberals having a "promise" to eliminate inequality, but this new argument is equally absurd; Dems would never get elected if this was a known position. Either way, his most recent comments confirm without doubt his belief in far-out political theories which are unsubstantiated with available information and data. I used to think he was kidding or exagerrating at times, but I was wrong.
There is an important lesson here: one should not confuse wit and knowledge with an informed and sound understanding.
Sorry Walleye I am moving on. It is more than not being able to take you seriously, because you are serious. I cannot reconcile some of your beliefs with anything other than an impaired mental process, or at best a stark ignorance of news and events.
Gee Esten, the "right wing" media? I just love it when you use this term. The left has had the major media outlets in their pocket for years and they completely tanked for Obama in 08, yet suddenly one media outlet (Fox) at least attempts to be fair and perhaps a little "right" so they are branded the hateful "right wing media". Fox News is Fair and Balanced.... half the time. The other half is a mix of spin, misinformation and full throttle bashing. There was a beauty on Fox News today, and I don't mean Tracy Byrnes. It was a video segment called "Obama Mulls Extending Middle Class Tax Cuts" and started with the following narrative:
"Americans are bracing for the largest tax hike when the Bush tax cuts expire in January. Now, the tide may be turning. Fresh off of his Martha's Vinyard vacation, President Obama may now want to extend the tax cuts, at least for the middle class. Only for the middle class. It all has to do with the elections of course."
LOL..... as if this was some new development! Don't tell me you don't see the huge lie Fox is spreading here.
Wild Walleye
08-31-10, 12:22
Walleye's response "I never said that" contradicts his earlier statements "in unequivocal terms" that liberals "sure as hell are trying and will continue to try" to eliminate inequality.I hope when you read my earlier comments you didn't attribute altruistic motivation on behalf of those trying to 'eliminate' inequality.
Then he shifts to liberals having a "promise" to eliminate inequality,How could it ever be more than a promise since liberalism has never delivered on any of its purported benefits?
but this new argument is equally absurd; Dems would never get elected if this was a known position.If you do not believe that "striving to eliminate inequality" isn't a primary component of the tripe that the left has been serving up over the last 40 years, you are even less observant than I originally thought.
Either way, his most recent comments confirm without doubt his belief in far-out political theories which are unsubstantiated with available information and data.Why cast a blanket? A smart fella like you ought to be able to site specific examples and prove your point (if you ever manage to have one)
I used to think he was kidding or exagerrating at times, but I was wrong.I used to exaggerate and use sarcasm, however, out of respect for your limited interpretive capacity, I toned it down a little.
There is an important lesson here: one should not confuse wit and knowledge with an informed and sound understanding.I am certain that no one has made that mistake with you.
Sorry Walleye I am moving on.I'm getting misty.
It is more than not being able to take you seriously, because you are serious. I cannot reconcile some of your beliefs with anything other than an impaired mental process, or at best a stark ignorance of news and events.That is right out of the Obama Nov. '10 handbook: "We are totally screwed this November. The voters are on to our hollow promises, moral and ethical lapses and complete lack understanding of basic economic principles. Therefore, we need to get out the message to the voters that they are too stupid to understand the brilliance of what we have done these past nineteen months. Only a mental patient would question Obamacare and what it means for everyone (except those lucky enough to get the good stuff we get here in the upper echelons of the govt) So get out there, shoot the messenger, denigrate those stupid voters, tell them that they are mentally deficient and if all else fails to convince them that we are right, then there is no question that they are racists!"
I heard that there was a shootout at OK corral at high noon.
Sorry, I meant on Argentina Private.
Member #4112
08-31-10, 12:56
I am sure you find this "inaccurate" but I don't see it that way. Either he did or did not call for keeping some of the cuts. The answer is yes. Why now? I think it is pretty clear to garner political support during an election cycle.
Actually several Democratic incumbents are calling for a "temporary" extension of the Bush Tax Cuts or specific sections of the cuts as well as Obama. Call me cynical but I can see this only as an election year ruse to soften the heavy blow the Democrats are about to take at the polls on Nov. 2nd as they never mentioned it until they were in trouble with the voters. Point of fact the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts were cited as increasing revenue to the Fed Gov in the ObamaCare bill to offset its costs as well as cuts in reimbursement to Medicare providers!
Regarding the "lie" about bracing for the largest tax increase quote, I guess we are just arguing semantics here since taxes are going up when the Bush Tax Cuts expire. The Democrats are trying to frame this as taxes are returning to "normal" when the Bush Tax Cuts expire. From a purely financial view taxes are going up thus it is considered a TAX INCREASE and most folks are viewing it that way since it will mean less money in their pocket after the Bush Tax Cuts expire than what they are taking home today. The "spin" is to say taxes are returning to "normal" but the reality is taxes are going up since most folks don't see anything "normal" about giving what they earn to the IRS.
I wait with absolute fascination for Obama's speech tonight where I am sure he will claim he "won" the Iraq War, that his brilliant handling of the conflict since taking office has brought the war to a successful conclusion, and is now brings the troops home as he promised. (FYI he, Pelosi and Reid all voted against and railed against the "Surge" which did bring stability to Iraq)
I find the debate on news reporting interesting because to me the real problem is the blurring (ok, outright smearing) of a line that used to be very solid between Op Ed (Opinion) and the reporting of "facts. " With Editorials you know that someone is expressing their opinion and can apply the appropriate filter to the content. When news sources were actually just reporting "facts", interpretation of the facts (an opinion) was brought out through quotes from "experts" on both sides of the issues. Articles themselves were very neutral. Then, you could judge the opinions based on the experts quoted and their subject matter expertise and agenda. Today, every piece is full of opinion mixed with facts, no matter what the outlet. No need to find experts because every writer is an "expert" and we are just supposed to trust their perspective. And worse, our youngin' aren't really taught a critical eye on these things and actually assume the writers are actually experts. To me there is no debate on which source is more tainted, every news source is tainted and has an agenda. Assume otherwise at your own peril. Read them all, filter heavily for facts, and make your own conclusions. The concept of a "trusted source" for news is long gone.
Sysco
Stan Da Man
08-31-10, 14:22
I find the debate on news reporting interesting because to me the real problem is the blurring (ok, outright smearing) of a line that used to be very solid between Op Ed (Opinion) and the reporting of "facts." With Editorials you know that someone is expressing their opinion and can apply the appropriate filter to the content. When news sources were actually just reporting "facts", interpretation of the facts (an opinion) was brought out through quotes from "experts" on both sides of the issues. Articles themselves were very neutral. Then, you could judge the opinions based on the experts quoted and their subject matter expertise and agenda. Today, every piece is full of opinion mixed with facts, no matter what the outlet. No need to find experts because every writer is an "expert" and we are just supposed to trust their perspective. And worse, our youngin' aren't really taught a critical eye on these things and actually assume the writers are actually experts. To me there is no debate on which source is more tainted, every news source is tainted and has an agenda. Assume otherwise at your own peril. Read them all, filter heavily for facts, and make your own conclusions. The concept of a "trusted source" for news is long gone.
SyscoI couldn't agree more. It started with the major networks. Gradually, over the past 20-30 years, they all slid left. It was subtle at first. The "experts" they picked weren't on both sides of the aisle. They would pick extreme left and middle of the road and present them as opposites. Their coverage of issues became slanted based more on what they intentionally left out. Gradually, the anchors started to reveal their political colors. One need only remember Dan Rather as support for that point, but there are many other examples.
Gradually, the networks (including CNN) lost enough credibility with a large enough segment that Fox News sprang up. One can argue that Fox News leans to the right. This seems "wrong," however, only to those who have been blinded to the slow but creeping slide of all the other networks leftward over the past three decades. Fox News would not have been possible had the other networks stayed "fair and balanced." The truth is, they were not, and Fox then served a need.
Today, in another medium, we have NPR. I listen all the time. They claim to be fair and balanced, but that's just so they can continue to get federal funding. It's a laughable pretense when they have Daniel Schorr, Cokie Edwards, Juan Williams and a host of others they present as reporters or even-handed commentators. Only NPR could get away with pitching Arriana Huffington as the "right" in Left, Right and Center. It was so implausible that I think they've now moved her to the "center" position, although she's hardly that.
That diatribe said, I couldn't agree with you more, Sysco. No one should trust much of what they find in the media today. There are a few outlets that I think still do a good job. WSJ on reporting (not on op-ed, but op-ed is supposed to be slanted); the San Jose Mercury News; even the Christian Science Monitor (if you've never read it, do so before you laugh -- its not religious) But, these are few and far between at this point. The vast majority let their reporters grind their personal axes and disguise their opinions as so-called facts, tainting the final product.
Either he did or did not call for keeping some of the cuts. The answer is yes. Why now? I think it is pretty clear to garner political support during an election cycle.Doppel, are you aware that back in 2008 Obama ran on a platform that included not raising taxes on the middle class?
Member #4112
09-01-10, 12:10
Excuse me! Last time I checked Obama has been railing against the Bush Tax Cuts as a giveaway to the "rich" - a term he kept shifting downward with each speech during his campaign to what is now $250,000 annual income for married joint filers. I don't know anyone who considers $250K / year as "rich".
Get a grip Esten since your guy Obama is as slippery as an eel when it comes to economics and taxing the folks. Obama did not get on board until AFTER many Democrats saw this as a cheap trick to attempt to hold on to their seats in November.
By the way, I noticed Obama even admitted we had spent NEARLY $1 Trillion on a 7 year + war, which he noted had been borrowed from foreign creditors. The facts from DOD indicate we spent nearly $1 Trillion on both the Afghan and Iraq campaigns to date (nearly 8 ½ years of combat) and not just Iraq.
Your boy Obama spent more than $1 Trillion on one piece of legislation (Stimulus I) in his first months in office not to mention the next Trillion + on ObamaCare and other give away programs. I guess I would be wrong in saying Obama is a bit disingenuous about where that money was coming from if not from the same foreign creditors Bush got his?
By the way, I noticed Obama even admitted we had spent NEARLY $1 Trillion on a 7 year + war, which he noted had been borrowed from foreign creditors. The facts from DOD indicate we spent nearly $1 Trillion on both the Afghan and Iraq campaigns to date (nearly 8 ½ years of combat) and not just Iraq.
Your boy Obama spent more than $1 Trillion on one piece of legislation (Stimulus I) in his first months in office not to mention the next Trillion + on ObamaCare and other give away programs. I guess I would be wrong in saying Obama is a bit disingenuous about where that money was coming from if not from the same foreign creditors Bush got his?I believe that the correlation was deliberate, as in "George Bush borrowed a trillion dollars from foreign sources to pay for a war on the other side of the world, whereas I borrowed a trillion dollars to "touch" the lives of Americans in the USA."
I hope they let the bush tax cuts expire. It will help pay the deficit. And I find it hilarious how not one Republican when asked if the the Bush Tax Cuts where to continue how they would be paid for. Not one could give a straight answer they just tried to politicize it. Its to bad we can't post Video up here. Some of its priceless.
BTW someone who refers to Healthcare reform as Obamacare has been watching to much FOX NEWS other wise known as FAUX NEWS. Unfair and extremely Unbalanced.
I can't afford Healthcare at its current prices and as a middle class American. I am glad Obama took a baby step to address this problem. I say baby step because it should have been a single payer program like the rest of the sane world has. Case in point. I have gone to Medellin Colombia to get all my dental work done and had some other medical things done at a FRACTION of the cost. Why? Because they don't think health care is a privilege. Its a necessity. But at the end of the day its not the politicians running this country into the ground its the corporations.
Stan Da Man
09-01-10, 13:54
I hope they let the bush tax cuts expire. It will help pay the deficit. And I find it hilarious how not one Republican when asked if the the Bush Tax Cuts where to continue how they would be paid for. Not one could give a straight answer they just tried to politicize it. Its to bad we can't post Video up here. Some of its priceless.
BTW someone who refers to Healthcare reform as Obamacare has been watching to much FOX NEWS other wise known as FAUX NEWS. Unfair and extremely Unbalanced.
I can't afford Healthcare at its current prices and as a middle class American. I am glad Obama took a baby step to address this problem. I say baby step because it should have been a single payer program like the rest of the sane world has. Case in point. I have gone to Medellin Colombia to get all my dental work done and had some other medical things done at a FRACTION of the cost. Why? Because they don't think health care is a privilege. Its a necessity. But at the end of the day its not the politicians running this country into the ground its the corporations.Whew! This is a perfect example of how America has been wasting its education resources. In terms of how to pay for the Bush tax cuts, let's start there. If our education system results in misguided citizens such as this, why bother? There's your trillion dollars right there. Problem solved.
I don't watch Fox News except once a month, if that, while traveling. EVERY media outlet calls it ObamaCare, just as they called it HillaryCare the last time around (before Fox News was a blip) If you think the rest of the networks are "fair and balanced," you've been brainwashed.
Health care or not, Columbia and the rest of South America dream of having an economy that even approaches that of the US. Ask their citizens whether they'd trade cheap dental work and subsidized care for a modern economy. Here's a thought: Ask the Cubans whether a paternalistic, socialist-style economy with free health care is a good thing. Ask the Venezuelans who aren't afraid to talk. Ask the Argentinians in five years if Cristina gets re-elected.
But at the end of the day its not the politicians running this country into the ground its the corporations.Mark Twain once said, 'It is better to keep your mouth shut and let everyone think you're a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.'
Turns out he was right.
if the the Bush Tax Cuts where to continue how they would be paid for.Miamipro,
Here's a straight answer for you: Cut government spending.
Duh.
I can't afford Healthcare at its current prices and as a middle class American. I am glad Obama took a baby step to address this problem.So let me see if I understand this: You can afford to travel to Colombia (and we assume other international destinations) to fuck chicas, but can't afford to pay for you own health care, and thus you'd like the rest of us to pay for it for you?
I say baby step because it should have been a single payer program like the rest of the sane world has.I don't know about the rest of the "sane" world, but neither Argentina or Comombia has a "single payer program".
Member #4112
09-01-10, 16:03
You post said it all, you say your middle class but can't afford healthcare, yet you have a passport and can afford to travel internationally. I submit you have the money but choose to spend it on other things you value more. So cut the cry baby bs about healthcare.
Not sure how to use the Quote thing yet so I will just respond.
Jackson. Cut Government Spending? How about having a Surplus during the Clinton Years and watching all washed away under G. W Bush. I don't care what anyone says. Regardless of party. But if you can't see the monstrosity he created during his 8 years. Then your in more trouble than I thought. While I agree some restraint should be put on certain areas of spending you have to be very careful where you make those cuts. Healthcare shouldn't be one of them. I am even willing to pay more taxes myself if it means better healthcare. Really to me, less government spending = less government oversight. And well you know where some of those cuts have led us. Wall street abuses. MMS. Lack of oversight on Big Oil. You have to find a balance. It can not be free will for all these big guys. Sorry.
Regarding affording Healthcare Vs Chica Mongering. I was paying for my own healthcare through Blue Cross. It started at about $230 Month. A year later it was going at $340. The part I can't afford is where Insurance Giants like BCBS raise the rates for no reasons what so ever. Its cheaper for me to fly from Miami to Medellin get Dental work done than it is for me to go to my local dentist. No brainer there. Regarding the Mongering Funds. I don't really Monger all that much. But when I do I want to be able to enjoy myself. I probably spend a fraction compared to other people who do this hobby full time. Many times I go for non pro and do fairly well for myself.
*I am aware these country's don't have single payer programs. They just happen to be much cheaper than the US. I was referring to France, UK, Cananda. Etc.
Stan Da Man. Only person who is misguided is you. If you want to try and insult my educational background through your Mark Twain quotes. You might want to heed to his advise as well.
I have no problem having political debates and listening to your POV. But if you want to use insults to try and make your point. [Deleted by Admin].
Its funny how you got so defensive when I mention FOX News. Really I don't champion any news network. They all have their own agenda. I point out FOX specifically because they are so over the top.
Here is how they are so hypocritical - People talking about how sensitive the issue is by having a Mosque 4 blocks from ground zero. But its ok for Glenn Beck to hold his rally on the same steps and on the same day as MLK's I have a dream speech. I guess there is no sensitivity on this issue? Then have the audacity to call it a non political event.
Funny
EDITOR'S NOTE: This report was edited in accordance with the Forum's Zero Tolerance policy regarding reports containing any personal attacks or derogatory comments directed towards another Forum Member or the Forum Membership in general.
Stan Da Man
09-01-10, 17:05
Funny is the fact that someone with an iPhone, who travels to Columbia and Argentina to bang chicas and have fun, can claim that he can't afford health insurance.
Sad is the fact that you believe you ought to be able to put your hand in everyone else's pocket to make them pay for it.
Disgusting is the fact that you apparently believe that you are entitled to have others pay for things you clearly can afford but choose not to pay for.
You said your premium went up from $230 a month to $340 and now you can't afford health care. That's $1,300 a year. How much did you spend on your iPhone, plane fare, hotel / apartment, drinks and chicas while in Columbia and Argentina? Clearly you lied judging by what you've posted about yourself on these boards. You simply would like it if someone else was forced to pay, so you can spend your money on other things you want, rather than on what you claim is a "necessity."
It's not the corporations running this country into the ground. It's greedy folks like yourself with an entitlement mentality.
Member #4112
09-01-10, 18:43
I am sure this slipped past you about the Clinton years, but after the Republican's took over the House and Senate in 1994 the reductions in government programs began. The primary one was Welfare Reform which contributed the most to the surpluses you speak of. To our lasting shame those hard won cuts in government spending have been given back with interest by both parties in the years since.
ObamaCare's ultimate destination is to basically place those who "can not afford" healthcare coverage (you for example) on Medicaid and increase the benefits provided under Medicaid to those offered by private insurance. In case this also slipped by you the STATES are charged with providing the funds for Medicaid with some assistance from the Fed – in this case it is why they call these things "unfunded mandates" – perhaps that is why 20+ states have filed suit against the Fed? The number of states fighting this unprecedented expansion of the Government will increase after Nov. 2 when many Democrat governors are voted out of office and Republicans replace them.
If you want to start saving money by slashing government spending you can start with the Department of Energy – FYI the Department of Energy was formed after the oil crisis on August 4, 1977 in order to end the United States dependence on foreign oil by President Jimmy Carter's signing of legislation, The Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977. Here we are 33 years later and what a heck of job this department has done!
How about Medicaid and Welfare (sacred cow / entitlement programs) that needs to be drastically reduced. They are the step children of Lyndon Johnson's "GREAT SOCIETY" experiment in 1964 which has failed miserably to archive its stated goal and has continued to grow, consuming the majority of the federal budget each year.
The USA enjoys the highest living standard in the world, so much so, that we do not consider $250,000 as being rich. Yes, that is true based on statistics but Americans are so "out of wack" from reality that credit card debt are racking up all time highs even before the financial crisis. Homeowners use their equity to live beyond their means whilst believing that they are entitled to the live like the "Rich and Famous".
I recently finished a 4 month trip that included stays in Los Angeles, Fort Lauderdale, Buenos Aires, Bariloche, Iguazu, Sao Paulo, Sorrento, Milan, London and Bangkok. I did have 18 days of free lodging and 42 days of transatlantic and Northern Europe cruising. My total spending was between $11-13K for 2 people.
Yes, I understand and is very familiar with the American lifestyle that equates $250,000 as not being rich. It is a lifestyle of unrestrained spending, gluttony and waste.
Funny is the fact that someone with an iPhone, who travels to Columbia and Argentina to bang chicas and have fun, can claim that he can't afford health insurance.
Sad is the fact that you believe you ought to be able to put your hand in everyone else's pocket to make them pay for it.
Disgusting is the fact that you apparently believe that you are entitled to have others pay for things you clearly can afford but choose not to pay for.
You said your premium went up from $230 a month to $340 and now you can't afford health care. That's $1,300 a year. How much did you spend on your iPhone, plane fare, hotel / apartment, drinks and chicas while in Columbia and Argentina? Clearly you lied judging by what you've posted about yourself on these boards. You simply would like it if someone else was forced to pay, so you can spend your money on other things you want, rather than on what you claim is a "necessity."
It's not the corporations running this country into the ground. It's greedy folks like yourself with an entitlement mentality.First lets take you back to school for basic math.$340 X 12 Months = $4080
The point of my comment was, if it went up a $100 more a month after a year who knows where it would keep going if I held on to it. I don't expect anyone to pay for my healthcare. I have even made the comment that I would pay higher taxes if it ment I had access to AFFORDABLE QUALITY HEALTHCARE. Healthcare should be affordable for everyone. Not just the rich and its not OK for Insurance giants to raise rates, cut or cancel coverage just because they are "not making enough money". You sound like a guy who might be in the higher tax bracket (making over $250,000 a year) really I don't know. But if you are. Yea you deserve to pay more taxes.
Iphone - $299 (even though this doesnt count as a travel purchase)
Airfaire to wherever I want to go - no more than $300 (My best friend is a pilot for AA. Im on his D3 List)
Hotel - Free most place as I stay with friends.
Chica's no more than $500 on any trip if I decide to actually monger.
Total trip. Less than a $1000 maybe twice a year at the most.
Only thing I feel I am entitled to is maybe having people like yourself removing their head out of their ass. I know it might be asking for a lot but try it.
I am sure this slipped past you about the Clinton years, but after the Republican's took over the House and Senate in 1994 the reductions in government programs began. The primary one was Welfare Reform which contributed the most to the surpluses you speak of. To our lasting shame those hard won cuts in government spending have been given back with interest by both parties in the years since.
ObamaCare's ultimate destination is to basically place those who "can not afford" healthcare coverage (you for example) on Medicaid and increase the benefits provided under Medicaid to those offered by private insurance. In case this also slipped by you the STATES are charged with providing the funds for Medicaid with some assistance from the Fed – in this case it is why they call these things "unfunded mandates" – perhaps that is why 20+ states have filed suit against the Fed? The number of states fighting this unprecedented expansion of the Government will increase after Nov. 2 when many Democrat governors are voted out of office and Republicans replace them.
If you want to start saving money by slashing government spending you can start with the Department of Energy – FYI the Department of Energy was formed after the oil crisis on August 4, 1977 in order to end the United States dependence on foreign oil by President Jimmy Carter's signing of legislation, The Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977. Here we are 33 years later and what a heck of job this department has done!
How about Medicaid and Welfare (sacred cow / entitlement programs) that needs to be drastically reduced. They are the step children of Lyndon Johnson's "GREAT SOCIETY" experiment in 1964 which has failed miserably to archive its stated goal and has continued to grow, consuming the majority of the federal budget each year.Actually it didnt slip by me. And I will give credit where credit is do. The Republicans and Bill Clinton. Actually worked together on some very important issues at that time. I wish things were less political and more about getting things done for the American people. Both Sides are gulity of being Party over People. BUT there is no excuse for how GW ran this country into the ground during his presidency. And really no one is defending him or Cheney anymore.
Stan Da Man
09-01-10, 21:44
First lets take you back to school for basic math.$340 X 12 Months = $4080$340 (increased premium) - $230 (old premium) = $110 (difference between the two)
$110 * 12 = $1,320 increase. That's your premium increase. You were able to pay $230/ month but claimed you "no longer could afford" the premium when it went up $1,300 annually. Thanks for being a shining example of my original point: The education system has utterly failed you.
Iphone - $299 (even though this doesnt count as a travel purchase)
Airfaire to wherever I want to go - no more than $300 (My best friend is a pilot for AA. I'm on his D3 List)
Hotel - Free most place as I stay with friends.
Chica's no more than $500 on any trip if I decide to actually monger.
Total trip. Less than a $1000 maybe twice a year at the most.You've also demonstrated, once again, that you lied. You pay upwards of $1,500 - $2,000 per year on two mongering trips per year. I have no desire to get too far into your finances. But, anyone who's blowing dough on the top of the line iPhone, traveling and mongering twice a year, also likely has a bunch of other frills they think they're entitled to. You could easily afford the premium increase. You may choose to blow your money on foreign travel and rent-a-chicas. But what you don't have the right to do is claim that you can't afford the "necessity" of health care, when you simultaneously blow your wad on these other things.
Good for you that your having fun. Just shut your yap about not being able to afford what you want others to pay for.
Travel and go without health care. Pay for health care and end your international mongering. It's pretty simple. Why you can't figure that out is the mystery. It's good to see you finally figured out the quote button, though.
$340 (increased premium) - $230 (old premium) = $110 (difference between the two)
$110 * 12 = $1,320 increase. That's your premium increase. You were able to pay $230/ month but claimed you "no longer could afford" the premium when it went up $1,300 annually. Thanks for being a shining example of my original point: The education system has utterly failed you.Actually Stan. You don't read into things very well. While you see it as a premium increase of $1320. I see it as a annual expenditure that went from $2760 to $4080 within a year and at that rate after 5 years it would =$10,680 annually. And thats if it stays at that current rate, which it probably wouldn't. If you can't see the basic problem with how healthcare has been broken. Then the education system has failed you as well.
Further more just for sake of argument. Lets say I can afford the increase of 1300. I choose not to participate into a broken system anymore. Why give my money to an institution that has those kinds of annual increases, can drop you for no apparent reason and doesn't really have your well being in mind. Let me tell you again so you "get it" The health care system wasn't working.
So instead of trying to attack my POV, why don't you tell me how you would fix health care in the USA if you were in charge of it?
You've also demonstrated, once again, that you lied. You pay upwards of $1,500 - $2,000 per year on two mongering trips per year. I have no desire to get too far into your finances. But, anyone who's blowing dough on the top of the line iPhone, traveling and mongering twice a year, also likely has a bunch of other frills they think they're entitled to. I agree the iPhone is a top of the line phone and @ $299 it's a very smart buy.
It's good to see you finally figured out the quote button, though.Yes I am a quick learner. But what is even more impressive is that I figured out much faster that your not a very smart guy.
Stan Da Man
09-01-10, 22:56
Let's just get back to your original statement, which was:
I can't afford Healthcare at its current prices and as a middle class American.You've clearly demonstrated that this was a lie. You now admit that you can afford your premiums but you chose to drop out because of what you feared would happen to premiums in the future. Your choice, and now you want someone else to pick up the tab so you can have enough dough to go on international mongering junkets.
There's no point debating with a liar or someone with a perspective as jaundiced as this. I've already afforded you more time than you deserve. The only point was to put the lie to your statement that you can't afford health care. You obviously can. You'd just rather spend your money elsewhere.
A busy day I see!
Jackson this thread may well become even more active as the elections approach, and since you've said before what the primary purpose of the board is (mongering) there's a question I've wondered about. I know some discussion boards can split things into "sections" where the primary board-related threads are in the first section, then other misc threads are grouped into a separate section below. So for example on AP, you would see the mongering threads first on the front page, and then only below them in a separate section would be the other threads like this one. I'm not saying I recommend this, I don't care too much. I just wondered if you ever thought about that.
BTW, you said the other day "Fight the smears!" and I stumbled on this website and thought how ironic, that your phrase was actually a website dedicated to addressing right wing smears against Obama in the 2008 election.
http://fightthesmears.com/
Let's just get back to your original statement, which was:
You've clearly demonstrated that this was a lie. You now admit that you can afford your premiums but you chose to drop out because of what you feared would happen to premiums in the future. Your choice, and now you want someone else to pick up the tab so you can have enough dough to go on international mongering junkets.
There's no point debating with a liar or someone with a perspective as jaundiced as this. I've already afforded you more time than you deserve. The only point was to put the lie to your statement that you can't afford health care. You obviously can. You'd just rather spend your money elsewhere.You are by far the biggest idiot here. Congrats! You fail to see the big picture. Just like most of your cronies.
Rock Harders
09-02-10, 00:40
Mongers,
Let's just all agree on one thing: Jackson and Rush Limbaugh are actually twins separated at birth and El Queso is Glenn Beck's soulmate.
Suerte,
Rock Harders
I hope they let the bush tax cuts expire. It will help pay the deficit. And I find it hilarious how not one Republican when asked if the the Bush Tax Cuts where to continue how they would be paid for. Not one could give a straight answer they just tried to politicize it. Its to bad we can't post Video up here. Some of its priceless.
BTW someone who refers to Healthcare reform as Obamacare has been watching to much FOX NEWS other wise known as FAUX NEWS. Unfair and extremely Unbalanced.
I can't afford Healthcare at its current prices and as a middle class American. I am glad Obama took a baby step to address this problem. I say baby step because it should have been a single payer program like the rest of the sane world has. Case in point. I have gone to Medellin Colombia to get all my dental work done and had some other medical things done at a FRACTION of the cost. Why? Because they don't think health care is a privilege. Its a necessity. But at the end of the day its not the politicians running this country into the ground its the corporations.If you've been following this thread for any length of time you probably know I agree with pretty much everything you said. It is indeed hilarious how Repubs are up in arms about fiscal responsibility, but can't articulate what specific spending cuts they propose to offset tax cuts, balance budgets and address the debt. Mitch McConnell repeatedly dodged questions on this topic last week on Meet The Press, it was classic.
As far as not being able to afford US healthcare though, I would have to agree with Stan. He's not an idiot, though I disagree with him on a number of things. It does sound from the information you provided, that (for now) you can afford US healthcare but simply choose to get it cheaper elsewhere so you have money left over for other things like mongering (which is totally understandable...). But you should acknowledge you mis-spoke, it's not a big deal. You'll always earn respect by acknowledging errors or mis-statements, something many on the right here have difficulty doing.
BTW, I have all the US healthcare coverage I need, and would still be willing to pay more in taxes for universal health care (that would mostly benefit others). Because like you I believe it is something that a truly great country would provide for all its citizens. This would be a case of "my own money" rather than "other people's money". Part of the reason you got challenged here is that you appear to provide a good example of what Republicans despise the most... a low income individual benefitting (or who wants to benefit) from a government program funded by taxes. What Republicans forget is that many people across all income brackets support such programs based on their values, not on the benefit they might personally gain. I'll post more on this later.
Mongers,
Let's just all agree on one thing: Jackson and Rush Limbaugh are actually twins separated at birth and El Queso is Glenn Beck's soulmate.
Suerte,
Rock HardersI know that it amuses you to make this comparison, but aside from superb public speaking abilities, Rush Limbaugh and I have very little in common, to wit:
I am NOT a Republican, 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.
Of course, in today's political environment, I wouldn't underestimate anyone with strong public speaking talent, as this is apparently the only qualification one needs to become the President of the United States.
Zing!
Thanks,
Jackson
Obama: the dumbest most inept President ever!
Wild Walleye
09-02-10, 12:12
I find the debate on news reporting interesting because to me the real problem is the blurring (ok, outright smearing) of a line that used to be very solid between Op Ed (Opinion) and the reporting of "facts. "Yes, there was a more obvious demarcation between what was advertised as OPED and "hard news." However, it was merely a false premise. Look into the history of the Pulitzer Prize. Pulitzer was a yellow journalist with a terrible reputation. The creation of the prize was a marketing gambit to try to elevate the perception of journalists and his papers.
Articles themselves were very neutral.Despite the above-mentioned delineation, the wholesale integration of opinion into "hard news" was alive and well 30+ years ago. Walter Cronkite, any one?
Today, every piece is full of opinion mixed with facts, no matter what the outlet.Agreed, there are very few individuals who can remove their own personal biases from any interpretation of events unfolding in front of them. The impact of this human trait on the US news industry has been further exacerbated by generations of indoctrination and reinforcement by the leftist (not left-leaning) main stream media. There are several excellent books on left wing bias in the media that cite reams of historical examples of how the media's perspective paints the left in rosy hues and the right in negative tones, even when the two agree.
every news source is tainted and has an agenda.Every kernel of news, that you do not witness firsthand, has been processed and delivered to you by other human beings, all of whom have their own biases (doesn't matter what they are) which, despite their respective efforts (if any) to keep them out of their reporting, find their way into the coverage. Some times the bias lines up on the "correct" side (I. E. Contempt for a convicted murder, whose crime was caught on video and delivered a full confession) and sometimes it is not.
Assume otherwise at your own peril. Read them all, filter heavily for facts, and make your own conclusions.Yes. Knowledge is king.
The concept of a "trusted source" for news is long gone.That is all it ever was, a concept.
If you've been following this thread for any length of time you probably know I agree with pretty much everything you said. It is indeed hilarious how Repubs are up in arms about fiscal responsibility, but can't articulate what specific spending cuts they propose to offset tax cuts, balance budgets and address the debt. Mitch McConnell repeatedly dodged questions on this topic last week on Meet The Press, it was classic.
As far as not being able to afford US healthcare though, I would have to agree with Stan. He's not an idiot, though I disagree with him on a number of things. It does sound from the information you provided, that (for now) you can afford US healthcare but simply choose to get it cheaper elsewhere so you have money left over for other things like mongering (which is totally understandable. But you should acknowledge you mis-spoke, it's not a big deal. You'll always earn respect by acknowledging errors or mis-statements, something many on the right here have difficulty doing.
BTW, I have all the US healthcare coverage I need, and would still be willing to pay more in taxes for universal health care (that would mostly benefit others) Because like you I believe it is something that a truly great country would provide for all its citizens. This would be a case of "my own money" rather than "other people's money". Part of the reason you got challenged here is that you appear to provide a good example of what Republicans despise the most. A low income individual benefitting (or who wants to benefit) from a government program funded by taxes. What Republicans forget is that many people across all income brackets support such programs based on their values, not on the benefit they might personally gain. I'll post more on this later.Ok Agreed. Stan your right I can afford Health insurance. Maybe I should have worded it differently. Lets just say I cancelled my policy due to the fact I didnt agree with the principals BCBS and how they are sticking it to me for no reason. I mean eventually if I stayed with them, there would be a point where I couldn't afford it. But simply put I don't feel we should have only 2 choices. Which is either going with a health Insurance provider like BCBS or going with out. Its like your doomed either way. Sorry for calling you an idiot. We are obviously both very passionate about our likes and dislikes in the system today.
Wild Walleye
09-02-10, 15:32
Ok Agreed. Stan your right I can afford Health insurance. Maybe I should have worded it differently. Lets just say I cancelled my policy due to the fact I didnt agree with the principals BCBS and how they are sticking it to me for no reason. Boy, you sure showed them. They will probably file bankruptcy as a result of losing your premiums. I do not know what type of policy you had but those rates (before and after the increase) actually sound pretty good.
While you may not agree with BCBS' principles, by dropping coverage, you are only endangering yourself. You are not necessarily buying a service, you are buying protection from the potential need for services. With coverage, if you have no significant health problems during the year, the insurance company wins. If you demand more than $4,000 in healthcare services, you win. Without coverage, if you encounter less than $4,000 in covered costs, you win, however, if you encounter major health care problems, you could be looking at tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs that you must bear.
I mean eventually if I stayed with them, there would be a point where I couldn't afford it.That's when you start shopping for another carrier.
But simply put I don't feel we should have only 2 choices. Which is either going with a health Insurance provider like BCBS or going with out.Why can't you use another carrier? There are thousands in the US.
Its like your doomed either way.Depends on your idea of doomed
Boy, you sure showed them. They will probably file bankruptcy as a result of losing your premiums. I do not know what type of policy you had but those rates (before and after the increase) actually sound pretty good.I wasn't trying to prove anything to them. Yea I am sure they will file for bankruptcy. I think they already did actually. I guess most of the political responses here can only be as smart ass remarks. If I don't agree or like how a company is treating me or charging me. I don't keep using them.
Do You?
While you may not agree with BCBS' principles, by dropping coverage, you are only endangering yourself. You are not necessarily buying a service, you are buying protection from the potential need for services. With coverage, if you have no significant health problems during the year, the insurance company wins. If you demand more than $4,000 in healthcare services, you win. Without coverage, if you encounter less than $4,000 in covered costs, you win, however, if you encounter major health care problems, you could be looking at tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs that you must bear.I am aware of the risks I take by not being covered. Thanks for sharing that.
I am also aware that if something traumatic were to happen to me, there still wouldn't be any guarantees.I did shop for other carriers. Not, much to choose from. Sad thing is I think, if I remember correctly that BCBS was the cheapest on the market. If you want to call that cheap. Yes thousands in the US. Only a couple in Florida. You can't get it across state lines. Not sure about now. But then. No.
Depends on your idea of doomedCertain to suffer death, failure, or a similarly negative outcome.
En.wiktionary.org/wiki/doomed
Member #4112
09-02-10, 16:45
Miamipro,
Perhaps you noticed a new poll out by Gallup regarding which administration the folks would prefer to be in power today: 55% said Bush and 43% said Obama. Wow what a "change" in just 20 months!
While you did notice the reductions in government programs under Clinton which resulted in a surplus you seemed too completely ignore 9/11. What was Bush to do, just say shit-happens? You seem appalled by Bush spending less than a Trillion in 8 years on 2 wars but don't seem at all offended by Obama spending more in just one year which done nothing for the economy and may yet lead to a double dip recession.
Please don't pander to the Democrat's talking point of "well it would have been much worse if we had not acted" BS, these are the same guys who sold the Stimulus Package telling us if we did not act unemployment would reach (gasp) 8.5%. Based on the Dem's claims we would have been better off doing nothing and getting 8.5% unemployment instead of acting and ending up with 10 to 9.5%!
Just read an interesting article in one of my trade journals regarding the 99 weeks of unemployment courtesy of the Obama Admin, guess what the findings were? The majority of unemployed found work within 30 days of losing unemployment benefits at 99 weeks. Gee isn't that just amazing?
Miamipro perhaps you noticed a new poll out by Gallup regarding which administration the folks would prefer to be in power today: 55% said Bush and 43% said Obama. Wow what a "change" in just 20 months!What makes you think I am so Pro Obama? I mean I will admit he was the best choice out of the selection we had to vote for. And while I did buy into his "Change We Can Believe In" It turns out he just another run at the mouth politician. I am a Independent but lean towards the left. But the progressive left. Obama is not Progressive enough for me and he only has provided some change but not true change I can believe in. Not yet anyway.
While you did notice the reductions in government programs under Clinton which resulted in a surplus you seemed too completely ignore 9/11. What was Bush to do, just say shit-happens? You seem appalled by Bush spending less than a Trillion in 8 years on 2 wars but don't seem at all offended by Obama spending more in just one year which done nothing for the economy and may yet lead to a double dip recession.The wars should have never taken place. After 9/11 we went on the right path by going after Al Queda. Should have just focused on them and getting Bin Laden. But GW Bush wanted to go after Saddam and Iraq. And while you may get instant gratification by seeing the Death of Saddam. It has not been worth everything we have lost there. Specifically the death of our soldiers for a war of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" Here is a clip of Cheney himself saying how it would be a quagmire to invade Iraq. This is 1994. He knows whats up. But later down the year can't seem to follow his own advise. Probably because he was to make a lot of war time profits from Halliburton. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I
Please don't pander to the Democrat's talking point of "well it would have been much worse if we had not acted" BS, these are the same guys who sold the Stimulus Package telling us if we did not act unemployment would reach (gasp) 8.5%. Based on the Dem's claims we would have been better off doing nothing and getting 8.5% unemployment instead of acting and ending up with 10 to 9.5%!I don't need to Pander to anyone. And if you knew any history of the Initial Stimulus. You should know it was a Bush Policy.
The only Bailout I don't agree with is Bailing out the big Banks and Wall Street, Goldman Sachs (Rolls Eyes) that I didn't agree with.
Wild Walleye
09-02-10, 17:25
I guess most of the political responses here can only be as smart ass remarks.One of my specialties.
If I don't agree or like how a company is treating me or charging me. I don't keep using them.
Do You?It depends on what I am buying from them. I would not drop an insurance carrier or policy (life, car, home, health or medical evacuation) without first securing an alternative and understanding the pros and cons of switching. Years ago my car insurance went from 1,300 to 3,500 (two cars) virtually over night. I called and asked why and discovered that they no longer wanted to do business in my state and were going to jack up the rates on everyone until they left for other carriers. I got on the phone, found a broker and found a better deal and switched, without having any period of no coverage. Protecting oneself from the financial implications of health issues is not a right, just prudent risk management (in my opinion) While I don't like paying premiums, I don't like complete exposure to all the risks.
I am also aware that if something traumatic were to happen to me, there still wouldn't be any guarantees.In the past 25 years I have been on probably a dozen different plans and don't recall more than one or two claims that were ever denied or challenged. Had I not had coverage, my aggregate, family healthcare bill would be several hundred thousand dollars. I can assure you that I have not come close to paying that in premiums, co-pays and deductibles.
Certain to suffer death, failure, or a similarly negative outcome.Dying ain't cheap either but, if you are going to do it in the near future, I advise doing it before the end of 2010.
Stay thirsty my freind
One of my specialties.
It depends on what I am buying from them. I would not drop an insurance carrier or policy (life, car, home, health or medical evacuation) without first securing an alternative and understanding the pros and cons of switching. Years ago my car insurance went from 1,300 to 3,500 (two cars) virtually over night. I called and asked why and discovered that they no longer wanted to do business in my state and were going to jack up the rates on everyone until they left for other carriers. I got on the phone, found a broker and found a better deal and switched, without having any period of no coverage. Protecting oneself from the financial implications of health issues is not a right, just prudent risk management (in my opinion) While I don't like paying premiums, I don't like complete exposure to all the risks.
In the past 25 years I have been on probably a dozen different plans and don't recall more than one or two claims that were ever denied or challenged. Had I not had coverage, my aggregate, family healthcare bill would be several hundred thousand dollars. I can assure you that I have not come close to paying that in premiums, co-pays and deductibles.
Dying ain't cheap either but, if you are going to do it in the near future, I advise doing it before the end of 2010.
Stay thirsty my freindThe most interesting man ever. If he punched you in the face, you would have a sudden urge to go thank him.
Member #4112
09-02-10, 19:45
Well at least we can agree on something. I am also an independent but one who leans more conservative (since the GOP has been spending like drunken sailors and abandoned smaller government and more states rights) and never considered Bush was the devil incarnate while disagreeing with several of his policies.
As far as the wars, you seem to agree that Afghanistan was necessary but Iraq was not. If Bush's father had done the job right the first time while we had the troops there, the Iraqis decimated and on the run we would not have had to go back later to complete the job. Was it necessary, history and time will tell since rectal vision is always 20/20.
As far as the Stimulus I am speaking of both with the greater emphasis on Obama's bail out of Wall Street as well as the GM Chrysler take over.
Excuse me! Last time I checked Obama has been railing against the Bush Tax Cuts as a giveaway to the "rich" - a term he kept shifting downward with each speech during his campaign to what is now $250,000 annual income for married joint filers. I don't know anyone who considers $250K / year as "rich".
Get a grip Esten since your guy Obama is as slippery as an eel when it comes to economics and taxing the folks. Obama did not get on board until AFTER many Democrats saw this as a cheap trick to attempt to hold on to their seats in November.Obama was clear and consistent on his tax position in the months before the election. And he has remained so to the present. That being: allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for the rich but not for families making less than 250K or individuals less than 200K. There is a ton of video and news articles to back this up, why would you even bother to argue? How does clear and consistent become "slippery as an eel"? You must be kidding me.
A few Dems have been mulling extending the tax cuts for the rich, but not the White House. Obama did not "get on board" with that. You are confused.
Earners above 250K represent just 2% of the population. Coincidentally, the percent of people surveyed in a Gallup poll who considered themselves "rich" was also 2%. That poll also found the public's median definition of "rich" was an income of $120,000. There is no hard and fast definition of "middle class" but all the economic assessments I have seen (vs. polls asking rich people what they think) put almost all if not all the middle class below the 250K level. Your suggestion that 250K is middle class is amusing to say the least. And regardless of the definition, the fact remains that Obama hasn't changed his position.
Your lame defense of that Fox News story is inaccurate on all counts. Do you work at Fox News?
Your boy Obama spent more than $1 Trillion on one piece of legislation (Stimulus I) in his first months in office Recovery Act spending isn't even half that amount. Do you just make stuff up?
Wild Walleye
09-03-10, 01:18
Well at least we can agree on something. I am also an independent but one who leans more conservativeI consider myself to be an independent thinker, however, my political philosophy is conservative. Not in the "evil conservative" vein portrayed in the media but in the sense of limited government, personal responsibility and freedom (you might have guessed by now that I am not much of a holy roller)
(since the GOP has been spending like drunken sailors and abandoned smaller government and more states rights) Don't mistake Republicans candidates for true conservatives.
and never considered Bush was the devil incarnate while disagreeing with several of his policies. Bush was a train wreck on the spending he was willing to endorse. However, he kept us safe (a much bigger task and thinner line than most of you know)
As far as the wars, you seem to agree that Afghanistan was necessary but Iraq was not.Not sure you directed this to me but I jumped in. I was in favor of both wars and support them both today, in thought and deed.
If Bush's father had done the job right the first time while we had the troops there,George HW did what he could, while his hands were tied. There was no route to Baghdad, including the highway of death given constraints placed upon the US by the UN and international powers.
The Iraqis decimated and on the run we would not have had to go back later to complete the job.See above, we were not allowed to complete the job back then. The bigger concern was creating a power vacuum (remember that back then Republicans were not into 'nation building') that would tip the balance to Iran for control of Iraq (population 31 million and third largest oil reserves) which we were not willing to stomach. It is revolting that we would leave Saddam in power to wreak the havoc and evil head did during the interceding years, however, the alternative was worse.
Was it necessary, history and time will tell since rectal vision is always 20/20.As for "rectal" vision, I have that at privados sometimes.
As far as the Stimulus I am speaking of both with the greater emphasis on Obama's bail out of Wall Street as well as the GM Chrysler take over.History will not look kindly upon Obama's Wall Street connections (and payoffs) nor will the unconstitutional expropriation of private asset effectuated by Obama in nationalization of Chrysler and GM look so good in "rectal vision."
Member #4112
09-03-10, 10:40
No WW the comments were not in response to you but to Maimipro.
First.
I know the UN refused to allow the US to finish the job and the media's whining about the Highway of Death was another reason (What did they expect we were doing playing on an X Box - it was war) We could have finished it then but were not permitted to do so and the Administration had won a stunning victory, in such a small amount of time with so few casualties they were not really eager to continue although the field commanders were. Had we been permitted to finish the job things probably would have been easier, but after allowing the Iraqis in the south and Kurds in the north to rise up expecting our assistance then letting them be slaughter by Saddam it made Gulf II more difficult.
During Bush's last term how could you tell the difference between Republicans and Democrats, they both expanded government programs and spent like drunken sailors.
WW, I think you are confusing rectal vision with Hershey Highway, but that is just IMHO.
Esten.
Are you really trying to tell me Obama did not spend over $1 Trillion dollars on Wall Street / AIG / et. Al. In his first year? Now who is making things up here! Hell even the CBO has been whining about his deficit spending.
No, your boy has not been consistent, your just trying to reinterpret his words on the campaign trail and after entering office to what you want to hear today. He was very clear; the Bush Tax Cuts were to be allowed to expire, period. There was no caveat in his statements about "except for joint filers earning less than $250K". There was certainly nothing about Capital Gains, in fact he vilified those who received Capital Gains for getting money they did not earn – go check the video. You are just trying to combine two pledges to make your case. Two pledges Obama never linked.
You seem appalled by Bush spending less than a Trillion in 8 years on 2 wars.And also the billions needed to clean up after Katrina.
If you know this paper, calling them Liberal is an understatement. Yet, even they recognize change is in the wind.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=71462
Sysco
Stan Da Man
09-03-10, 15:49
Here's another one: The Cash for Clunkers program was a. Clunker.
Even NPR, that bastion of liberalism, concedes it: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/09/02/129608251/cash-for-clunkers
It accomplished two things:
1. It shifted car purchases forward, but did not impact total purchases, because once the program ended sales declined substantially. That's according to the study that the article linked above discusses. The net result: No greater car sales than would otherwise have occurred.
2. It boosted sales for Japanese car manufacturers. All of the top 10 clunkers traded in were American models. 6 of the top 10 cars purchased were Japanese or Korean models.
So, the program didn't increase auto sales. But, it did cause 60% of those trading in American cars to purchase a Japanese car. Stated another way, the Obama Administration succeeded in taking our tax dollars and giving it to Americans so that they could give 60% of it to Japanese auto makers. No doubt, American consumers have been trending toward Japanese cars for a long time. But, this program was billed as a boon to U. S. Auto manufacturers. It was anything but. Indeed, it obviously accelerated the trend of purchases to Japanese.
And these guys are supposed to be on our team. Their tax gimmicks don't work. Small wonder folks don't trust these guys on their stimulus efforts or the sham small business tax plan they're trying to deceive the public with now.
It's amazing even this morning to hear Obama talk about private sector jobs created even as he deliberately ignores the fact that the unemployment rate went up to 9.6%. Does he really think folks are that stupid? Apparently, he does. He'll get a rude awakening in two months.
The economy is a mystery. Our limited understanding of the economy suggested that an influx of money from the government would stimulate the economy.
Obviously, this is not working and something else is at play.
During the Great Depression the world made the mistake of initiating policies that restricted free trade and restricted the supply of money. This not only didn't work but probably weakened the economy.
We may be in for a world of hurt because we do not have a clue how the economy really functions.
A hundred years ago we had a different view of the economy. It was widely understood that every 10 years or so the economy would go through a correction. This happened like clockwork until 1929 when when the government thought it should intervene. The government intervened and we were dealt - gracias a Big Brother - the Great Depression.
Member #4112
09-03-10, 19:49
Obama and the Dems are talking about "targeted" fed spending but are going out of their way to not call it "stimulus"
No, your boy has not been consistent, your just trying to reinterpret his words on the campaign trail and after entering office to what you want to hear today. He was very clear; the Bush Tax Cuts were to be allowed to expire, period. There was no caveat in his statements about "except for joint filers earning less than $250K". This is pointless semantics. Without action all the tax cuts expire. Whether there is action to (i) extend the cuts for a subgroup, or (ii) let all cuts expire and introduce the same cuts for that subgroup, it's the same result. You could be correct that in 2008 he never phrased it as an extension. And if now he is phrasing it as an extension, then you have a case he is inconsistent in choice of words. But such quibbling on words is pointless, his intention for middle class taxes not to increase has been constant.
That Fox News story implied Obama was changing his position on middle class taxes for election purposes. At best you've made a possible case that the Fox News story is merely a huge deception, rather than a huge lie.
Are you really trying to tell me Obama did not spend over $1 Trillion dollars on Wall Street / AIG / et. Al. In his first year? Now who is making things up here!
As far as the Stimulus I am speaking of both with the greater emphasis on Obama's bail out of Wall Street as well as the GM Chrysler take over. Are you kidding me??? The Wall Street / AIG bailout was TARP, not Stimulus. TARP was signed into law in October 2008 by Bush. This made it part of FY09, but it wasn't spending approved by Obama. Obama didn't bail out Wall Street.
Why should I take you even slightly seriously when you don't have basic facts like this straight?
EDITOR'S NOTE: This report was deleted because it consisted solely of an unannotated link to another website. Please do not post links to other websites without some explanation as to what may be found at the linked webpage. In other words, if you want to post a link to another website, please include some commentary describing what the link is to.
I hope they let the bush tax cuts expire. It will help pay the deficit. And I find it hilarious how not one Republican when asked if the the Bush Tax Cuts where to continue how they would be paid for. Not one could give a straight answer they just tried to politicize it. Its to bad we can't post Video up here. Some of its priceless.
BTW someone who refers to Healthcare reform as Obamacare has been watching to much FOX NEWS other wise known as FAUX NEWS. Unfair and extremely Unbalanced.
I can't afford Healthcare at its current prices and as a middle class American. I am glad Obama took a baby step to address this problem. I say baby step because it should have been a single payer program like the rest of the sane world has. Case in point. I have gone to Medellin Colombia to get all my dental work done and had some other medical things done at a FRACTION of the cost. Why? Because they don't think health care is a privilege. Its a necessity. But at the end of the day its not the politicians running this country into the ground its the corporations.Goodness, Where to start. Certain components of the tax increase on the wealthy that are coming down the pike are going to increase the deficit. As candidate Obama said in an interview with Charles Gibson some years ago, even though a higher capital gains tax rate likely would DECREASE the amount of tax paid by the wealthy, we should do it in the name of fairness. This is the same argument used by Citizens for Tax Justice. On their web site, they mention a Congressional Budget Office study showing that the percentage of income taxes paid by the wealthy would be higher with the Bush tax cuts in place than they would be without the tax cuts. But the tax cuts should go anyway, in the name of justice and fairness.
In other words, it's fine if everyone is poorer, as long as the rich become poorer faster.
While a lot of Republicans are cut from the same mold as most Democrats, there are those who have come out and said exactly how the government could cut spending -- Mike Pence, Jeff Flake, John Shadegg to name a few.
I don't know much about the new healthcare laws, but apparently the politicians are doing exactly what you want them to do -- throw more money at the problem without fixing it. We already spend 16% of GDP on healthcare, much more than any other country in the world. Medicare is probably going to bankrupt this country.
EDITOR'S NOTE: This report was deleted because it consisted solely of an unannotated link to another website. Please do not post links to other websites without some explanation as to what may be found at the linked webpage. In other words, if you want to post a link to another website, please include some commentary describing what the link is to. This is a MUST SEE video for anyone interested in the immigration debate, whether you are a citizen, an illegal alien or a Congressman. All » This clip from the longer video, Immigration by the Numbers, features Roy Beck demonstrating the catastrophe of the huge numbers of both legal and illegal immigration by Third World people into the modern nations. He uses standard statistics and simple gumballs to show this disaster in the making.
Video was done by roy beck:
On you tube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7WJeqxuOfQ&feature=player_embedded
http://www.answers.com/topic/roy-beck
Full video on google:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc.
Member #4112
09-05-10, 01:55
Yes Esten TARP was passed before Obama took office, but last time I checked his administration has been in charge of the majority of the funds and most of the oversite of the program but let's not leave out the Stimulus which may yet result in a double dip recession. I guess you believe TARP was passed, all the fund distributed and oversite completed in 2 months? About the only thing Obama has not fxxk up is his vacations.
I know - Its all Bush's fault. I don't think anyone is buying that anymore
Whichever way you look, there is plenty of fault to pass around. But what is more crucial is the health of the American value system, a subject that everyone is keen to ignore. And I am not going to be the one to lay it naked on the table here.
So regardless of Bush & Obama, the road has been carved, and it is a road that lead to? But not to worry, life will be great for you and me.
Article 1, Section 7. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the house of representatives; but the senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills. In other words, it's not the President's budget. It belongs to Congress. Yes, Congress.
The last "Republican" budget was 2007, with a deficit of $161 billion - reduced from about $400 billion in 2004. The 2008 budget, with its record (then) deficit of $455 billion, was the product of a Democrat-run Congress; George W. Bush forced some compromises in that one. In 2009, Congress bypassed Dubya entirely through "continuing resolutions" to keep the Federal government running until Obama came into office. The 2009 budget nearly QUADRUPLED that "record-setting" $455,000,000,000 deficit from 2008.
The smallest CBO-projected budget in the attached graph is for 2011. The Congressional Budget Office expects that one to be over $600 billion dollars; and after that, the deficit goes whoopin' and hollerin' into the sunset.
Incidentally, Barack Obama was in the Senate to vote for the 2008 budget and the 2009 "continuing resolutions".
Whose budget?
Yes Esten TARP was passed before Obama took office, but last time I checked his administration has been in charge of the majority of the funds and most of the oversite of the program but let's not leave out the Stimulus which may yet result in a double dip recession. I guess you believe TARP was passed, all the fund distributed and oversite completed in 2 months? About the only thing Obama has not fxxk up is his vacations.
I know - Its all Bush's fault. I don't think anyone is buying that anymore
Punter 127
09-05-10, 12:06
Yes Esten TARP was passed before Obama took office, but last time I checked his administration has been in charge of the majority of the funds and most of the oversite of the program but let's not leave out the Stimulus which may yet result in a double dip recession. I guess you believe TARP was passed, all the fund distributed and oversite completed in 2 months? About the only thing Obama has not fxxk up is his vacations.
I know - Its all Bush's fault. I don't think anyone is buying that anymore Sure it's Bush's fault everything under the sun is Bush's fault. At least Obama and all his left-wing wannabe serfs are going to keep saying it's Bush's fault, because that's all they've got. You're right people aren't buying it, they're waking up to the fact that this administration is nothing more than a bunch of Chicago hoodlums hell-bent on raping America!
Speaking of the Stimulus perhaps one of the Obama whiz kids would like to explain again how the stimulus has help the American people, seems nearly 10% of the work force are having trouble understanding.
Oh BTW I'm sure most of you understand that the 10% number is very low, it's just a number one of the Obama chefs crooked up. Obama has more than one type of chef some who cook food, others who cook the books.
How many jobs lost during recovery summer?
The economy is a mystery. Great words of wisdom! If you don't believe it just ask Obama, he's been mystified by the economy every since he took office.
In other words, it's not the President's budget. It belongs to Congress. Yes, Congress.This has always been the scam. The public debates which President (Rep or Dem) was the biggest moron while we keep electing incumbents back into the Congress and Senate. Where, they continue to fuck us over with little recourse.
Now, where are my blood pressure pills?
Sysco
This has always been the scam. The public debates which President (Rep or Dem) was the biggest moron while we keep electing incumbents back into the Congress and Senate. Where, they continue to fuck us over with little recourse.
Now, where are my blood pressure pills?
SyscoSo I wonder what is the underlying factor that create such extreme obsession, both adulation and hatred of Obama.
Yeah, keep those pills close at hand, but keep them separate from the blue ones.
So I wonder what is the underlying factor that create such extreme obsession, both adulation and hatred of Obama.It's the same factor that caused such an extreme adulation and hatred of Bush. When was the last time there was a debate that contained any real facts or positions on issues beyond marketing points? Campaign ads are smear campaigns. IMO, we've reduced our politics to raw emotions playing on extreme fears. In that environment, you get extreme reactions to candidates.
Sysco
Wild Walleye
09-05-10, 21:48
Here's another one: The Cash for Clunkers program was a. Clunker.
Even NPR, that bastion of liberalism, concedes it: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/09/02/129608251/cash-for-clunkers
It accomplished two things:
1. It shifted car purchases forward, but did not impact total purchases, because once the program ended sales declined substantially. That's according to the study that the article linked above discusses. The net result: No greater car sales than would otherwise have occurred.
2. It boosted sales for Japanese car manufacturers. All of the top 10 clunkers traded in were American models. 6 of the top 10 cars purchased were Japanese or Korean models.Alas, NPR couldn't bring itself to report on the third and perhaps most significant impact of cash for clunkers: screwing the poor! The program sought out older cars, bought them from people who could have afforded newer ones on their own and destroyed them (all the cars turned into the programs that is) Ever wonder why there is a used auto parts market? Ever wonder who are most of the people purchasing used auto parts (as opposed to new auto parts for an older car) Ever wonder where used auto parts come from? This program raised the cost for every poor American just trying keep their old POS car on the road so that they can get by. What did they do to deserve this financial stick in the eye?
Wow, what a great magnanimous ruler we have. He screws the "rich" (e. G. The rightful owners of GM and Chrysler) and the poor (purchasers of used auto parts) and all the taxpayers just to bailout the unions. And to think, I thought he was a Marxist ideologue.
Member #4112
09-05-10, 22:31
Esten, can you explain Westy's very interesting chart without saying it was Bush's fault? FYI the really bad red numbers are CBO.
Esten, can you explain how going from 9.5 to 9.6 unemployment was a move in the "right direction" as per Obama?
Esten, can you explain "Recovery Summer" to me, I seem to have missed the point?
Punter 127
09-06-10, 00:40
This is a MUST SEE video for anyone interested in the immigration debate, whether you are a citizen, an illegal alien or a Congressman. All » This clip from the longer video, Immigration by the Numbers, features Roy Beck demonstrating the catastrophe of the huge numbers of both legal and illegal immigration by Third World people into the modern nations. He uses standard statistics and simple gumballs to show this disaster in the making.
Video was done by roy beck:
On you tube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7WJeqxuOfQ&feature=player_embedded
http://www.answers.com/topic/roy-beck
Full video on google:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc.Exon this is an issue that hasn't really been discussed here. You refer to it as a "catastrophe" and speak of both legal and legal immigration. Legal immigration is controlled and illegal immigration is out of control.
I know you see some of this first hand, so what's your solution for the problem?
BTW the Google link doesn't work.
Doppelganger,
Actually just going over some past posts. I don't agree with any of the wars. The loss of American soldiers for these campaigns were un-necessary to say the least. And really isn't going to have any long term benefits. I was wondering if you even watched the video link of Cheney in 94 detailing why we didn't "Finish the job in Desert Storm" under the first Bush. The real kicker is what he says right at the end and I will quote.
"For the family's of the 146 lost in action, it wasn't a cheap war and the question for the President whether we went on to bagdad and take on more casualties and get Saddam. Was How many additional dead was Saddam worth? Our judgment was not very many. And I think we got it right." ~Cheney 1994
Why does the middle east hate us? Maybe because we support the Israelis? Who have different religious views in that part of the world compared to most of the middle east. Religions create wars. All religions have extremists. Even the ones in the good ol' USA. Our Politician's make policy based on their Religious views. Forgetting to separate Church and State.
Let me make a point with out getting into to much detail about Israelis. They aren't any better than The Palestine's or Hamas. They create so much of their own problems. Its no wonder the other guys want to kill them so badly. Religion is Poison and God is not great.
We could go on a long time about budget and spending issues. The bottom line is that most of the increased spending in the last two years has been to address the financial crisis and ensuing deep recession that Obama inherited. Obama is simply taking responsible steps advised by economists. It wouldn't be much different if Repubs were in power either. The line that Obama is an out-of-control spender is unfortunate politics. The right would like people to think Dems spend like this all the time, overlooking the context of the spending & events of the past two years.
Both TARP and Stimulus were responsible and effective actions, regardless of how you argue who approved it and spent the money. But we should be accurate about what was what. Fox News fan Doppelganger tried to spread mis-information by claiming Stimulus spending exceeded $1 Trillion. The real number as of today is $289 Billion, of an approved $499 Billion. The effect of that spending combined with tax benefits in the Stimulus has been significant:
Economists agree: Stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-08-30-stimulus30_CV_N.htm
Repubs claim the Stimulus was a failure, but this is just more unfortunate politics. The only grain of truth here is that it did not keep unemployment below 8% as projected back in January 2009. That projection was a mistake. But you needed a crystal ball then to see the huge layoffs to come in 2009. If anything, a more accurate projection would have warranted a larger stimulus. And without the Stimulus things would have been much worse; that's not just a talking point but a conclusion of respected economists. Contrast this with right wing talking points that Obama spent $1 Trillion on the Stimulus and it accomplished little.
Maybe you guys can try your spin on some other board, it ain't workin here.
I've also noted before, that despite the official party line many Republicans were praising Stimulus-funded projects in their districts. Schwarzenegger summed it up nicely:
“I find it interesting that you have a lot of the Republicans running around and pushing back on stimulus money and saying this doesn’t create any new jobs, and then they go out and do photo-ops and they’re posing with the big check and they say, ‘Isn’t this great! Look the kind of money I provide here for the state! And this is great money to create jobs, and this has created 10,000 new jobs, and this has created 20,000 new jobs,’” Schwarzenegger said on ABC’s "This Week." “It doesn’t match up.”
Schwarzenegger: GOP stimulus attacks, then praise of projects hypocritical
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/82517-schwarzenegger-calls-gop-opposition-of-stimulus-then-praise-of-projects-hypocritical
Right now, I am in the midst of watching on CNBC, a report on the financing of toxic loans & mortgages that led to the financial meltdown. Let me just say "greedy / unscrupulous financial institutions and greedy / naive homeowners", add Wall Street to the mix, and voila! Iceland was just one place where the cocktail ignited big time. Alot of people had to grow up and found they had been wrong about the Disney notion that "crime does not pay".
So how about Franks, Clinton, Bush, Greenspan, Obama. They are just mere players in the game. And so who are the enemies? Alas, don't look too far, just look in the mirror!
Exon this is an issue that hasn't really been discussed here. You refer to it as a "catastrophe" and speak of both legal and legal immigration. Legal immigration is controlled and illegal immigration is out of control.
I know you see some of this first hand, so what's your solution for the problem?
BTW the Google link doesn't work.Its something I've never really considered until a friend just recently sent me the video. It makes sense, imagination population growth is taxing the resources of the USA.
The video states there 800,000 legal immigrants coming into the US every year. But Lord only knows how many illegal's are coming in each year, maybe another 1 to 2 million. In time of course this add's up and we end up competing for goods and services, including "Job's" our biggest problem in today's economy.
Moreover Federal, State and Local Governments must pay for the extra infrastructure need to support the added population, more Government, schools, police, fire depts, ect, ect. This of course cost money which none of these Governments have. Thus they have to raise tax's and cut the goods and services offered to support the population.
I was astounded to hear that California with the 8th largest economy in the world, not only broke and can't pay its bill's, with 12 percent unemployment. But to keep up with the population growth must build a new School everyday to keep up with the new enrollments.
Very possibility the problems in America are not Democrat or Republican, Liberal or Conservative, but too many immigrants diluting our way of life competing for the goods and services our country has to offer.
Its really something worth thinking about.
Exon
Wild Walleye
09-06-10, 14:10
Regardless of one's political persuasion, there are some simple solutions that, if the Ruling Class could do what is right rather than what is in its own selfish interests, could start to help the US in terms of its security, both financial and homeland.
1. Stop all illegal immigration immediately and review if the quotas for LEGAL immigration should be raised.
- an influx of 1-2 million illegal immigrants places an additional burden on the states and federal govt that can be quantified (i.e. you can calculate the cost)
- most illegal immigrants are indigent.
- indigent individuals (whether legal or not) tend to 'demand' more subsidized and 'free' services than those of means.
The actual cost of this to states and the federal govt (both of which are funded entirely through taxes) is the source of many debates. However, it is estimated that there are 11-20 million illegals in the US. When you calculate the costs included education, health care, displaced legal workers, law enforcement, etc. It turns out to be a pretty big number. Estimates run from the billions to the hundreds of billions (depending upon the political agenda of the group publishing the number) One group estimates that the public education costs alone for illegals is more than $7B per year (I am not endorsing this number, just putting it out as an example)
2. Paying out defined benefit pensions to employees of any state or federal employer should be illegal (from this point forward)
For those of you that missed my earlier explanation, simply put defined benefit plans pay you an annual amount based upon some metric (average salary over your last three years or whatever) This type of plan does not require that the employee contribute anything to the plan nor does it take into consideration the performance of the pension assets, over time. No one in the private sector gives defined benefit pensions, however it is the standard for govt employees. Why? (unions) Take a moment and download the annual budget for your town or city. Take a look at how much is allocated to retirement benefits for people no longer working for the municipality. This practice is one of the primary contributors to bankrupting or towns, cities, states and the federal govt.
Gentlemen,
I am appalled at your callous use of the words "Illegal Immigrants".
The politically correct phrase is "Undocumented Democrats".
Thank you,
Jackson
Esten, can you explain Westy's very interesting chart without saying it was Bush's fault? FYI the really bad red numbers are CBO.Easy. I explained this before on 8/8 in case you missed it. The chart below is also based on CBO data and has the same shape but shows the deficit components. The deficits are almost all due to the wars, tax cuts and economic downturn, which are all legacies from Bush. It's these same components Obama is working to address.
Esten, can you explain how going from 9.5 to 9.6 unemployment was a move in the "right direction" as per Obama?
Esten, can you explain "Recovery Summer" to me, I seem to have missed the point?The Obama administration has not done a good job of managing expectations. That's a valid criticism. But we've had eight consecutive months of private sector job growth. Last week's jobs report was better than expected. The unemployment rate still ticked up because more people entered the workforce. You know all this. The approaches have been sound, but more effort is needed which Obama has acknowledged and that's what we'll be seeing. I agree we are moving in the right direction.
It turned out the Stimulus was too small for the recession it was designed to fight. Guess who fought the size of the Stimulus - Republicans. The same people who now attempt to claim it was a failure. The conduct of Republicans has been shameful.
Here's another relevant article to consider, noting that sustained job creation began earlier in this recovery than in the prior two recoveries:
Strongest jobs recovery in decades. Seriously.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/02/news/economy/jobs_recovery/index.htm
I know - Its all Bush's fault. I don't think anyone is buying that anymoreYou're the one who keeps repeating this line. But as the chart I posted shows, the economic issues we are dealing with now are mainly legacies from Bush policies. He himself had a limited role and there were many factors involved. But it happened under his watch and that's how people talk about it, fair or not.
Once again you are wrong as to whether people are "buying" this:
Poll: 71 Percent Of Americans Still Blame Bush For The Current Economic Woes
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/03/most-blame-bush-economy/
81% rate U.S. economy as 'poor' - CNN poll
http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/05/news/economy/economy_poll_cnn/index.htm
The CNN poll found that more Americans hold Republicans responsible than Democrats for current economic problems, with 44% blaming the GOP and 35% picking the Democrats. When Bush's name is added to the mix, the number who blame the Republicans rises to 53%. I'm sure voters will be reminded about Bush in the upcoming elections.
Didn't you ever learn "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." ?
Member #4112
09-06-10, 20:17
Esten, let's take a look at the costs you keep bring up.
TARP & Stimulus.
According to CNN (one of your favorite sources) the Stimulus Package committed a total of $1.2 Trillion.
Obama didn't even bother to vote "present" on TARP he just skipped it all together. Don't want to vote for on it just spend the money.
While we are talking about TARP – Obama spent a total of $77.6 Billion on the GM / Chrysler / GMAC / Chrysler Financial / GM Suppliers & Chrysler Suppliers bailout from TARP.
Also while we are on the TARP issue – Obama spent the bulk of the $69.8 Billion that went to AIG and all the bonuses were paid under his watch using TARP money as he stood by and watched it happen!
http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/bailouttracker/
But the true cost projected by CBO @ 10 years = $327 Trillion
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/02/12/true-cost-of-stimulus-327-trillion/
Oh, I almost forgot to add the $63 Billion Obama has authorized for the “Women-Centered Global Health Program” so unless these funds are for subsidizing guys on the Forum then it’s just more waste!
BUSH & IRAQ
You are always so hot to blame Bush and the spending on the war in Iraq for the economy, well how about these numbers on spending during the same time period the Iraq War was going on to put the cost in prospective:
1. Under Bush the Fed Gov spent more on education than on the war, the states and local governments spent more than 10 times the amount the Fed did on education
2. The war’s cost was less than 25% of the spending on JUST Medicare during the same period (this is only Medicare not Medicaid or Welfare which outstrip Medicare in spending)
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Little-known-fact-Obamas-failed-stimulus-program-cost-more-than-the-Iraq-war-101302919.html
POLLS
Bush vs Obama
You always love polls but you only select those that favor your side. Regarding your Bush vs Obama poll, the one I found at random indicated when people were asked if today they could choose between having Bush back or keep Obama the results were Obama = 48% and Bush = 46% (margin of error = 3.4%) so it was basically a dead heat. This is nowhere near what you tried to represent!
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/poll-public-split-on-whether-they-would-prefer-obama-or-george-w-bush.php
JOBS.
I did a little research on your claim of 3 Million jobs CREATED by Obama, but since the statement is false on its face when you consider we are at 9.6% unemployment I just didn't bother. Perhaps you mis-spoke and meant CREATED &/ or SAVED, since it would be impossible to have created 3 million jobs and still have the unemployment rate go UP to 9.6% , unless of course you were losing many more jobs than you were claiming to create.
I really did like your little dodge to explain the uptick in unemployment by trying to ignore it by saying well there were more people entering the job market. July and August are NOT the months you see up swings in job seekers.
You also conveniently forgot about those folks which are not counted DOL unemployment figures when their unemployment benefits run out or they cease looking for employment out of sheer frustration. When you include them in the number it is well over 10% , add in underemployed and you are well over 14. Don't believe me – go to the Department of Labor web site, its all there.
Nice try but no sale – the folks out there with no job are sure as hell not buying this crap.
Obama spent more than $1 Trillion on one piece of legislation (Stimulus I) in his first months in office
Are you really trying to tell me Obama did not spend over $1 Trillion dollars on Wall Street / AIG / et. Al. In his first year?
According to CNN (one of your favorite sources) the Stimulus Package committed a total of $1.2 Trillion.First you claimed Obama spent more than $1 Trillion on Stimulus. When I challenged you on this you tried to throw in TARP. When I challenged you on THAT you now refer to CNNMoney's bailout tracker which has a $1.2 Trillion list of all federal stimulus programs spanning several years. This list includes other items such as the $168B committed and spent for the "Economic Stimulus Act of 2008" which Bush signed into law in Feb. 2008.
Holy crap man, are you THAT lost ??
The package Obama signed in his first months in office, commonly referred to as "Stimulus", is the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). This was a $787B package comprising $499B in spending and $288B in tax relief. And there is a difference between committed and spent. To date per your CNN link only $295B has been spent ($289B on recovery.gov). That's far different from your statement that Obama spent over $1 Trillion on Stimulus.
You don't deserve any more of my time until you fess up on your Stimulus mis-information.
There are two major problems with the argument in the video.
1. It only looks at the cost side of immigration and ignores the economic value created by the immigrants and their descendants. The USA has not run out of opportunity and immigrants vs nationals is not a zero sum game.
2. Long-term projections about pretty much everything have always proven to be wrong because they have no way to include the societal shifts that happen over time. Population projections have been notoriously bad.
Without immigration, our population is going to stagnate, grow old, and lose the economic base that pays for things like Social Security, Medicare, education, and the world's most powerful military. The policies we need to be discussing are ways to make sure that we continue to win the competition to get the most valuable immigrants and that they become "Americans" rather than people just passing through. IMHO, unilaterally reducing immigration and treating legal immigrants as second-class citizens are not good policies.
Illegal immigration is a somewhat different problem and has proven intractable to date. I'm not sure if there is a solution that wouldn't involve a level of intrusion into civil society that most of us would find un-American. Can you say, "Papers, please."? I can't without flashing on authoritarian governments in times and places that are as far from "of the people, by the people, and for the people" as you can get.
Member #4112
09-07-10, 00:25
Your constant defense of the indefensible is almost laughable. According you your own CNN site clearly shows $1.2 Trillion allocated to the Stimulus program (and that is only one of the several spending bills passed by the Democrats) No they have not spent all of it yet and if the Republican's sweep in November they will not have the chance to do so. If you add the TARP money Obama spent (surely you are not trying to claim Bush spent it after he left office and Obama was sworn in) with the rest of their wild ass spending on top of the ObamaCare debacle all of which has led directly to the unprecedented increase in the deficit.
The problem with the economy is the Government. The only thing you and your liberal ilk can say is the Stimulus was not big enough as the reason why it is failing. Why bankrupt the country in 4 years if you can do it in 1 right?
Obama is no different than Roosevelt; they both prolonged the economic down turn by interjecting government programs which only stall economic growth. Roosevelt's only prolonged the depression until WWII; Obama's may well push the economy into a double dip recession.
Just as you have suggested, Obama's answer to everything is more spending and more taxes. The newest round of stimulus (sorry not stimulus it is targeted government investment) will primarily benefit his cronies in the unions at the Federal and State levels while doing nothing for the vast majority of the unemployed. Hey I thought we did all this wonderful infrastructure work under Stimulus I, Obama spent enough money on signs to tell us they were?
Wild Walleye
09-07-10, 13:09
I realize you were pointing your comments to EG. Just wanted to point out that I am for LEGAL immigration and 100% against illegal immigration for reasons of both economics and national security. In the debate, if you are anti-Illegal immigration, you are painted as a racist. Whatever happened to the concept of colorblind justice?
1. It only looks at the cost side of immigration and ignores the economic value created by the immigrants and their descendants. The USA has not run out of opportunity and immigrants vs nationals is not a zero sum game.I agree that opportunity is not a zero sum game. Excellent point.
2. Long-term projections about pretty much everything have always proven to be wrong because they have no way to include the societal shifts that happen over time. Population projections have been notoriously bad.Except in the case of global warming.
Without immigration, our population is going to stagnate, grow old, and lose the economic base that pays for things like Social Security, Medicare, education, and the world's most powerful military.Too late. We do not have the population to support the baby boomers. SS and medicare are bankrupt.
The policies we need to be discussing are ways to make sure that we continue to win the competition to get the most valuable immigrants and that they become "Americans" rather than people just passing through.Those policies are remove hindrances to individual liberty.
IMHO, unilaterally reducing immigration and treating legal immigrants as second-class citizens are not good policies.Didn't watch the video but who is advocating the approach of reducing legal immigration? Reducing illegal immigration is a great idea. People entering this country by breaking our laws should not be treated as second class citizens. They should be treated as the criminals that they are.
Illegal immigration is a somewhat different problem and has proven intractable to date. I'm not sure if there is a solution that wouldn't involve a level of intrusion into civil society that most of us would find un-American. Can you say, "Papers, please."? I can't without flashing on authoritarian governments in times and places that are as far from "of the people, by the people, and for the people" as you can get.They are breaking our laws and should be immediately deported, following a brief asylum hearing. As for illegals that are already here, there needs to be a slightly different approach but one that does not result in citizenship or the right to vote, unless they go home and return through the legal process.
By the way, the 14th Amendment, as it was intended, does not allow for "anchor babies" because the mothers that deliver them are not here legally. Therefore babies born in the US to illegals do not meet the standard set forth by the 14th Amendment.
Member #4112
09-07-10, 14:10
Got this today and thought I would pass it on to the rest of the board. Taken in total it does sort of make you wonder a little.
Author Unknown:
If George W. Bush had doubled the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had criticized a state law that he admitted he never even read, would you think that he is just an ignorant hot head?
If George W. Bush joined the country of Mexico and sued a state in the United States to force that state to continue to allow illegal immigration, would you question his patriotism and wonder who's side he was on?
If George W. Bush had put 87,000 workers out of work by arbitrarily placing a moratorium on offshore oil drilling on companies that have one of the best safety records of any industry because one company had an accident, would you have agreed?
If George W. Bush had used a forged document as the basis of the moratorium that would render 87000 American workers unemployed would you support him?
If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a TelePrompTer installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?
If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?
If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the nonexistent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?
If George W. Bush had stated that there were 57 states in the United States, would you have said that he is clueless.
If George W. Bush would have flown all the way to Denmark to make a five minute speech about how the Olympics would benefit him walking out his front door in Texas, would you have thought he was a self important, conceited, egotistical jerk.
If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo) and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?
If George W. Bush had misspelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoes as proof of what a dunce he is?
If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?
If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?
If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?
If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America, would you have approved.
If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?
So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 15 months -- so you'll have two years and nine months to come up with an answer.
Every statement in this email is factual and directly attributable to Barrack Hussein Obama. Every bumble is a matter of record and completely verifiable.
Wild Walleye
09-07-10, 16:52
Great post
I laugh everytime people start screaming about illegal immigration. The buisness lobby has paid Congress to prevent a creation of the foreign guest worker program. Continued cheap labor force is beneficial to them, get it?
Mexico gets billions of dollars from their citizens in the USA, why should they stop the flow? And if it was you and me that was born on the other side, we would be washing dishes and picking tomatoes right now. Oh, maybe you, I would probably be drinking a Corona and napping under the shade of the giant cactus and waiting for your money order.
Just to be serious, can you see Americans washing dishes and picking tomatoes?
Come on.
Slate is running a series of stories on income inequality for those interested in the topic. Interesting so far although it's full of annoying facts.
http://www.slate.com/id/2266025/entry/2266026/
Punter 127
09-08-10, 02:50
Just to be serious, can you see Americans washing dishes and picking tomatoes?
Come on.Yes I seriously can see it, they did it years ago before the government started giving people more money to stay home than they could make working. Take the government handouts away and they'll pick tomato and wash dishes again. What makes Americans think they're to good to do these types of work?
There are two major problems with the argument in the video.
1. It only looks at the cost side of immigration and ignores the economic value created by the immigrants and their descendants. The USA has not run out of opportunity and immigrants vs nationals is not a zero sum game.
2. Long-term projections about pretty much everything have always proven to be wrong because they have no way to include the societal shifts that happen over time. Population projections have been notoriously bad.
Without immigration, our population is going to stagnate, grow old, and lose the economic base that pays for things like Social Security, Medicare, education, and the world's most powerful military. The policies we need to be discussing are ways to make sure that we continue to win the competition to get the most valuable immigrants and that they become "Americans" rather than people just passing through. IMHO, unilaterally reducing immigration and treating legal immigrants as second-class citizens are not good policies.I agree with much of this and if we stop illegal immigration we could and should increase legal immigration. More people that have skills and can contribute to the betterment of our society.
Illegal immigration is a somewhat different problem and has proven intractable to date. I'm not sure if there is a solution that wouldn't involve a level of intrusion into civil society that most of us would find un-American. Can you say, "Papers, please."? I can't without flashing on authoritarian governments in times and places that are as far from "of the people, by the people, and for the people" as you can get.Illegal immigration is a problem both political parties have ignored, for different reasons but ignored none the less.
The best way to stop illegal immigration is to take the incentive away. Make the penalty for hiring an illegal immigrant so severe that employers wouldn't even think about hiring them, I'm talking jail time for repeat offenders. Social services, drivers license, and aiding of illegal immigrants in any way should be verboten by federal law.
Take the work and social services away and a large percentage of these people would go home.
Unfortunately the remaining illegals are the bad guys that aren't coming for the work, so we would still need to seal our borders.
Perhaps we should put the troops that are coming home (and about to join the ranks of the unemployed) on the border. Image American troops protecting American soil.
Your "Papers, please" sentiment is not lost on me I feel it too. I feel it when randomly stopped at a sobriety check point. I feel it when entering the country and they ask for my passport and when the guy says "what do you do for a living sir?" or when they want to look at the photos on my camera or my computer.
I feel it when crossing the border from Mexico and they ask "how long were you in Mexico" and "what did you do in Mexico?"
I feel it most of all when I drive through the check point on Interstate 35, twenty nine miles north of Laredo, Texas, USA, all northbound traffic is stopped by the border patrol, they walk around your car with dogs and ask "are you an American citizen", and sometimes they will ask "where are you headed today sir?" Try giving any of these guys less than candid answers.
I see the Arizona law as an act of desperation and a cry for help. The federal government needs to get their asses in gear and seal the borders. Let those wanting to cross the border be the ones to feel the "intrusion", not Americans driving on I35 or the streets of Arizona.
I used to work for a company that had very generous overtime policies. Except for some lean years, we had OT all the time. But it would be the foreign born citizens that welcome the OT. The native born, would just walk out the door, citing fatigue, paying too much tax, need to party and a host of reasons not to stay. It did not really matter as their work production was always lower anyway. Plus, their attendance was a major problem.
Yeah, I think they will wash dishes and pick tomatos, but it will take a madatory draft for them to comply.
There are lots of worse things in the world than illegal immigration. It's not worth sacrificing our freedom of movement to immigration checkpoints nor is it worth spending billions upon billions to try and and make our borders into the Maginot Line. A reasonable effort makes sense but there's no practical way to plug a 5,000 mile land border and a 12,000 mile coastline. We've got 20,000 border agents and many miles of fence (that costs billions to maintain) on the Mexican border which has succeeded mostly in increasing the cost (both dollars and lives) of making a crossing. The increased cost and difficulty mostly seems to have resulted in "professionalizing" the border crossing business and turning it into an attractive side business for the drug cartels. So we spend billions on defending the border while the drug cartels make billions smuggling people and drugs across it.
Also, by making it so much harder to cross the border, we've destroyed the informal guest worker program we used to have where farm workers crossed illegally to work during the peak seasons and returned to their homes during the rest of the year. Now, once you are across, it's so hard to cross back and return that the sensible action is to bring your family and setup permanent residence.
Meanwhile, draconian efforts at immigration enforcement inside the US drives illegals farther underground where their fear of the police makes them easy targets for criminals and their children don't get the education that would make them into economically productive citizens when they reach adulthood.
Just like the war on drugs, the war on illegal immigration mostly seems to be making things worse while wasting our resources and enriching and strengthening criminal gangs.
More fences, more guards, and sticking more people (like employers) in prison isn't going to solve the problem.
Punter 127
09-08-10, 09:28
There are lots of worse things in the world than illegal immigration. It's not worth sacrificing our freedom of movement to immigration checkpoints nor is it worth spending billions upon billions to try and and make our borders into the Maginot Line. A reasonable effort makes sense but there's no practical way to plug a 5,000 mile land border and a 12,000 mile coastline. We've got 20,000 border agents and many miles of fence (that costs billions to maintain) on the Mexican border which has succeeded mostly in increasing the cost (both dollars and lives) of making a crossing. The increased cost and difficulty mostly seems to have resulted in "professionalizing" the border crossing business and turning it into an attractive side business for the drug cartels. So we spend billions on defending the border while the drug cartels make billions smuggling people and drugs across it.
Also, by making it so much harder to cross the border, we've destroyed the informal guest worker program we used to have where farm workers crossed illegally to work during the peak seasons and returned to their homes during the rest of the year. Now, once you are across, it's so hard to cross back and return that the sensible action is to bring your family and setup permanent residence.
Meanwhile, draconian efforts at immigration enforcement inside the US drives illegals farther underground where their fear of the police makes them easy targets for criminals and their children don't get the education that would make them into economically productive citizens when they reach adulthood.
Just like the war on drugs, the war on illegal immigration mostly seems to be making things worse while wasting our resources and enriching and strengthening criminal gangs.
More fences, more guards, and sticking more people (like employers) in prison isn't going to solve the problem.Now we part ways because I'm vehemently against open borders which is what you seem to be suggesting.
Punter 127
09-08-10, 09:32
I used to work for a company that had very generous overtime policies. Except for some lean years, we had OT all the time. But it would be the foreign born citizens that welcome the OT. The native born, would just walk out the door, citing fatigue, paying too much tax, need to party and a host of reasons not to stay. It did not really matter as their work production was always lower anyway. Plus, their attendance was a major problem.
Yeah, I think they will wash dishes and pick tomatos, but it will take a madatory draft for them to comply.I've seen that attitude as well, but I think if we stop rewarding those that refuse to work attitudes would change.
Hunger is a pretty good motivator, perhaps even better than a draft. Lol
Yet sill no response to my last post. I guess you can't argue with facts.
Dubya -
The president took on tyranny by embracing torture. He fought a war for freedom by trampling human rights. He enriched the already rich, excused their excesses, and then bailed them out of trouble and handed us the bill.
He politicized everything, promoted incompetents, and -- whenever things got tight -- appealed to our basest instincts of fear, greed, ignorance and hate. And his election had all the legitimacy of Rutherford Hayes'.
Here's a list of the seven worst things Bush did during his time in the White House.
7. Bush politicized parts of the government that should be nonpartisan.
6. Bush squandered the budget surplus.
5. Bush comforted the comfortable and afflicted the afflicted.
4. Bush rewarded incompetence.
3. Bush lied us into war.
2. Bush has exposed himself to war crime charges.
1. Bush weakened our democracy.
Wild Walleye
09-08-10, 12:04
Yet sill no response to my last post. I guess you can't argue with facts.If you knew what a fact was, it would be easier to find one.
Dubya -
The president took on tyranny by embracing torture. He fought a war for freedom by trampling human rights. Nice talking point. Please cite specific examples of Bush either condoning or ordering torture. Generally in war, the goal is to trample the human rights of your enemies armed forces (I. E. Deprive them of life - liberty and the pursuit of happiness are things you worry about off the battlefield)
He enriched the already rich, excused their excesses, and then bailed them out of trouble and handed us the bill.I thought you were railing against Bush? Why the non sequitur about Obama?
He politicized everything, promoted incompetents,Ever heard of any of these folks: Biden, Geithner, Chu, Jarrett, Killifer, Napolitano, Freeman?
Why don't you enumerate some examples?
and -- whenever things got tight -- appealed to our basest instincts of fear, greed, ignorance and hate.Why don't you enumerate some examples?
And his election had all the legitimacy of Rutherford Hayes'.Other than swallowing the left wing talking points, do you have some facts upon which you base this opinion (to which you are certainly entitled)
Here's a list of the seven worst things Bush did during his time in the White House.
7. Bush politicized parts of the government that should be nonpartisan.Why don't you enumerate some examples?
6. Bush squandered the budget surplus.Congress spent the money. However, Bush should be held accountable for going along with them.
5. Bush comforted the comfortable and afflicted the afflicted.Like all those people in Africa with Aids? Why are they comfortable? GWB, that's why.
Why don't you enumerate some examples?
4. Bush rewarded incompetence. Why don't you enumerate some examples?
3. Bush lied us into war.Why don't you enumerate some facts related to his deliberate acts?
2. Bush has exposed himself to war crime charges.Considering those making such claims, I'll side with W.
1. Bush weakened our democracy.How?
Member #4112
09-08-10, 12:10
Miamipro, as I can see you are a card carrying, Bush bashing, liberal, I doubt anything I say will make a difference, falling on deaf ears to be sure.
You can't fight terrorism with polite inquirers and taking "no" for an answer. Political correctness will be the death of us all since the terrorist constantly use it against us. We didn't fight "fair" in WW I, WW II, Korea or any other war. The guy who fights "fair" is the one who has his "fairness" turned against him and ends up being defeated. By the way – did you serve in any conflicts or just taking the cheap shots from the peanut gallery?
Bush politicized everything? Give me a break; Obama has done more to politicize everything under the sun to serve his "higher calling" than anyone I can recall. What would you call moving the Census directly under executive control, firing a company CEO with no authority, the BP oil spill, healthcare the list goes on and on.
Bush was incompetent and hired incompetents – right and Obama can't find a staff person who can do his taxes right or does not owe the IRS money on past taxes, while paying off unions from day one. His latest payoff to the teachers union was accomplished by taking funds from the food stamp program. Wow, what compassion. Literally take the food out of people's mouths to give money to the teacher's unions.
If Bush has exposed himself to "war crimes" then Obama is exposed to the same extent as Bush as he has continued almost every Bush policy he railed against during his campaign and even increased the operational tempo of some.
Bush squandered a budget surplus, first the CONGRESS controls the purse strings and perhaps you let the 9/11 attack slip by you. By the way, the Democrats have controlled Congress for the last 4 years. I will give you one point, both Democrats and Republicans squandered the hard fought reductions in welfare that were gained when the Republicans controlled Congress and forced Clinton to the middle.
Bush weakened our democracy, right. You have to have a country first to have a democracy and you don't do that by placating your enemy and surrendering your advantages. Perhaps you forgot that bastion of Democracy, Franklin D. Roosevelt, suspend habeas corpus, interned populations as threats, investigated individuals with abandon, and permitted all sorts of "wrong doing" in the name of victory during WW II.
Bush rewarded incompetence, Obama embodies the very essence of incompetence from Stimulus, to ObamaCare, to BP, to appointments, to payoffs, to appropriation of private companies – I would go on but I have to do some work today and I am sure you get the idea. He can plan vacations for himself and his wife with no problem, I will give him that.
Let the voice of the people on Nov. 2nd settle this inane argument Miamipro, but of course you believe the unwashed masses don't know what is good for them and need to be led by the Liberal Intellectual Elite for their own good. Talk to me about Democracy after the elections my friend.
Wild Walleye
09-08-10, 14:31
Bush rewarded incompetence, Obama embodies the very essence of incompetence from Stimulus, to ObamaCare, to BP, to appointments, to payoffs, to appropriation of private companies – I would go on but I have to do some work today and I am sure you get the idea. He can plan vacations for himself and his wife with no problem, I will give him that"No matter what meeting Obama is in, he is the least knowledgeable and least experienced person in the room."
This is absolutely true.
A reasonable effort makes senseWe won't know if making a "reasonable effort" will work until we first try it.
Also, by making it so much harder to cross the border, we've destroyed the informal guest worker program we used to have where farm workers crossed illegally to work during the peak seasons and returned to their homes during the rest of the year.Sounds like a good argument for an effective, enforceable, Guest Worker program.
Meanwhile, draconian efforts at immigration enforcement inside the US drives illegals farther underground where their fear of the police makes them easy targets for criminals and their children don't get the education that would make them into economically productive citizens when they reach adulthood.Their solution is simple: Don't commit a criminal act by illegally sneaking into the country in the first place.
Easy Go, just come out and admit it: You're salivating at the prospect of 12 million new, loyal Democrat voters, aren't you? We all know the history here. When Ronald Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants in 1986, the state of California permanently tilted from red to blue, and now you're thinking "If we could just do the same thing in New York, Florida and Illinois, then we'd never lose a Presidential election again".
It's truly disappointing how Democrats would so willing weaken the country just to keep themselves in power, but then the last two years under Obama / Reid / Pelosi has been a non-stop demonstration of that philosophy.
Thanks,
Jackson
Stan Da Man
09-08-10, 16:48
I actually liked watching Obama on the campaign trail. I didn't then (and certainly don't now) agree with much of his domestic agenda or economic policies, but I thought that he had the right ideas on foreign policy. I still feel the same way today, although his domestic and economic agendas have been an even bigger disaster than I thought they could be.
Today, however, I'm struck by how tone deaf the guy is. He's giving a speech right now in Ohio. He clearly just doesn't get it. He continues to blame everyone else for where we are today, without taking any responsibility himself. Frankly, it's remarkable to hear the lies coming out of his mouth about the economy and how he's creating jobs, and the past administration is responsible for all job losses. Right now he's arguing that the Bush tax cuts for top income earners can't go into effect because we can't afford it. He appears to think people are too stupid to connect the dots after the Democrats' reckless spending of trillions of dollars over the past two years. The arrogance is there for all to see.
The most astonishing thing, however, is that he seems completely unaware that his excuses don't work anymore. It's worse than that. It actually turns folks away from him. His policy appears to be simply to pass the buck wherever and whenever possible, while trying to claim credit where none is due. Either his advisers are as tone deaf as he is, or he simply cannot find an ounce of candor in himself. If someone just told him to take some responsibility and chart a course, people would start to forgive him and might actually believe a few of the words coming out of his mouth. But, he appears physically incapable of doing so. It's as if he believes he can walk on water, even as he's completely submerged. Truly remarkable.
I didn't believe that Democrats could actually make things worse for themselves before the next election, but Obama is leading these lemmings right off the cliff. It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion. It's painful, but somehow you can't take your eyes off it.
I'd like to see both an expanded farm worker guest worker program and a expanded legal immigration program.
Except for the fact that I know you are just being snarky, I'd ask if you have anything substantive to backup your comments about voting patterns of amnesty immigrants? Or wonder about what wild story you'd come up with to explain why "red" California has had one Democratic governor since 1986? Or why you assume that illegals will automatically vote Democratic? But since I know you are just tweaking me, I won't bother.
Stan Da Man
09-08-10, 20:05
Another fine mess brought to you by the Obama administration:
Rate Increases Are Blamed on Health-Care Overhaul; White House Questions Logic.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703720004575478200948908976.html#mod=most_emailed_day
So, instead of reining in rates, they've actually increased more than they otherwise would have. These are for the individual plans that so many here were squawking about, as well as plans for small businesses. I don't know whether the online WSJ edition includes the chart from the print edition, but several insurers broke out that portion of the rate increase directly attributable to ObamaCare on top of the remaining increase.
The White House questions the insurers' logic. Here's the insurers' logic: When you mandate increased benefits, such as insurance for "children" until they're 26, no pre-existing condition exclusions, etc., etc., the cost to provide the expanded coverage goes up. Seems pretty logical to me. But, of course, Obama and his ilk can do no wrong, so obviously the insurance companies must be lying. Right. Just like the publicly traded companies who forecast that ObamaCare would cost them billions were lying, even though they were required to include these forecasts in their SEC disclosures. Everyone is lying or at fault except Obama.
Meanwhile, the cost of insurance in Massachusetts (the model for ObamaCare) continue to spiral out of control. Obviously, the folks in Massachusetts are lying, too. After all, they elected Scott Brown to fill Ted Kennedy's seat to try to fend off ObamaCare.
So, all of you who bought the free lunch that the Democrats were selling -- that ObamaCare would control costs -- were completely hoodwinked. Government has never been good at controlling costs in any respect. It will be no different here. There's no free lunch.
Obama happen to be the first black president in America. In that context, it was historic and the rest of the world cheer and embrace him.
On the homefront, he was and is abominable to a certain segment of our society. As individuals, we are what we are, and we arrive to that point from our cultural background and life experiences. Thus we have our individual prejudices and opinions. Be very clear, I am not talking about outright racism, but people are always going to be very comfortable with their own kind (culturally) So on the issue of immigration, I feel that's where we are. Economically, as America struggle, this will come to the forefront in a big way. We already can see in France, the deporting of gypsies and not allowing the covering of the head by Muslim women. True, these examples do not measure up to the ransacking and raping of the Chinese community following the financial meltdown in Jakarta in 1997.
I guess I got carried away, just trying to say why there is so much passion when the discussion comes around to Obama.
If you knew what a fact was, it would be easier to find one.If you knew anything that would be amazing. Try checking out the video link I posted. I will let Cheney make the fact in point.
Yet sill no response to my last post. I guess you can't argue with facts.This is true. In his attempt to exaggerate Obama's spending, Doppelganger resorted to a CNN list of spending spanning several years, which included spending under Bush, and tried to pass it off as all Obama's spending.
This the same individual who claimed the true cost of the Stimulus (ARRA) projected by CBO @ 10 years was $327 Trillion. Aside from forgetting the decimal point in 3.27, what he failed to mention was that this was not an official CBO estimate. It was a response to a Republican from Wisconsin, Paul Ryan, who asked the CBO to estimate the impact of permanently extending more than 20 provisions in ARRA for 10 years. As CBO noted in it's letter to Ryan, these provisions are NOT in place for 10 years under ARRA. The official 10-year CBO cost estimate remains at $787 billion.
Now what would be the reason for a Republican to submit such a request to the CBO? Obviously, to provide an inflated number which can be peddled over the blogosphere to try to fool people.
Everything Doppelganger says needs to be fact-checked. And Wild Walleye as well!
Punter 127
09-09-10, 00:27
Another fine mess brought to you by the Obama administration:
Rate Increases Are Blamed on Health-Care Overhaul; White House Questions Logic.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703720004575478200948908976.html#mod=most_emailed_day
So, instead of reining in rates, they've actually increased more than they otherwise would have. These are for the individual plans that so many here were squawking about, as well as plans for small businesses. I don't know whether the online WSJ edition includes the chart from the print edition, but several insurers broke out that portion of the rate increase directly attributable to ObamaCare on top of the remaining increase.
The White House questions the insurers' logic. Here's the insurers' logic: When you mandate increased benefits, such as insurance for "children" until they're 26, no pre-existing condition exclusions, etc., etc., the cost to provide the expanded coverage goes up. Seems pretty logical to me. But, of course, Obama and his ilk can do no wrong, so obviously the insurance companies must be lying. Right. Just like the publicly traded companies who forecast that ObamaCare would cost them billions were lying, even though they were required to include these forecasts in their SEC disclosures. Everyone is lying or at fault except Obama.
Meanwhile, the cost of insurance in Massachusetts (the model for ObamaCare) continue to spiral out of control. Obviously, the folks in Massachusetts are lying, too. After all, they elected Scott Brown to fill Ted Kennedy's seat to try to fend off ObamaCare.
So, all of you who bought the free lunch that the Democrats were selling -- that ObamaCare would control costs -- were completely hoodwinked. Government has never been good at controlling costs in any respect. It will be no different here. There's no free lunch.I think you are right on the mark, my health insurance has already increased 13.5% since the bill became law. This was an unusual mid year increase that came shortly after the law was singed.
Thank you Mr. President!
Member #4112
09-09-10, 11:52
Esten, yes the decimal was omitted in error (it is $3.27 Trillion) but the link to the website was included for "fact checking". You don't dispute the number you just make excuses as to why it is so large. Just as you don't disput the numbers listed on the CNN documentation but try to obscure the facts by blaming it on Bush. In case you have not noticed - folks are buying that bill of goods any more.
You keep referring to $787 Billion for the cost of the Stimulus / ARRA of 01/29/2009 when the true cost with all the add ons is really now at least $836 Billion; even the Democrats are using this number and not the $787 Billion you continue to refer to.
The Congressional Budget Office's website does not concur with your claim the total cost of the Stimulus is $787 over 10 years, point of fact they have revised their number upward on the cost which is still not know. I would remind you of CBO cost estimate of Medicare, after 10 years their cost estimate was under the actual cost by a factor of 10.
If you look back at previous Federal Programs which we now have the ACTUAL COST numbers for you find the Congressional Budget Office significantly under estimated nearly every one of them.
Regarding the TARP spending, there was a revision of TARP in January 2009 and the referenced TARP spending by Obama – not Bush – occurred after that revision. I make the same argument with you as Maimipro – do you contend George Bush continued the spending after leaving office and after Obama was sworn in? You surely are not trying to tell me Bush fired the GM CEO, took over GM & Chrysler, funneled more money to AIG excreta, excreta, after Obama was sworn into office. These actions were taken with TARP funds by Obama not Bush and therefore add to his spending not Bush's.
How about the Bush Tax Cuts, Democrats are abandoning Obama in such numbers his proposal is dead on arrive in the House & Senate. Even his former budget director Peter Orszag recommends continuing ALL the tax Bush Tax Cuts for at least 2 more years.
Since Obama's definition of "rich" as married couples making a combined income of over $250,000, such a position will have a severe impact on small business. Depending on the legal formation of the company (Sub C, Sub S, LLP, LLC, excreta) and the accounting method used many will have "incomes" greater than $250K even though they did not receive that much in true income. Many of my clients are about to be caught in this trap.
I make the same challenge to you as I did to Maimipro, talk to me about Obama and Democracy after Nov. 2nd, but I assume you fall into the same category of those who believe the poor, huddled, unwashed masses are too stupid to know what is best for them and need the Liberal Elite to show them the way. The Liberal Elites and their talking heads are describing the current voter dissatisfaction with government as "stupid", "temper tantrums", "immature", "childish" just to name a few. Did you catch Bill Moyer on Larry King? He makes the Liberal Elite point very well.
Wild Walleye
09-09-10, 12:07
This is true. In his attempt to exaggerate Obama's spending, Doppelganger resorted to a CNN list of spending spanning several years, which included spending under Bush, and tried to pass it off as all Obama's spending."(CNSNews. Com) - In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U. S. Presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan."
"At the end of fiscal year 1989, which ended eight months after President Reagan left office, the total federal debt held by the public was $2.1907 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That means all U. S. Presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan had accumulated only that much publicly held debt on behalf of American taxpayers. That is $335.3 billion less than the $2.5260 trillion that was added to the federal debt held by the public just between Jan. 20, 2009, when President Obama was inaugurated, and Aug. 20, 2010, the 19-month anniversary of Obama's inauguration."
Wild Walleye
09-09-10, 12:39
From zerohedge:
"Nine States Did Not File Initial Claims Data Due To Labor Day, Hundreds Of Thousands Of Estimates In Data "Beat"
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/09/2010 08:16 -0500
The BLS has announced that as a result of the Labor Day weekend, 9 states (among which the biggest one California) did not report initial claims data to the bean counters, so instead the government had to "estimate" what the data would have been: yep, estimate, what the data was in these nine states. From Bloomberg: "For the latest reporting week, nine states didn't file claims data to the Labor Department in Washington because of the Labor Day holiday earlier this week, a department official told reporters. California and Virginia estimated their figures and the U. S. Government estimated the other seven." Official data is now made up on the fly. This US economic data reporting has just entered the twilight zone. Also, when the data is officially made up, it is not that difficult to get data that is "better than expected." The full list of states is: DC, Illinois, Idaho, Hawaii, Oklahoma, Michigan, and Washington. California and Virginia estimated themselves."
I guess Obama has been taking lessons from Argentina on making up statistics.
From zerohedge:
"Nine States Did Not File Initial Claims Data Due To Labor Day, Hundreds Of Thousands Of Estimates In Data "Beat"
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/09/2010 08:16 -0500
The BLS has announced that as a result of the Labor Day weekend, 9 states (among which the biggest one California) did not report initial claims data to the bean counters, so instead the government had to "estimate" what the data would have been: yep, estimate, what the data was in these nine states. From Bloomberg: "For the latest reporting week, nine states didn't file claims data to the Labor Department in Washington because of the Labor Day holiday earlier this week, a department official told reporters. California and Virginia estimated their figures and the U. S. Government estimated the other seven." Official data is now made up on the fly. This US economic data reporting has just entered the twilight zone. Also, when the data is officially made up, it is not that difficult to get data that is "better than expected." The full list of states is: DC, Illinois, Idaho, Hawaii, Oklahoma, Michigan, and Washington. California and Virginia estimated themselves."
I guess Obama has been taking lessons from Argentina on making up statistics.Now I'm haunted by this vision of Halle Berry, playing Michelle Obama on the silver screen, singing "Don't cry for me, A-me-RI-ca..."
Stan Da Man
09-09-10, 14:01
I guess Obama has been taking lessons from Argentina on making up statistics.You took the words right out of my keyboard. It started with "created or saved". Listening to Obama's speech yesterday, the BS was so thick you started to wonder whether Chavez was writing his teleprompted talking points. Perhaps Obama should go talk to Fidel Castro. Even he conceded yesterday that socialism doesn't work, but Obama hasn't learned that lesson yet, and we're the ones that are going to pay for it. The Silver Lining: At least we'll have Cuban style health care while we're all making $20 a week. Everyone will be the same -- dirt poor -- and then Obama can claim that he achieved equality.
Wild Walleye
09-09-10, 18:26
You took the words right out of my keyboard. It started with "created or saved". Listening to Obama's speech yesterday, the BS was so thick you started to wonder whether Chavez was writing his teleprompted talking points. Perhaps Obama should go talk to Fidel Castro. Even he conceded yesterday that socialism doesn't work, but Obama hasn't learned that lesson yet, and we're the ones that are going to pay for it. The Silver Lining: At least we'll have Cuban style health care while we're all making $20 a week. Everyone will be the same -- dirt poor -- and then Obama can claim that he achieved equality.Hopefully, in approximately 26 months we can achieve some measure of equality by placing Obama in the same status as 14.9 million fellow Americans, unemployed (although we all know the real number is much higher)
A link on another website turned up a story in the Augusta, Georgia Chronicle, about "When Augusta Licensed Its Prostitutes." (World War II)
Two useful comments followed the story:
Legalization could help President Obama with his unemployment numbers.
Legalization would also help Obama with his tax revenue as they would be forced to submit tax returns rather than work for cash.Yeah, it might help, but would the chicas have to join the SEIU?:p
Now I'm haunted by this vision of Halle Berry, playing Michelle Obama on the silver screen, singing "Don't cry for me, A-me-RI-ca."Really not a bad scenerio. After all, we all love Argentina the way it is. If they clean up their act, it would be the "good" ole USA. Back in the 70 & 80s, the massage scene in Los Angeles was a monger's dream. Sunset Strip was jigglling and jiving. And downtown had the dance halls. Both Whites and Blacks women were coming out of the woodwork to work. This was followed by the Koreans and Vietnamese. Down the road was Tijuana, and Las Vegas and Nevada offered even more options.
A golden era. Well, you know my history now.
If George W. Bush had doubled the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had criticized a state law that he admitted he never even read, would you think that he is just an ignorant hot head?How about:
If George W. Bush had led the country into the deepest recession since WWII, would you have approved?
Oh wait, he did.
"No matter what meeting Obama is in, he is the least knowledgeable and least experienced person in the room."
This is absolutely true. This was clearly never the case with Bush!
Wild Walleye
09-10-10, 00:56
Say what you like about Bush, it's a free country (for now at least)
Read some of my pre-Obama posts, I was no fan of Bush, but please drop the pretense that he is either stupid or not accomplished. He graduated from both Yale University and Harvard Business School (1975, long before his dad was Pres) While being a 4th generation legacy at Yale probably helped him get in to the school, it didn't help him get through or get out. Being wealthy and connected probably didn't hurt his application to HBS but again it did not get him through or out of the program.
He was by all accounts a successful business man (although when you start off rich and stay rich, success is difficult to measure) in the oil business and then as co-owner of the Rangers. He defeated Ann Richards, a Democrat legend and formidable foe, for the Governor's mansion of the second largest state in the nation. He won two presidential terms and served them without leaving his DNA on an intern's dress, destroying the health care industry, capitulating to Putin on missile defense, bowing to foreign leaders or increasing the national debt by more than all presidents prior to his dad, combined.
We get it, you hate Bush. Regardless of what you may say the reason is, it isn't due to the fact that he is ignorant or incompetent.
Esten, yes the decimal was omitted in error (it is $3.27 Trillion) but the link to the website was included for "fact checking". You don't dispute the number you just make excuses as to why it is so large. Just as you don't disput the numbers listed on the CNN documentation but try to obscure the facts by blaming it on Bush. I did dispute the $3.27T number as not representing the true cost of ARRA. I followed the link to fact-check and with additional research found out it was another right wing deception which you were trying to peddle.
I also disputed that the CNN list totalling $1.2T is all Obama spending. The first item listed is "Economic Stimulus Act of 2008". Did Obama sign that one?
You keep referring to $787 Billion for the cost of the Stimulus / ARRA of 01/29/2009 when the true cost with all the add ons is really now at least $836 Billion; even the Democrats are using this number and not the $787 Billion you continue to refer to. Fair point, sort of. After doing some research I did find a CBO revision to $814B last month. Still close to their original $787 estimate in Feb. 2009. I'll use this number going forward.
However, I thought you said the true cost was $3.27T? Now you say $836B? What made you change your mind?
Fact check this please.
"(CNSNews. Com) - In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U. S. Presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan."Back on 6/24 we wrote:
BTW Walleye, I wouldn't trust that cnsnews website. It's a right wing propaganda website with a sly name meant to trick people into thinking it's another well-known established news source.
Agreed that it is not trust worthy. 'Nuff said.
Wild Walleye
09-10-10, 01:42
You obviously can't read.
Back on 6/24 we wrote:
'Nuff said.That's why I said you need to fact check it! (the request is in the title of my post)
If George W. Bush had led the country into the deepest recession since WWII, would you have approved?
Oh wait, he did.For the 10,000th time, the current recession was precipitated by Democratic politicians who legislatively mandated the lowering of mortgage qualification standards in pursuit of their liberal goal of increasing the country's percentage of home ownership.
This artificial distortion of the free market resulted in the unintended consequence of the housing market being flooded with new (and previously unqualified) buyers who, in competition for the same inventory of houses, resulted in an artificial run up of home prices.
It's a simple as that, and I for one am tired of liberals blaming the ensuing recession, which they perpetrated by meddling with the free market, on George W. Bush.
You can continue to foist this lie to the gullible idiots in the country, but those of us who are able to think beyond sound bites know who is really responsible.
Thanks,
Jackson
P.S. Sorry everyone, but apparently I'm going to need to re-publish this fact every time somebody tries to blame the recession solely on Bush and/or the Republican Party.
Rock Harders
09-10-10, 05:52
Jackson,
When Clinton left office, there was a multi-billion dollar federal budget surplus and the US Dollar was worth more than the Euro. Then your boy Bush came, issued an unnecessary tax cut while at the same time bankrupting the country through a series of unwinnable and unnecessary wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (which we are still quagmired with today) Yes, Obama has been a disappointment so far and the stimulus and health care bills are complete shit and are only digging a deeper hole for the nation's finances. Do not forget that the economy collapsed under Bush's watch as a result of Bush stewardship. Obama was left to pick up the pieces in an untenable straightjacket position as a result of Bush's malfeasance.
Obama's recent talk of starting massive infrastructure projects is a step in the right direction. These are projects that have been a long time coming and will provide continuous jobs. Obama needs to accept the fact that Afghanistan is not a real nation-state where a normal government can ever function and get our troops out of there.
Suerte,
Rock Harders
Member #4112
09-10-10, 11:02
Hey HR, thought all the roads, bridges, and other infrastructure were covered under the Stimulus - Obama blew enough money on signs telling us that was what they were doing?
Esten, I said he spent $1 Trillion, CBO projected it to the larger number based on a request to project the costs. Almost every estimate the CBO has produced has been far below the actual cost, which is why you are seeing the upward creep from your original $787 Billion to $836 Billion. The creep will continue and I doubt it will stop at $1 Trillion unless Obama loses the House and Senate which will cut off his funding.
Esten have you given up on the TARP spending Obama did or do you still maintain Bush did it months after Obama took office?
Yes Esten it is a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, again. Just like Monica and Clinton – Monica was Right Wing operative sent to ensnare Bill.
This is all getting very silly. Nobody is going to convince anyone here to their point of view. The electorate will vote with their stomach, oh sorry, their pocketbooks rather. I forgot in America, even the poor are fat and funky. Unless, Obama pulls it off down the stretch, he is history as were Carter, Bush, Sr. in recent history.
As most of you know, wars can pull us out of recession. Mmmm, I wonder, where can we invade? I say Argentina! Why not?
Wild Walleye
09-10-10, 12:56
Let's let go of our puds for a second and wrap our hands around a little reality, history and facts.
Jackson-
When Clinton left office, there was a multi-billion dollar federal budget surplus and the US Dollar was worth more than the Euro. If you recall when Clinton left office they also stole everything that wasn't nailed down in the Whitehouse, vandalized millions of dollars worth of federal property and deliberately hindered the transition to the new administration (which negatively affected our readiness from a home land defense perspective) But, let's not let the truth get in the way.
Your logic is that Clinton left in 2000, and there was a surplus (281B in 2000, according to the US Treasury) Therefore the surplus was due to his stewardship of the economy, right? Wrong.
"You may ask yourself, well, how did I get here? "
Well, let me tell you.
This surplus had nothing to do with Bill Clinton and everything to do with Ronald Reagan and later, Newt Gingrich. The Democrats dominated both houses of congress from 1954 through 1994, when the republicans, riding on the Contract with America, finally broke through. The Democrats' addictions to spending, expanding the role of govt and entitlements and taxing the citizenry to death (and actually beyond death) put us on the path to extinction.
The return of fiscal responsibility to Washington (wow, that is tough to conceptualize) began when Reagan was elected, to remove the scourge foisted upon this great nation named Jimmy Carter. Among other things, he tried to reduce the size and roll of govt, based upon the simple premise of less govt equals less govt spending and grasped the notion that lower taxation leaves more money in the citizens' pockets which leads to more personal spending which grows the economy. Once referred to as Voodoo economics, these concepts together over time produced the above-mentioned surplus.
The economic boom following the 1982 recession won over political leaders of both parties that lower marginal tax rates were essential to a strong economy, while the tax code was too convoluted and negatively affected the economy costing jobs. Reform of the tax code, as highlighted in Reagan's 1984 State of the Union speech, with a system more economically efficient, fairer and simpler with lower rates would result in a broader base and increased Federal tax receipts. The Tax Reform Act of 1986: reduced the top statutory tax rate down from 50 percent to 28 percent and the corporate tax rate from 50 percent to 35 percent. The code was "simplified" and the personal exemption and standard deduction amounts were increased and indexed for inflation which relieved millions of taxpayers of any Federal income tax burden (according to the US Treasury) Keep in mind that the Congress writes most of the checks and when RayGun was president, the Congress 'belonged' to one Thomas "Tip" O'neil. Despite this fact, he was able to LEAD them (in the face of great hostility from the media) to do the right thing in many instances.
Fortunately, Clinton took the Democrat controlled congress he inherited for granted and squandered much of his first two years. Midterm elections came and the resulting shift of majorities effectively restrained much of Clinton's spending agenda. Despite the Republican congress, elected in 1994, tax rates grew ever higher during the 1990s. Throughout the 1990s, strong economic performance prevailed, based upon good economic fundamentals (low inflation, low interest rates, low unemployment) the global situation was improving (byproducts of the 1989 collapse of the Soviet Union, etc) and new information technologies. This created an enormous increase in the aggregate tax burden, with Federal taxes as a share of GDP reaching a postwar high of 20. 8 percent in 2000. Economic growth driven by private sector innovation lead to tax receipts that outpaced Washington's ability to spend (temporarily)
So that is whence the surplus came.
Had the Democrats won a majority in the 104th Congress, Clinton and the Congress would have squandered every cent of any surplus. Thankfully, the Democrats did not win the Congress and the Republicans did. In fact, one of the primary reasons Clinton was not able to blow through that surplus was the GRIDLOCK that liberals and their lapdog media bleated about incessantly. Me? I'll take gridlock over reckless spending any day.
Then your boy Bush came, issued an unnecessary tax cut Unnecessary? Tax rates crept up ever since Reagan left office (starting with GHWB) Reagan's tax cutting measures had proved once again what stimulates the economy. When something works, stick with it. Bush's tax cuts stimulated the economy and increased federal tax receipts.
while at the same time bankrupting the country through a series of unwinnable and unnecessary wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (which we are still quagmired with today)I don't think quagmire is a verb. I can't believe we jumped into two wars completely unprovoked and without cause. Must be the republicans paying off the war machine. I won't waste my breath on debating the wars with you. Let's just agree to disagree on the wars. Hey, what are you doing tomorrow?
Yes, Obama has been a disappointment so far and the stimulus and health care bills are complete shit and are only digging a deeper hole for the nation's finances. Do not forget that the economy collapsed under Bush's watch as a result of Bush stewardship. Obama was left to pick up the pieces in an untenable straightjacket position as a result of Bush's malfeasance. Straightjacket? Poor choice of analogies since a straightjacket implies something that immobilizes someone not something that enables them to add trillions to the national debt with nothing to show for it.
Obama's recent talk of starting massive infrastructure projects is a step in the right direction. These are projects that have been a long time coming and will provide continuous jobs.Ok, you're losing me here. You just said
Yes, Obama has been a disappointment so far and the stimulus and health care bills are complete shit and are only digging a deeper hole for the nation's finances.So the $3T he has spent and committed us to spend, to date, it shit but you trust him to be on point with the next $3T?
What was that Ben Franklin said about doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different outcome?
The proof of the net positive effects of tax cutting has been borne out in reality many times. The proof that Keynesian spending helps the economy is only found in dated text books.
Wild Walleye
09-10-10, 12:59
Hey HR, thought all the roads, bridges, and other infrastructure were covered under the Stimulus - Obama blew enough money on signs telling us that was what they were doing?Actually, the cost of the signs exhausted stimulus 1 so they need stimulus 2 to actually do the work that the signs are supposed to highlight.
Actually, the cost of the signs exhausted stimulus 1 so they need stimulus 2 to actually do the work that the signs are supposed to highlight.
Dude, sometimes I think you must be wearing your trousers inside out.
Punter 127
09-10-10, 22:51
The Mess Bush Left And Other Obama Fables
By THOMAS SOWELL
Posted 09/07/2010 06:35 PM ET
President Obama boldly proclaims, "The buck stops here!" But, whenever his policies are criticized, he acts as if the buck stopped with George W. Bush.
The party line that we are likely to be hearing from now until the November elections is that Obama "inherited" the big federal budget deficits and that he has to "clean up the mess" left in the economy by the Republicans. This may convince those who want to be convinced, but it will not stand up under scrutiny.
No president of the United States can create either a budget deficit or a budget surplus. All spending bills originate in the House of Representatives, and all taxes are voted into law by Congress. Democrats controlled both houses of Congress before Barack Obama became president. The deficit he inherited was created by the congressional Democrats, including Sen. Barack Obama, who did absolutely nothing to oppose the runaway spending. He was one of the biggest of the big spenders.
The last time the federal government had a budget surplus, Bill Clinton was president, so it was called "the Clinton surplus." But Republicans controlled the House of Representatives, where all spending bills originate, for the first time in 40 years. It was also the first budget surplus in more than a quarter of a century.
The only direct power that any president has that can affect deficits and surpluses is the power to veto spending bills. President Bush did not veto enough spending bills, but Sen. Obama and his fellow Democrats in control of Congress were the ones who passed the spending bills.
Today, with Barack Obama in the White House, allied with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in charge in Congress, the national debt is a bigger share of the national output than it has been in more than half a century. And its share is projected to continue going up for years to come, becoming larger than national output in 2012.
Having created this scary situation, President Obama now says, "Don't give in to fear. Let's reach for hope." The voters reached for hope when they elected Obama. The fear comes from what he has done since taking office. "The worst thing we could do is to go back to the very same policies that created this mess in the first place," he said recently. "In November, you're going to have that choice."
Taxpayers Get The Bill So much for blaming it on Bush!
Stan Da Man
09-11-10, 02:43
Well, here we have it. The real reason Obama wants to raise taxes on the wealthy.
So everyone in his administration can continue to not pay their own taxes. We've got Tim Geithner running Treasury and he just "forgot" to pay $42, 000 in taxes. This is one of the architects of our fiscal policy? He's out there chiding Republicans, claiming that we can't afford those tax breaks, while he just ignores his own tax obligations? Obviously, you've got a bunch of other ne'er-do-well democrats as well, like Charlie Rangel and Tom Daschle who just "forgot" to pay their taxes, too.
Turns out, that was just the tip of the iceberg. Looks like they've all decided not to pay their taxes. We've got people on this board complaining about the Bush administration? They were just a bunch of rummies compared to these professional thieves. Proof. LA Times, below. Anyone who actually pays their taxes ought to be reaching for their rope after reading this: 41 Obama White House aides owe the irs $831, 000 in back taxes. And they're not alone over the years a lot of suspicion has built up across the country about Washington and its population of opportunistic transients coming to see themselves as a special kind of person, somehow above average working Americans who don't labor down in that monument-strewn former swamp.
Well, finally, an end to all those undocumented doubts. Thanks to some diligent digging by the Washington P. S., those suspicions can at last be put to rest.
They're correct. Accurate. Dead-on. Laser-guided. On target. Bingo-bango. As clear as it's always seemed to those Americans who don't feel special entitlements and do meet their government obligations.
We now know that federal employees across the nation owe fully $1 billion in back taxes to the Internal Revenue Service.
As in, 1, 000 times one million dollars. All this political jabber about giving middle-class.
Americans a tax cut. Thousands of feds have been giving themselves one all along. Unofficially. And these tax scofflaws include more than three dozen folks who work for the president with that newly decorated oval office.
The P. S. 's t. W. Farnum did some research and found that out of the total sum, just 638 workers on Capitol Hill owe the IRS $9. 3 million in back taxes. As in, overdue. The irs gets stiffed by the legislative body that controls its budget. How washington works.
Now, back taxes have been a problem for the Obama-Biden administration. You may recall early on that Tom Daschle was the president's top pick to run the Health and Human Services Department. But it turned out the former democratic senator, who was un-elected from South Dakota in 2004, owed something like $120, 000 to the IRS for things from his subsequent benefactor that he just forgot to pay taxes on. You know how that is. $120g's here or there. So he dropped out.
And then we learned this guy Timothy Geithner owed something like $42, 000 in back taxes and penalties to the IRS, which is one of the agencies that he'the be in charge of as Secretary of the Treasury. The fine fellow who's supposed to know about handling everyone else's money. In the end this was excused by Washington's bipartisan cya culture as one of those inadvertent accidental oversights that somehow never seem to happen on the side of paying too much taxes.
And under Geithner's expert guidance the USA economy has been, well, wow! Just look at it.
Privacy laws prevent release of individual tax delinquents' names. But we do know that as of the end of 2009, 41 people inside Obama's very own White house owe the government they're allegedly running a total of $831, 055 in back taxes. That would cover a lot of special chocolate desserts in the White House mess.
In the house of representatives, 421 people owe a total $6, 524, 892. In the Senate, 217 owe $2, 774, 836. In the IRS's parent department, Treasury, 1, 204 owe $7 670, 814. At the Labor Department, where Secretary Hilda Solis' husband had some back-tax problems before her confirmation, 463 owe $7, 481, 463. Eighty-one workers for the federal reserve system's Board of Governors owe $1, 076, 733.
Over at the Justice Department, which is so busy enforcing other laws and suing Arizona, 1, 071 employees still owe $14, 350, 152 in overdue taxes.
Then, we come to the Department of Homeland Security, which is run by Janet Napolitano, the former Governor of Arizona who preferred to call terrorist acts "man-caused disasters. " Homeland Security is keeping all of us safe by ensuring that a Dutch tourist is aboard every inbound international flight to thwart any would-be bomber with explosives in his underpants.
Within that department, there reside 4, 856 people who owe the tax agency a whopping total of $37, 012, 174.
And they're checking our pockets for metal and coins?
Andrew Malcolm
41 Obama White House aides owe the IRS $831, 000 in back taxes. And they're not alone.I predict that heads will roll for this. Starting with the Washington P. S. reporter who wrote the article confirming these numbers, and going on to the editor who let the article get into print. "a disgrace to the legacy of Katharine Lee Graham. "
This is part of a long list of federal workers over dozens of departments and groups. It gets in the news periodically. I'm sure federal workers have owed back taxes for ages. It's an issue that should definately be addressed.
But notice the angle taken by some in the media: instead of writing about the overall list of federal workers, the focus is on the White House and Obama. The actual category in the list is the "Executive office of the President" which employs approx. 2000 workers, and includes numerous entities not just the White House.
I have noticed Stan's progression from fairly balanced commentary to increasing negative sentiment. Now this latest P. S. Is nothing more than a Fox News style story highlighting a narrow subset of facts to attack Obama and the White House.
I think it's a bit amusing that Stan voted for Obama, despite admitting he did not agree with his domestic agenda or economic policies. And now he's upset with Obama over his domestic agenda and economic policies.
Stan Da Man
09-11-10, 19:48
I think it's a bit amusing that stan voted for obama, despite admitting he did not agree with his domestic agenda or economic policies. And now he's upset with obama over his domestic agenda and economic policies.Typical.
Esten, I stopped responding to you because you're not credible. You simply lie, and it's not worth the time to discuss matters with someone who can't stick to facts. Unfortunately, I've got to do so now. I did not vote for Obama and have never said I did, here or anywhere else.
No doubt you'll claim this was simply an innocent mistake. After enough "mistakes, " however, your credibility gets shot, and it's not worth having a discussion with you. You may claim that this is because our politics differ. But, while richard was here, I was happy to debate him, and he is even further to the left of you. The difference is, he stuck to the truth. You don't. It's typical of the left, and I was happy to find that richard was an exception. Unfortunately, it's more of the same from you.
I await your link to a credible story on the 58 Bush White house aides who supposedly owed back taxes. I won't debate it with you. As I said, I'm done with that. But, you ought to at least back up your bs. If you can't, we'll all know why.
According to this politics daily article, the current $831k back tax amounts for employees of the executive office is about the same as it was in the last year of the bush administration. But they don't cite a source.
Http: /www. Politicsdaily. Com/tag/back+taxes+owed/
It's all b. S. Anyway. If you've ever gotten a deficiency notice from the irs, you owed back taxes and continued to owe them until the irs decided that the issue got resolved. I recall getting two of them over the years. One went away when I sent them the number I'd forgotten to write down on my return and the other was the result of a math error I made long before the days of turbotax. They were no big deal. Most small-business people I know seem to have open issues with the irs all the time that sometimes stretch back several years as correspondence goes back and forth about the issue.
The only reason to bring it up is to try and use people's ignorance of reality to try and score political points. The reality is 4% of taxpayers owe back taxes at any point in time and I can't think of any reason that people who work in government should be any different. Now, if the irs has taken someone to court and won a judgment for fraud or willful negligence, and that person was in an important position in the government, that would be worth talking about.
As further evidence, I posted long ago that, if I had voted this last election, it would have been for Obama.I remembered this statement from you on 7/28 to be you had voted for him. I was mistaken. Although I don't think it is something entirely different from what I thought you said. But I do acknowledge the mistake.
Here is the article for federal workers who owed back taxes under Bush. The article cites irs records obtained through the freedom of information act. The 58 is under the same category as the 41 you cited (executive office of the president) so its apples to apples. You were quick to label it "bs", but that's not the case.
Http: /www. Wtop. Com/? Nid=25&sid=1478352
If I learn I have said something inaccurate I will acknowledge it without trying to dodge. And I spend a good deal of time fact-checking before I write, not 100% of the time but quite a bit. Out of the many things I have written in this thread, I am confident you will not find much that is presented as fact (vs opinion) that isn't fact. I may joke sometimes or counter one-sided arguments with the same, but one thing I don't do is lie. That's a pretty strong character attack.
I'll point out stan's game for those who may be missing it. Fact is, we haven't debated much at all. We exchanged comments directly a few times but that's it. Instead of engaging me in a meaningful debate, stan has chosen to jump right to smear tactics in his comments about me being lost and now a liar. I guess that's an easier path, but not one I respect.
Stan I'll welcome any meaningful discussion or debate from you. I think it is likely you would find I have valid points, and/or you have misunderstood things I said before. However if you choose not to, I still reserve the right to respond to narrow, one-sided and other similar posts you may make.
Punter 127
09-12-10, 21:38
Esten is this the link you were trying to P. S?
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=1478352
Wild Walleye
09-13-10, 11:57
I would have to agree that this is an issue not solely related to one party. However, the extraordinary number of Obama appointees that had unpaid taxes and got away with it brought this issue to the fore. Particularly, the imminently, unqualified timothy geithner.
I think it would be safe to say that americans in general find it appalling that many, many folks in both houses of congress, the justice department, the treasury, home land defense and other federal agencies owe billions of dollars in back taxes (on average $7k-17k/delinquent) while ostensibly enacting and enforcing the laws upon the citizenry, while skirting those same laws themselves.
It is interesting that "the irs is the only federal agency where an employee can be fired for not paying his taxes. " "can" being the operative word in the previous passage considering the treatment given to the irs top boss, geithner.
The sheer hypocrisy of the situation and the fact that "washington" and the ruling class are held to a different standard than regular folks is fueling the velvet rebellion. What is particularly galling is that the standard for those who rule us is actually lower than that to which we are held.
What is particularly galling is that the standard for those who rule us is actually lower than that to which we are held.And they get better health care.
Sysco
Wild Walleye
09-13-10, 14:54
and they get better health care.
SyscoThey get better healthcare and they are exempt from Obamacare
They get better healthcare and they are exempt from ObamacareWhich is why they have BETTER healthcare. I would accept any law that Congress and the Senate were willing to live with themselves. For some reason, they need to have their own special version.
Sysco
Which is why they have BETTER healthcare. I would accept any law that Congress and the Senate were willing to live with themselves. For some reason, they need to have their own special version.A grave and dangerous problem is that Congress and the Senate don't bother to live under the laws they make for the masses. They hold themselves above us as an elite, an aristocracy.
I don't see anything in the Constitution, or the Federalist Papers, that serves as a basis for this arrogance.
Earlier this year, one of my friends passed along a proposed Amendment to the USA Constitution, along the lines of:
1. Congress shall enact no law regarding themselves that does not apply equally and identically to the People of the United States.
2. Congress shall enact no law regarding the People of the United States that does not apply equally and identically to themselves.
Perfect example? Obamacare. I brought handwritten letters to the "House Call to Capital Hill", last April, for my Congressperson and both Senators; the core concept was "If you buy it for us you're honor-bound to take it for yourselves. " One Senator did have a form letter sent to me about how proud she was of having passed Obamacare.
Jeez, give me a break!
Wild Walleye
09-14-10, 03:33
A grave and dangerous problem is that Congress and the Senate don't bother to live under the laws they make for the masses. They hold themselves above us as an elite, an aristocracy.You are absolutely correct. The bastardization of the system that the founders envisioned has resulted in a ruling class. This is something that the founders never envisioned and tried mightily to avoid. Escaping totalitarian rule was part of the origin of this place they call America.
I don't see anything in the Constitution, or the Federalist Papers, that serves as a basis for this arrogance.Don't waste your time, it ain't there
Earlier this year, one of my friends passed along a proposed Amendment to the USA Constitution, along the lines of:
1. Congress shall enact no law regarding themselves that does not apply equally and identically to the People of the United States.
2. Congress shall enact no law regarding the People of the United States that does not apply equally and identically to themselves. That would fly in the face of the existing congressional mandate: "Congress shall enact no law that infringes, in any way, the free lunch we dirtbag members have stolen form the honest hardworking citizenry. "
Perfect example? Obamacare. I brought handwritten letters to the "House Call to Capital Hill", last April, for my Congressperson and both Senators; the core concept was "If you buy it for us you're honor-bound to take it for yourselves. " One Senator did have a form letter sent to me about how proud she was of having passed Obamacare.Proud of foisting something upon you that she and her progeny will never have to encounter. Seems fair to me.
Jeez, give me a break!There are no breaks. Get off your ass, get everyone you know (that isn't a complete asshole) and get them to vote this November and every November thereafter. Freedom, the American Dream and all the other quaint ideals that go with them are not free. Thankfully, most Americans don't ever have to do more than get off the couch and pull a lever or check a box.
Punter- That's the link, thanks.
Doppel- If you want to continue our spending discussion, fine. Incredibly, you are STILL making incorrect statements! The CBO projection for Republican Paul Ryan's request is based on ARRA provision extensions that DON'T EXIST. You should acknowledge that. Stimulus/ARRA spending could never exceed $1T because spending in that bill is capped at $499B. To get to $1T spending you could add in TARP, but even that won't do it. Yes Obama spent some of the TARP funds. But it matters little how much each president spent, because much of TARP has been repaid; an estimate as of April 12, 2010 is the total cost will be $89B. To get to $1T spending, you could try adding up ALL spending programs under Obama (not Bush) and see what you get. I haven't bothered but I definately have not found evidence of $1T spending (to date), certainly not under ARRA, TARP or the CNN list you referenced.
I don't argue Obama is spending a lot... Of course he is and for good reason. I'm simply correcting your mis-statements. I welcome your attempt to do the math and demonstrate with credible evidence that Obama has spent (not just committed) $1T so far, as you keep claiming. I am confident you cannot.
To provide some perspective on back taxes, consider this article from 2008:
60, 000 firms owe $8B in taxes http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-04-24-unpaid-taxes_N.htm
Of course our elected (or appointed) officials should be held to a high standard on paying taxes. But in terms of dollars the $9. 3 million owed by Capitol Hill employees is a drop in the bucket compared to the private sector. And this $8B number is only for federal contractors, so the total private sector number is likely much larger.
I've said before the real problems facing our country come from the private sector, not the government. Back taxes are yet another private sector issue, though by no means the main problem.
"Riding a wave of conservative anger, Tea Party darling and Sarah Palin-backed Christine O'Donnell shockingly defeats Rep. Mike Castle in Delaware's GOP Senate primary. "
This was one of the more divisive GOP primaries. What do you guys make of the result?
Wild Walleye
09-15-10, 01:33
To provide some perspective on back taxes, consider this article from 2008:
60, 000 firms owe $8B in taxes http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-04-24-unpaid-taxes_N.htm
Comparing firms to individuals is a little sophomoric, even for you.
Of course our elected (or appointed) officials should be held to a high standard on paying taxes.Then why don't you?
But in terms of dollars the $9. 3 million owed by Capitol Hill employees is a drop in the bucket compared to the private sector.Well then that makes it all right.
And this $8B number is only for federal contractors, so the total private sector number is likely much larger.Probably lower. If federal employees don't have to worry about enforcement, why should contractors.
I've said before the real problems facing our country come from the private sector, not the government.Which is why you support eliminating it (the private sector)
Back taxes are yet another private sector issue, though by no means the main problem.Why not collect taxes that are due before increasing taxes on those who actual pay them.
Wild Walleye
09-15-10, 01:40
"Riding a wave of conservative anger, Tea Party darling and Sarah Palin-backed Christine O'Donnell shockingly defeats Rep. Mike Castle in Delaware's GOP Senate primary. "
This was one of the more divisive GOP primaries. What do you guys make of the result? Wow, I am all torn up inside worrying about this "civil war" within the GOP. This must be the first divisive primary ever. I guess the republicans are going to get creamed in November.
What I see is that people are so pissed about the direction of the country. Which at this point can only be the Democrats' fault since they dominate the congress and control the White house. That they are willing to take a conservative with some blemishes over a "party" man who really should have a "Dem" next to his name. I would have to say that does not bode well for those who really do have "Ds" next to their names in November.
Member #4112
09-15-10, 12:41
Esten, even the Democrats are saying it cost $836 Billion. While you have finally admitted Obama spent TARP money, I am relieved but you need to add that to the $836 Billion figure and you are getting close to the $1 Trillion without counting other spending bills he has assisted in passing.
You constantly harp on the war spending being the primary factor for increasing the deficit, I will find the graph which shows how much of the deficit the wars actually account for, it was very small, and P.S. It here for you to lay to rest this misinformation you keep spreading.
WW is right, the "silent majority” is silent no more and the Democrats are whistling P.S. The grave yard when it comes to the defeat of entrenched Republicans being replaced by new small government and less taxes Republican candidates taking the party back to its true roots. Folks are just getting more pissed as the days P.S. To the November elections and voter turnout for the primaries has been much greater for the Republicans than the Democrats. In the P.S. Voter turnout for primaries has been a reliable barometer for the fall election cycle, if that holds true the Democrats are in for a rude awakening on Nov 3rd.
Harry Reid’s latest stunt of promising to include the “Dream Act” and abolition of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the coming Senate defense spending bill as tacked on amendments is pure pandering to the Left’s special interests and will not be well received by the majority of the American people only adding to the fire storm coming in November.
Wild Walleye
09-15-10, 12:46
There is a better query to be made regarding Castle-O’Donnell, if one seeks the truth. Clearly, I would not expect Esten to probe in this manner because he works so hard not to find what lies at the end of this path. The question isn’t about what republicans think, rather “What does the left think about a public uprising that throws out posers, who do not vote and act as they once promised, in exchange for unknown candidates promising to do the opposite? ”
As a follow up “If unknown conservative candidates can come out of nowhere and defeat entrenched GOP candidates in AK, CO, Delaware and so on, what might they do to Democrat candidates in November? ”
You can find the answer to those questions in the fact that Dems across the nation and particularly those in main stream media are so consumed with a GOP primary in Delaware. The answer is that they know that they are in real trouble. It isn't just the trouble of possibly losing the house and the senate, it is bigger than that. The Left and Dems face the trouble that the coming repudiation (via historic losses for the left in November) may cause catastrophic harm to their ability to enact major legislation through the congress for years, perhaps a generation or more. No new war on poverty, no New-new Deal, no blanket amnesty (which means no 15+ million new democrats), no more stimulus, no Obamacare.
Those are ugly consequences for the left and it is painful for them to contemplate. However the “why” hurts a whole lot more, which is why they are trying to bury it as best they can. The “why” is the fact that the left is not being defeated by the right or by the GOP or by the Tea Party. The foe that is vanquishing the left is far mightier than any of those collections of mortals. Liberalism is being defeated by the truth.
When the truth is not on your side, use more propaganda. You see, while feigning engagement on issues, propagandists do nothing of the sort. Engagement is the propagandist’s kryptonite. If Esten and his brethren participated in the act of proposing, supporting and defending their positions, they would be exposed for the frauds that they are. Coverage of this primary as “hotly contested” and indicative of a schism within the GOP is complete fantasy. It is deliberate propaganda intended to dissuade America from identifying the conservative ascendancy that is occurring (not coming, occurring). As I have stated before, the reference points for interpreting the election results in November will be moved by the propagandists to try to cover up the historic *-slapping that is coming their way. If the GOP does not take control of both houses, the media will cast the collective outcome as a failure by the GOP and will somehow spin it to mean the Obama should keep on keeping on.
I am by no means counting my chickens before they hatch. The key to November is not taking both houses, it is taking enough seats (from Dems and republican pussies that vote like Dems) to derail Obama's quest to do further damage to America. Whether or not the Dems lose both houses, the fact is that the citizenry has rejected them and their ideology. The special elections and primaries are prima facia evidence that the people are clearly against Obama and his policies. GOP control will signal the beginning of the end for: Cap and Tax, other wasteful green programs, repeal of the Bush tax cuts, and additional stimulus (unless the newly elected congress is dumb enough to think that the people who elected them want to be repaid in pork). Hopefully, the first course of action will be to de-fund Obamacare and work towards a full-scale repeal of that mess.
The downside is that if the GOP takes the house and delivers (and that is a very big if), the liberal spending spree will be over and the tax burden should not increase. If things improve it will be due to: 1) the resiliency of the US economic system (despite Obama trying to destroy it) and 2) preventing Obama from doing any further harm to the economy. Therefore, things will improve before Nov 2012 and Big Ears will surely try to take credit for it. That said, I believe that the sleeping giant has been awoken and that even if the above plays out (economy improves, Obama takes credit) that a majority of those going to the polls in 2012 will see beyond the teleprompter to the truth about the false hope that was Obamaism and the empty promises of liberalism.
Wild Walleye
09-15-10, 13:00
Harry Reid’s latest stunt of promising to include the “Dream Act” and abolition of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the coming Senate defense spending bill as tacked on amendments is pure pandering to the Left’s special interests and will not be well received by the majority of the American people only adding to the fire storm coming in November.It is truly sad. I don't think he is trying to win votes with these actions, I think they are the last desperate acts of a dead man. If he is trying to buy votes, he is more out of touch than I thought. So, he's in the fight of his political life and he expects queers (no offense intended) and illegals to tip the scales in his favor? Just how many gay, registered voters does he think reside in Nevada? As for the Dream Act, how many illegals does he plan to register before the election? Good thing we don't require positive voter identification.
How many that weren't planning to vote in November are now going to the polls because "DADT" or the Dream Act might make it to the Senate floor? I can assure you that most voters smart and dumb alike do not understand the Senate majority leader's role in what gets to the floor and what does not. Voters in Nevada don't give a rats ass about "Don't ask, don't tell" and they sure as hell don't want the Dream Act to add to their democrat-induced nightmare (highest unemployment and foreclosure rate in the nation). Of course, Harry told them that he had nothing to do with those problems. If he loses, it will be good riddance to a dishonest scumbag who has only evaded prosecution due to his high ranking office.
Wild Walleye
09-15-10, 13:25
Back when Big Ears got elected, I said that he didn't have a mandate, at least not one typically associated with Presidential elections.
Mandates come from unified voter support for a candidate's platform and promises. America did not sign onto Obama for his agenda, policies or campaign promises. His only mandate was to keep being black (although Jesse and Al didn't think he was black enough), which seemed to be a common thread amongst many voters that supported him (don't waste your time trying to spin this as a racist comment).
In 2008, McCain was on his way to eeking out a very slim victory (leading in all polls) up until Lehman Brothers failed (Sept 15th). McCain suspended his campaign lost the lead for good and never came back (probably would have lost even if he didn't suspend the campaign. That was a desperate gambit to try to counter the Lehman effect). Panic ensued in both the financial markets and on Main Street and the margin of victory shifted to Obama. The shift was made entirely based upon fear, not belief.
Everything Obama has done since taking office has been without a mandate, for the benefit of a very small minority and to the detriment of the majority of Americans and to the fabric of the nation.
Stan Da Man
09-15-10, 20:34
Two years ago, the alarm bells went off about the H1N1 virus. It was going to be the worst flu strain in a century. Millions would die. Everyone in the "mainstream" scientific community agreed. Based on all the science, it was labeled a pandemic. No flu vaccines capable of handling this new strain existed, but government spent billions to help cultivate and purchase these vaccines once they finally were developed.
What happened? The "mainstream" scientific community was dead wrong. The flu turned out to be much milder than the normal, garden-variety flu. Skeptical citizens knew this early on as the death toll numbers that scientists convinced everyone they would see never materialized. Now, panels are quietly investigating how the conventional wisdom and all of these respected scientists could have been so wrong.
And the dire H1N1 warnings were all supposedly based on legitimate science.
Now, we come to the multiple "Stimulus" efforts that have been deployed, and the new ones that are being proposed. Conventional wisdom, based on what the media feeds us, is that stimulus programs were necessary because we were in a recession. But, we've been in many other recessions and came out of them without anything that approaches the massive spending done by this administration. Yes, they claim, but this recession was really bad, and desperate times call for desperate measures. Not so fast. The recession now is really bad, based on its length and the unemployment rate alone, but those were the things all this stimulus spending was supposed to fix. The only response you generally get is, "well, it would have been worse without the massive spending. " There's nothing to back it up.
The only "science" that suggests these programs were necessary or even worthwhile are based on economics. They call economics "the dismal science" for a reason: It got its name after Thomas Malthus projected that population growth would cause a parade of horribles, eventually leading to starvation and death for much of mankind. He was dead wrong, and the name stuck, if only as a reminder that economic models are notoriously inaccurate.
So, why does anyone take it seriously when the current administration, based on so-called "expert" economists, concludes that any of the stimulus packages were necessary? To the extent that any of these "experts" provide any basis for their conclusions, it almost invariably is predicated on some Keynesian economic principle that is questionable at best. Real world data debunks nearly every Keynesian theory. It's junk science, yet we're led to believe that billions in spending was and is necessary because these junk scientists tell us so.
What proof is there that these Stimulus programs were unnecessary? Of course it's impossible to "prove" now, but the best evidence is historical. In only one recession have we even approached the record level of stimulus and deficit spending that has been happening. It's called "the Great Depression, " and it lasted longer and was deeper than any other recession. By comparison, Europe did not engage in anywhere near the government stimulus FDR rammed through (measured as a percentage of GDP), and its economies recovered more quickly and its unemployment rate stayed lower at all points than the USA. In all other recessions, we have not spent anywhere near what this team has, and we suffered less (measured in nearly any way possible) and emerged more quickly. So, you can't conclusively prove what would have happened without the massive stimulus, but the smart money bets on experience.
So, if it's not the junk scientists with their demonstrably false Keynesian models, then who should we believe as to why stimulus spending is necessary? Obama and Geithner? Geithner's the same guy who either can't figure out how to pay his taxes, or was attempting to evade them. We've either got a buffoon or a crook running Treasury, yet we're supposed to trust him to spend nearly a trillion dollars wisely. This is the same pair who went to the G-20 meeting in June to trumpet the success of the USA stimulus packages and to chide Europe for even thinking about cutting spending to get their budgets in line. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-26/geithner-says-g-20-needs-focus-on-domestic-demand-not-deficits.html
They were laughed out of the room by European leaders, particularly Germany, which cut spending instead. Turns out, Germany had the first and last laugh. Their economy is healthy by all accounts, while the Obama/Geithner Stimulus has succeeded only in driving up the deficit. The Obama-led Stiimulus does feed his arguments, though: He claims we can't afford tax cuts for the wealthy. Why not? Well, because he was so busy blowing our wad on worthless Stimulus projects. (He usually forgets that last part in his stump speeches.)
These are the sorts of issues that are driving the Tea Party. It's one thing to raise taxes for worthwhile projects. But, taking other people's money is justified only when the government gets its house in order and cuts all the wasteful spending that is abundantly apparent. ObamaCare and cash for clunkers are but two of many examples, and they are on top of the worthless Stimulus programs. Obama's "wish list" spending proposal today is just more evidence. Dems may think that the Tea Party is driving a wedge between the Republican party. But, the truth is, the Tea Party is symptomatic of the general disgust at the misguided policies and wasteful spending that has occurred and is still being proposed by this administration. Absent this, the Tea Party wouldn't exist. Come November, thankfully, we'll be done with all of these ludicrous stimulus proposals, brought forth by a team that couldn't govern its way out of a paper bag.
Wild Walleye
09-15-10, 22:43
These are the sorts of issues that are driving the Tea Party.There are many issues, however, I believe that there is one common theme, the douche bags elected to represent us don't. They represent their own selfish interest and those of their biggest patrons (I mean donors).
It's one thing to raise taxes for worthwhile projects. But, taking other people's money is justified only when the government gets its house in order and cuts all the wasteful spending that is abundantly apparent. ObamaCare and cash for clunkers are but two of many examples, and they are on top of the worthless Stimulus programs.'It is funny that the media never really investigated cash for clunkers or the home buyer's credit. These two slights of hand just paid individuals to accelerate their time table for executing transactions. This in effect took future transactions and moved up their timing. No net increase in sales, just altered timing. It is a rouse. We will see the effect in the future in the form of continued lack luster sales.
Obama's "wish list" spending proposal today is just more evidence.Here's to hoping the Boehner will be able to shove that list up Big Ears' ass.
Dems may think that the Tea Party is driving a wedge between the Republican party.They don't think that at all. But that won't stop them from saying it and wishing it was true.
But, the truth is, the Tea Party is symptomatic of the general disgust at the misguided policies and wasteful spending that has occurred and is still being proposed by this administration. Absent this, the Tea Party wouldn't exist.You are correct sir. Obama is the founder of the Tea Party. As I have said before, Obama did not have a mandate. When he lurched violently to the left (inauguration) and started destroying the country, he overstepped his bounds and the country noticed. If he was a pragmatist and not an ideologue, he would have passed smaller, more insidious legislation, avoided creating the tea party and would not be looking at losing both houses of congress in a few short weeks.
Come November, thankfully, we'll be done with all of these ludicrous stimulus proposals, brought forth by a team that couldn't govern its way out of a paper bag.Be done with them as elected officials, yes. However, I do not think that we should forget or forgive the anti-American attack that this congress and president have wrought for their own political gain. Again, just to be clear, this is not anti-decent-citizen with liberal philosophies (you're wrong but I still love you) this is anti-anti-American liberal activists and democrat party apparatchiks.
Two quotes that Obama will learn to regret in the next 45 days "We won, you lost" (picture Boehner with a hot poker and Big Ears grabbing his ankles) and "I'm the only thing between you and the pitch forks and torches. "
As for H1N1, I called the govt reaction fraudulent (which it was) when it happened, but sadly I also know a healthy guy in his 20's who dropped dead from it. There was reason to be cautious and on guard but claiming a false pandemic in order to frighten the public into swallowing Obamacare was criminal (in my opinion, perhaps the new congress can look into that)
I can sense the tide is turning here, and with a few more posts will be able to convince you guys to abandon conservatism and embrace liberalism...
I normally would not continue something like this so long... But it is too tempting to keep pointing out Doppelganger's repeated misrepresentations and errors for all to see.
Esten, even the Democrats are saying it cost $836 Billion. Can't find Dems saying that anywhere. Do you have a link? Here's some google search results on stimulus Obama "X billion": X=787 gives 76600 results; X=814 gives 1850 results; X=836 gives 66 results. I found no credible sources for the 836 number, only on various blogs and forums. The latest number per CBO is $814B and that's what you should be using.
While you have finally admitted Obama spent TARP money, I am relieved But I never said he didn't spend any TARP funds. I disputed your claim that Obama bailed out Wall Street. Wall Street was bailed out by TARP, and specifically the first half of TARP under the Capital Purchase Program and Targeted Investment Program. Bush signed TARP and spent that first half.
but you need to add that to the $836 Billion figure and you are getting close to the $1 Trillion without counting other spending bills he has assisted in passing.Wrong. The latest ARRA spending number is about $295B spent so far, and the TARP money Obama spent that has not been repaid yet is roughly around $100B. The sum of these numbers is around $400B spent, which is not close to $1T. Even over time, that number will go up as more ARRA is spent and down as more TARP is repaid. As I predicted, you have failed to demonstrate your case for $1T spent to date.
You constantly harp on the war spending being the primary factor for increasing the deficit, Even your collegues can see how ridiculous this statement is. I posted a breakdown of deficit components a couple times... Far from constantly. War spending was one of several components, and I never said it was the primary component. Actually in that breakdown, war spending is the smallest component at present. Do you have any integrity that you might acknowledge your distortions?
I can sense the tide is turning here, and with a few more posts will be able to convince you guys to abandon conservatism and embrace liberalism...What ever you are smoking. Please share! LOL! Tick! Tick! Tick! Soon all will be revealed! Happy Mongering All. Toymann
What ever you are smoking. Please share! LOL! Tick! Tick! Tick! Soon all will be revealed! Happy Mongering All. ToymannGlad to hear I made someone laugh!
BTW, do you realize that a woman who advocates abstinence and a righteous lifestyle just ruined any chance you might have had to fuck a Madahos hottie at my expense?
Wild Walleye
09-16-10, 11:47
Glad to hear I made someone laugh!
BTW, do you realize that a woman who advocates abstinence and a righteous lifestyle just ruined any chance you might have had to fuck a Madahos hottie at my expense? Despite the noise around the race, Delaware is in play with O'Donnell as the republican candidate.
Once again, I don't count my chickens before they hatch and I do not believe that control of the Senate this fall is required to legitimize the conservative ascendancy (while it may be a condition of your bet).
The Republicans could wind up with 53 (that's right 53) seats in the Senate with both DE and CT in play (I am saying that they are both in play, although I am not hearing many others say that).
I am sure you have heard the expression "A rising tide lifts all boats. " Think of this more as a ten foot tidal bore.
Glad to hear I made someone laugh!
BTW, do you realize that a woman who advocates abstinence and a righteous lifestyle just ruined any chance you might have had to fuck a Madahos hottie at my expense? There may be a few more surprises left that get me to that 50 number. Time will only tell. That said, as long as there are more GOP senators that DEM senators, one might consider that as a win? Your thoughts. Happy Mongering All. Toymann
P. Remember I win the ties.
Wild Walleye
09-16-10, 15:06
You're sitting with ten, jack, queen, king but nothing of value waiting for the river.
You think, "give me an ace, give me an ace, give me an ace! "
And down comes an ace.
This is kind of the sensation with the news coming out of the democrats these days.
Not that it directly impacts the November outcomes, but I find it funny that just when Team Obama was trying to reintroduce Michelle the Mooch to electioneering, out comes this Sarkosy book. It is too funny. "I hate being first lady (flying to NYC on AF1 just for dinner and a show; huge boondoggle to Spain, free housing for my mom, etc)" is going to play well with the masses. Wonder why the declined to have dinner with the Sarkosys?
The Tea Party is going to spark a moral awakening !
Wild Walleye
09-19-10, 15:18
The Tea Party is going to spark a moral awakening !Who is he trying to fool? The 20% of the country that thinks he is a muslim or the 50% that knows he favors Muslims, of any nationality, over Americans?
The fornicating issue is due to the wide spread infestation of "raticulae Mario Cuomo" not due to any Tea Party platform.
Our resident propagandist, Esten, is at it again. The Conservatism of the Tea Party is based upon fiscal conservatism first (I. E. Smaller govt, lower taxes) and not primarily based on social conservative issues. Esten knows this, as do his Marxist comrades throughout the left. However, they need to bring out the scare tactics and distortions to try to fight back the coming tide.
However, they need to bring out the scare tactics and distortions to try to fight back the coming tide.Hahaha. If thats not the pot calling the kettle black. This was and still is the primary fighting tactic of the right wing whacko s
Wild Walleye
09-20-10, 00:33
Hahaha. If thats not the pot calling the kettle black. This was and still is the primary fighting tactic of the right wing whacko sSo right wing whackos are fear mongers. Then you will have no problem providing us with half a dozen examples of right wing fear mongering.
While you are compiling that information, I will be starving old people, stealing candy from kids, kicking dogs, tossing styro-foam into my pond, using racial epitaphs and bashing a couple of homos with my Louisville Slugger.
Wild Walleye
09-20-10, 00:50
I appreciate the first 20 pictures of this girl. (yes I am being a bit sarcastic) she's cute. But really I wish there were more of a variety of pictures available from other girls on here. To be honest I have only seen one picture of a girl on here that floored me (of course she's no longer living here) go figure. Everything else has looked pretty sparse. The escort sites are all super imposed with photoshop. Just sayingIt's pretty obvious. Usually, she only exposes one boob. A liberal Chica would be butt naked.
Miamipro seems to think that Modelo VIP's camera capabilities are somehow to blame for the lack of other chicas posting herein. If MP had been around long enough, he'd know that getting lots of chicas to post and be involved on AP wasn't one of Jax's objectives, nor that of the inner core of old timers (a group I hope to join one day.
There are several wonderful women that are contributors to this site (Gysell, Ale, Lulo, Modelo, Bella and perhaps a few more. That said, the primary purpose of this site, as I understand it, is for the free exchange of information betwixt mongers.
One can find lots of great pics on other sites (a few good ones on this site too) however, if you do your homework with the info available on AP, you can figure out which chica's pics are good and which are phonies.
So right wing whackos are fear mongers. Then you will have no problem providing us with half a dozen examples of right wing fear mongering.
While you are compiling that information, I will be starving old people, stealing candy from kids, kicking dogs, tossing styro-foam into my pond, using racial epitaphs and bashing a couple of homos with my Louisville Slugger. Enlightening you would take the better part of my life. Which I am not prepared to do, you will have to do that on your own.
Secondly I don't need to give you half a dozen examples one will do fine to prove my point.
Fear-mongering campaign in the USA. This one devoted to scaring Americans that they will be slaughtered if Guantanamo is closed and Terrorism suspects are brought into the USA for real trials. But the real fear-mongering is focused on all of the attacks that American communities will suffer if we imprison dangerous Terrorists inside the USA rather than in Guantanamo.
House Minority Leader John Boehner wants you to be frightened: "I think the first thing we have to remember is that we're talking about terrorists here. Do we bring them into our borders? " GOP House Minority Whip Eric Cantor warned: "Actively moving terrorists inside our borders weakens our security. Most families neither want nor need hundreds of terrorists seeking to kill Americans in their communities. "
Former Bush aide and chief speechwriter Marc Thiessen warned in The Washington Post that if there is a Terrorist attack on USA soil, Americans will blame Obama because he stopped torturing and closed Guantanamo, and Democrats will be "unelectable for a generation. "
All of this is pure fear-mongering.
The only other thing I will provide to you if you want me to, is a list of the successful terrorist we have housed and convicted here in the US.
Let me just add that the media is partially to blame too because they love to sensationalize everything and instill their own brand of fear.
Miamipro seems to think that Modelo VIP's camera capabilities are somehow to blame for the lack of other chicas posting herein. If MP had been around long enough, he'd know that getting lots of chicas to post and be involved on AP wasn't one of Jax's objectives, nor that of the inner core of old timers (a group I hope to join one day.Actually thats not what I think at all. Its so funny how you read into things so differently and try to project your own thoughts and words as if they were my own. Sorry I haven't been around here as much or as long as you have but I actually have other things I do in life besides using this board. I was speaking on general terms. I was just venting that the pictures on this site (and no I haven't seen them all) have been of girls that are not really all that attractive. It would be nice to see a few more hotties. Of course what I think is hot might be different from what someone else thinks is hot. If during my time down here I come across any hotties of my own that I am able to photograph I will be more than happy to share.
Stop being such a hater. Its pretty sad all you do is sit around waiting to pounce on someone else's comment to try and make yourself look so righteous or superior on this board. If you are here in BA let me know. I will buy you a drink. Sounds like you might need one
Wild Walleye
09-20-10, 11:43
Enlightening you would take the better part of my life. Which I am not prepared to do, you will have to do that on your own.While enlighten does have multiple meanings, I was utilizing the original 'micro' meaning of enlighten to "remove the dimness or blindness" as it relates to this subject, which in common, contemporary usage means "to shed light upon. "
Were I seeking enlightenment, I doubt that I would turn to the Left or any of its propagandists, demagogues or false profits.
Secondly I don't need to give you half a dozen examples one will do fine to prove my point.Precisely why I asked for multiple examples, knowing in advance that you would pick one (poorly chosen) example and hold it out as indicative of a pattern as old as time itself. As a sign of good faith, I gave you half a dozen examples of fear mongering form the left, and you didn't even have to ask (then again, I may have used up your best shots.
Fear-mongering campaign in the USA. This one devoted to scaring Americans that they will be slaughtered if Guantanamo is closed and Terrorism suspects are brought into the USA for real trials.Come on. That is the best you can do? First, in order for you to give me an example, you would need to understand what fear mongering is. Simply put, it is exaggerating or lying for the purpose of frightening the citizens in order to influence their political views.
Surely, no American would have anything to fear from hosting the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Those people living and working in lower Manhattan would have no increased likelihood of seeing another terrorist attack as a mutli-year trial played out in their backyard. Nor would the tax payers (city, state and federal) have anything to fear from paying billions for the cost of such a show trial. Similarly, after giving KSM a global televised platform (OJ coverage on steroids) Americans here and abroad would be at no greater personal risk from the heightened tensions. Lastly, after BHO and Eric Holder held their show trial and lost through acquittal or hung jury, no Americans would be at greater risk for having our government prove to the world that you can kill 3,000 Americans and get a way with it. We would have shown the world that our own system has been perverted to the point where it prevents us from protecting ourselves and / or seeking justice. You're right, nothing here, must be fear mongering.
But the real fear-mongering is focused on all of the attacks that American communities will suffer if we imprison dangerous Terrorists inside the USA rather than in Guantanamo.Great point, except that while almost universally opposed by republicans, this BHO / Holder lead balloon was widely opposed by Democrats, too. FBI Director Mueler made a very good case as to the dangers of moving the 240 dirtbags from Gitmo to US prisons.
House Minority Leader John Boehner wants you to be frightened: "I think the first thing we have to remember is that we're talking about terrorists here. Do we bring them into our borders? " GOP House Minority Whip Eric Cantor warned: "Actively moving terrorists inside our borders weakens our security. Most families neither want nor need hundreds of terrorists seeking to kill Americans in their communities. "What is wrong or exaggerated about either of these quotes? While the first is a rhetorical question, the latter is a statement of fact, most Americans were opposed to the idea. This is not fear mongering.
May 20,2009, the US Senate voted 90-6 against funding the BHO / Holder plan for the Jihadist version of "Coming to America. " I am pretty sure that when this vote took place, there were not 90 republicans in the upper chamber (if so, I think Obamacare would have hit a few more snags.
"Democrats under no circumstances will move forward without a comprehensive, responsible plan from the president. We will never allow terrorists to be released into the United States, " declared Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the-Nev.
The funny thing about this quote is how this fear-mongering bastard, is tap dancing around the reality of what he and his ilk would do, if they weren't running for political cover.
Former Bush aide and chief speechwriter Marc Thiessen warned in The Washington Post that if there is a Terrorist attack on USA soil, Americans will blame Obama because he stopped torturing and closed Guantanamo, and Democrats will be "unelectable for a generation. "
All of this is pure fear-mongering. I disagree. He is stating an opinion that he believes BHO / Holder & Co's treatment of terrorists with kid gloves (not to mention all the bowing he did to leaders of Muslim Countries) has not been overlooked by the American people. Further, he believes that if there is an attack on American soil that the public will blame BHO. What is wrong with that? I am sure you blame Bush for 911. You might even believe he was in on it with Mossad.
The only other thing I will provide to you if you want me to, is a list of the successful terrorist we have housed and convicted here in the US.Treatment of terrorists as criminals by the US government (dating back to Beirut 1982 and perhaps further) exacerbated our vulnerability to terrorist attacks and contributed to the devastating results on 911. Previously, I have listed the many, many terror attacks on US interests, predating 911, all of were pursued as criminal cases.
Let me just add that the media is partially to blame too because they love to sensationalize everything and instill their own brand of fear.That is like Preparation-H on a pulsating hemorrhoid (relief that is) at least we can agree on something. The media's predominant brand of fear is pro-Left and anti-right.
Wild Walleye
09-20-10, 11:59
Stop being such a hater.Other than a few sarcastic comments and pithy insults, please let me know where I actually spew hate. Most of my friends are liberals, some more hopeless than others. While I subscribe to Voltaire's construct of free speech and cling bitterly to your right to express it (I might go so far as to defend your right to free speech, that doesn't mean I am going to give someone a pass on disseminating propaganda, even if I like them.
Its pretty sad all you do is sit around waiting to pounce on someone else's comment to try and make yourself look so righteous or superior on this board.I enjoy political debate, I like the people within this community and love Bs As. I have no interest in being either righteous or superior, in fact I am quite comfortable in being neither. I do however, enjoy being right (as in correct) and winning.
If you are here in BA let me know. I will buy you a drink. Sounds like you might need oneI'll be on my way soon. I like the little umbrellas in my drinks.
Wild Walleye.
You did exactly what I thought you were going to do which is make political talking points about my example.
The bottom line is I gave you a fear mongering point as expressed from the right. I could give you five more. But whats the point? You would just try to justify those as false anyway.
Other than a few sarcastic comments and pithy insults, please let me know where I actually spew hate. Most of my friends are liberals, some more hopeless than others. While I subscribe to Voltaire's construct of free speech and cling bitterly to your right to express it (I might go so far as to defend your right to free speech, that doesn't mean I am going to give someone a pass on disseminating propaganda, even if I like them.I never said you spewed hate. You you like exaggeration don't you? . "Hater" is just a figure of speech but I am sure you already know that.
I enjoy political debate, I like the people within this community and love Bs As. I have no interest in being either righteous or superior, in fact I am quite comfortable in being neither. I do however, enjoy being right (as in correct) and winning.Political Debates can be fun and entertaining. And its ok if you want to try and be right. But where you fail is with your sarcastic comments and pithy insults. I am sure you have the aptitude of debating without trying to belittle people. Try it.
I'll be on my way soon. I like the little umbrellas in my drinks.Cool I will have a Shirley Temple waiting for you.
Wild Walleye
09-20-10, 12:36
Wild Walleye.
You did exactly what I thought you were going to do which is make political talking points about my example.
The bottom line is I gave you a fear mongering point as expressed from the right. I could give you five more. But whats the point? You would just try to justify those as false anyway. Slow down, I am just a knuckle-dragging neanderthal, I need things explained in a succinct manner. I asked for an example of actual fear mongering and you gave me a highly-defensible political position.
Here let me help you with an example. If I were going to point out fear mongering on the left I would cite something like this:
"Republican legislative efforts are designed to strip benefits from the elderly, in favor of giving tax cuts to the rich. "
Generally, these two disparate legislative issues would be addressed under separate pieces of legislation.
The kernel of truth would be Republican support for tax cuts for all Americans (no need to go into the details of how wealthy Americans seem to hire more workers than the destitute. What is left out of the tax part of this argument is that it is impossible to cut taxes for those that don't pay any taxes (roughly 50% of the US) and that the top 1% of tax payers pay approximately 40% of all income taxes collected. Therefore, tax cuts for all Americans will result in those that pay more taxes getting the largest reductions.
The lie is taking Republican proposals for privatizing social security and morphing them into "cuts" for the elderly based on no factual evidence.
The fear mongering comes in when you combine these two things (an exaggeration / distortion) with an outright lie that leaves the reader to interpret "Republicans are taking money away from the elderly and forcing them to eat dog food to survive and then giving that money to fat-cats, who don't deserve it.
Member #4112
09-20-10, 13:27
WW. You forgot to mention ObamaCare, which has already been passed by the Democrats, takes $500 Billion out of Medicare (which we fund via payroll taxes) to fund what will be an enhanced Medicaid (which is an unfunded mandate) program under ObamaCare. Talk about taking from the old folks which they accuse Repub's of trying to do when the Dem's have already done it!
Of course after Nov 2nd Esten and Maimipro will begin complaining about how the election was "stolen" from the Dem's by the Tea Party and Repub's and those very stupid voters! They will complain about dirty tricks and lies. What I find humorous is I am seeing campaign ads now that don't mention the candidate is a Democrat, also I don't seem to find any Democrat claiming to have voted for ObamaCare or the Stimulus now. Wonder how that got passed?
Great political cartoon in the Houston Chronicle today, first panel shows a voter watching TV and commenting on throwing out the bums who have not paid attention to what is going on in Washington, second panel shows the TV announcing the public has been voted out. Just what the liberal elite would enjoy since the poor dumb folks who pay the bills don't know what is good for them and should have no say in the governing process.
Wild Walleye
09-20-10, 15:48
WW. You forgot to mention ObamaCare, which has already been passed by the Democrats, takes $500 Billion out of Medicare (which we fund via payroll taxes) to fund what will be an enhanced Medicaid (which is an unfunded mandate) program under ObamaCare. Talk about taking from the old folks which they accuse Repub's of trying to do when the Dem's have already done it!That is the great fallacy of liberalism, it hurts the people it claims to help, the most: minorities, the elderly, students and don't forget the unborn (had to throw that in, start grinding.
Of course after Nov 2nd Esten and Maimipro will begin complaining about how the election was "stolen" from the Dem's by the Tea Party and Repub's and those very stupid voters! They will complain about dirty tricks and lies. What I find humorous is I am seeing campaign ads now that don't mention the candidate is a Democrat, also I don't seem to find any Democrat claiming to have voted for ObamaCare or the Stimulus now. Wonder how that got passed?Of course, the only way republicans get elected is by stealing elections. Please don't look at Minnesota where Al Franken was 'elected' in a disgraceful example of the democrats' win-at-all-costs approach to close elections (don't forget that his 'victory' margin was exceeded by the number of votes illegally cast by convicted felons)
Since Bush / Gore have you seen a democrat gracefully concede a close loss?
Great political cartoon in the Houston Chronicle today, first panel shows a voter watching TV and commenting on throwing out the bums who have not paid attention to what is going on in Washington, second panel shows the TV announcing the public has been voted out. Just what the liberal elite would enjoy since the poor dumb folks who pay the bills don't know what is good for them and should have no say in the governing process.The American people is just too darn stupid to know what's good for ya' all. That's why you need a permanent ruling class that keeps you addicted to the govt teet.
The funny thing is that Americans aren't too dumb, it is just that too many of the intelligent ones took our basic freedoms for granted. They were sleeping (where they would have stayed were it not for Obama, so at least he gave us something) and now they have been awoken.
WW. You forgot to mention ObamaCare, which has already been passed by the Democrats, takes $500 Billion out of Medicare (which we fund via payroll taxes) to fund what will be an enhanced Medicaid (which is an unfunded mandate) program under ObamaCare. Talk about taking from the old folks which they accuse Repub's of trying to do when the Dem's have already done it!There is another Republican Fear mongering point: "Death Panels"
Of course after Nov 2nd Esten and Maimipro will begin complaining about how the election was "stolen" from the Dem's by the Tea Party and Repub's and those very stupid voters! They will complain about dirty tricks and lies. What I find humorous is I am seeing campaign ads now that don't mention the candidate is a Democrat, also I don't seem to find any Democrat claiming to have voted for ObamaCare or the Stimulus now. Wonder how that got passed?I am not going to complain about anything Nov 2nd. Dems deserve to loose some seats for not meeting my expectations and making good on promises made a year and a half ago. Its just unfortunate that those seats will go from bad to worse.
The fear mongering comes in when you combine these two things (an exaggeration / distortion) with an outright lie.This definition is exactly what FOX News is all about.
So listen up Fox News lovers. If you watch your opinionated news station daily, you will be getting a whole lotta exaggeration and distortion along with your outright lies.
JFTR. I would rather watch John Stewart or Stephen Colbert than watch any news outlet. At least they like to call it like it is regardless of party.
Wild Walleye, I think you are right for the wrong reason. I remember reading something about the convicted felon voting and most of them were eligible to vote.
However, the Democrats did steal the election through intimidation of vote counters. They sent large teams to each area where votes were being recounted. These teams wore out the vote counters until they would agree to either add in Frankin votes or throw out Coleman votes.
Relax, people! This is a site meant for fun, not arguments based on whatever. Miami, you think I´ve been sending too many pictures lately? I´m sorry about that. Thanks though for saying I´m cute. Is there a Shirley Temple for me as well?
Wild Walleye you´re always so nice to me, it´s such a pity we haven´t met yet. I´m sure we will pretty soon.
Let´s just follow the spirit of the site! Sex and fun!
Happy mongering all!
I never said you spewed hate. You you like exaggeration don't you? . "Hater" is just a figure of speech but I am sure you already know that.
Political Debates can be fun and entertaining. And its ok if you want to try and be right. But where you fail is with your sarcastic comments and pithy insults. I am sure you have the aptitude of debating without trying to belittle people. Try it.
Cool I will have a Shirley Temple waiting for you.
Wild Walleye
09-20-10, 19:02
And its ok if you want to try and be right.It is good to aspire to achieve, some do both, aspire and achieve.
But where you fail is with your sarcastic comments and pithy insults.My apologies, I do tend to use some big words so I can understand losing you with some of them.
I am sure you have the aptitude of debating without trying to belittle people.
Try it. I will try to counter your subobtuseness with less oblique references. Although that might take some of the fun out of it.
Cool I will have a Shirley Temple waiting for you.Is she a regular at Newport?
It is good to aspire to achieve, some do both, aspire and achieve.
My apologies, I do tend to use some big words so I can understand losing you with some of them.
I will try to counter your subobtuseness with less oblique references. Although that might take some of the fun out of it.
Is she a regular at Newport? Maybe you can aspire and achieve at some point in your life, but you seem to be far from it. Also if you consider those big words, you might be in a pickle.
Double it is!
Relax, people! This is a site meant for fun, not arguments based on whatever. Miami, you think I´ve been sending too many pictures lately? I´m sorry about that. Thanks though for saying I´m cute. Is there a Shirley Temple for me as well?
Wild Walleye you´re always so nice to me, it´s such a pity we haven´t met yet. I´m sure we will pretty soon.
Let´s just follow the spirit of the site! Sex and fun!
Happy mongering all! No you haven't been sending to many pictures lately. You look great keep sending. Salute!
Wild Walleye
09-20-10, 19:39
Maybe you can aspire and achieve at some point in your life, but you seem to be far from it. I realize that I haven't forced rationed healthcare on 300 million unwilling citizens but, I'd like to think I have accomplished something.
That said, "a man has to know his own limitations. "
While my accomplishments are many, I like to count among my favoritas: eating six empenadas in one seating (dos queso, dos carne y dos jamon y queso, walking from San Telmo to Belgrano and entering a privado in darkness and exiting in the light.
Then again, I measure achievement against one's capabilities rather than against what conventional wisdom tells us achievement is. Maybe that is why I get to do what I do, and love it.
I am a legend in my own mind.
(hat tip to Harry Callahan and his friend's S&W)
While my accomplishments are many, I like to count among my favoritas: eating six empenadas in one seating (dos queso, dos carne y dos jamon y queso, walking from San Telmo to Belgrano and entering a privado in darkness and exiting in the light.Well at least you have this going for you. As for the rest. Refer below.
I am a legend in my own mind.Agreed
Wild Walleye
09-20-10, 21:50
One of those things is realizing that getting there is half the fun. Since I spend all of my time getting somewhere, that is a good thing.
Member #4112
09-20-10, 22:32
Miamipro I said nothing about death panels. I just pointed out the Dems hypocrisy after cutting $500 billion from Medicaid to fund ObamaCare and you no intelligent response. Who is the fear monger here?
Wild Walleye
09-20-10, 23:27
Miamipro I said nothing about death panels. I just pointed out the Dems hypocrisy after cutting $500 billion from Medicaid to fund ObamaCare and you no intelligent response. Who is the fear monger here?OK, partner (MP & Co, I spent well-earned navel-gazing time educating you on what fear mongering is (since you didn't know when you opened up this can of worms) , and you throw out "death panels. " That is almost as bad as your first example.
Sorry, "Death Panel" is an outdated term they are the "Independent Payment Advisory Board. " They couldn't even come up with a name that would hide what they do. This panel exists solely to deny coverage to individuals covered by the plan. There is no other purpose for this panel. This panel, whose authority is above the treating physician, "will control healthcare costs" (according to Obama and his budget director. Its decisions are essentially irrefutable.
One of the great things about pre-Obama healthcare in the US is that there was always hope.
Let me tell you a story of pre-Obmam healthcare for someone I was close to, who was living on a very fixed income in the States:
Out of the blue, the doctor says you've got a nasty glioblastoma.
FYI, A glioblastoma is an extremely aggressive and nasty malignant brain cancer that, for lack of a better description, gets into all the nooks and cranneys of the brain making total removal impossible. Its aggressiveness means that it will be back regardless of the course of treatment. That said, the nature of the cancer means that pressure from the growth (normally in the cerebrum. Brain) will effect memory, motor skills and other brain functions before the cancer takes its toll. Therefore, you typically have a 'healthy' patient (body function excellent) that will experience precipitous loss of brain function (which impacts speech, memory, physicality, etc) due to the size and pressure exerted by the tumor. The mass of the tumor can be decreased, reducing the pressure and reversing the effects.
Simply put, your loved one has been visited by the grim reaper. The prognosis for malignant astrocytoma is generally very short (say six months. While you gather family around to figure out what to do, you loved one slips into a state of "unknowing" not dissimilar form advanced Alzheimer's disease. Typically, you have unfinished business with this loved one. She or he has unfinished business with all of the progeny. Maybe you haven't said good bye, maybe she or he hasn't made a will, maybe his / her children are returning from college and haven't been in to visit (lots of different elements of the human condition. Maybe that individual is the sole care giver for a slightly, mentally challenged adult. Maybe if that individual passes away there is no one left to care for the special needs individual.
The doctor says "There are a couple of things we can try. " The effects of the cancer can be temporarily abated by reducing the mass of the tumor, through several treatment venues: surgerize the tumor to decrease mass; chemo, radiation or implanted wafers. None of these treatments will kill the cancer or cure the patient. But they all provide the hope of returning mental faculties to your loved one for some finite period of time.
In this case the combination of surgery and radiation (paid for by medicare) provided a window of 6 weeks of excellent mental acuity for this individual, six special, memorable and agonizing weeks for family and friends and six weeks to set things right and establish a program for provide for the long-term care of this individual's dependent.
If the "Independent Payment Advisory Board" will rule out Avastin. Breast cancer drug that in testing showed that by preventing blood flow to tumurs, it extended the amount of time until the disease worsened by more than five months. What is the likelihood that the IPAB will smile fondly upon my friend who might be happy with six weeks? That will be the smile of death. Thus no fear mongering here. I am thankful that this episode occurred pre-Obama.
Sure, after they have made headline-grabbing statements on death panels and pulling the plug, Republicans "explain" what they meant after the fact. But the original statements get widely circulated in the media, enough to stir up some fear and anxiety.
But the fear mongering is only a subset of what the right does. . . . . Mostly it is spin, distortion and exaggeration, all with the goal to influence public perception of the left in a negative way. Some of the more well known ones include: stimulus a failure, Dems are big government, Dems are anti-business, Obama is a Socialist / Marxist, government is the problem, heathcare reform rammed down our throats, healthcare reform a government takeover, Obama exploiting the economic crisis, out of control spending, etc and this great one from Mike Pence last week: "all that is good and great about this country could soon be gone".
There may be a few more surprises left that get me to that 50 number. Time will only tell. That said, as long as there are more GOP senators that DEM senators, one might consider that as a win? Your thoughts. Sure.
P. Remember I win the ties.Haha. . . . I don't remember discussing ties!
Not to count my chickens. . . . . But Delaware is a fairly safe bet. The risk would be if the Dem (Coons) sat back and assumed victory, but it's clear he is not going to take anything for granted.
Now as further evidence of GOP party unity, we have Murkowski running as a write-in candidate in the Alaska Senate race. What impact do you think this will have on the election results?
OK, partner (MP & Co, I spent well-earned navel-gazing time educating you on what fear mongering is (since you didn't know when you opened up this can of worms) , and you throw out "death panels. " That is almost as bad as your first example..You don't have to like my examples. I just threw that in there since we were talking about fear mongering, healthcare and how the Republicans did nothing to contribute to the policy except highlight terms like Death Panels. Specifically Sarah Palin. And the right wing nut-o's.
Also if you want the ultimate example just go back to the reason we went to war with Iraq in the first place. OMG they have weapons of mass destruction. We have to go to war now. GWB not only lied but try to scare us to destroy them before they use the WMD on us.
Your Party USES FEAR MONGERING more than I have ever seen. Now I gave you 3 examples. You may not like those examples but oh well. To bad
For someone who likes to debate to be "right or correct". Your having a hard time getting there. Start of by admitting the Republicans Use Fear tactics and you might have some credibility.
But the fear mongering is only a subset of what the right does. . . . . Mostly it is spin, distortion and exaggeration, all with the goal to influence public perception of the left in a negative way. Some of the more well known ones include: stimulus a failure, Dems are big government, Dems are anti-business, Obama is a Socialist / Marxist, government is the problem, heathcare reform rammed down our throats, healthcare reform a government takeover, Obama exploiting the economic crisis, out of control spending, etc and this great one from Mike Pence last week: "all that is good and great about this country could soon be gone".Esten I agree with that.
Wild Walleye
09-21-10, 10:46
Now we're talking. But is it fear mongering or is it politicizing a national defense issue? Well whatever it was, seemed to me that the Dems couldn't pile on that train fast enough. Look at all these war-crazed right-wing loons:
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the USA Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs. ". From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9,1998
"Saddam's goal. Is to achieve the lifting of you. And. Sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed. ". Madeline Albright, 1998
" (Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983". National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18,1998
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement. ". Barbara Boxer, November 8,2002.
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow. ". Bill Clinton in 1998
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11,2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security. ". Hillary Clinton, October 10,2002
Member #4112
09-21-10, 10:57
I point out the Democrat's hypocrisy in accusing Republican's of hurting the elderly while cutting funds from Medicare and the first thing Miamipro does is bring up "death panels" and Esten goes off on the "spin" tangent.
Let me mention another example of the Democratic hypocrisy, the Democrat's cut funds from the Food Stamp Program to help fund the Teacher's Union bailout, literally taking the food from the poor's mouths to give to the teachers unions. Now I am sure Miamipro and Esten will go Ouch! Got my dick slammed in the door AGAIN need to make accusations and change the subject.
You guys always follow Bill Clinton's mantra when faced with the truth:
Admit nothing! Deny everything! Make counter accusations!
Wild Walleye
09-21-10, 11:01
You don't have to like my examples. I just threw that in there since we were talking about fear mongering, healthcare and how the Republicans did nothing to contribute to the policy except highlight terms like Death Panels. Specifically Sarah Palin. And the right wing nut-o's.I think Obama, Ried and Pelosi contributed more than enough. The only contribution that Republicans should make to legislation like that is opposition. You can't not turn a flaming pile of dung into Michelangelo.
I didn't say that I didn't like your 'examples' rather I pointed out that they are not in fact examples of fear mongering, which they are not.
Also if you want the ultimate example just go back to the reason we went to war with Iraq in the first place. OMG they have weapons of mass destruction. We have to go to war now. GWB not only lied but try to scare us to destroy them before they use the WMD on us.Ohhhhh, the boogieman GWB is so evil and scary.
Your Party USES FEAR MONGERING more than I have ever seen.Thanks, but it isn't my party.
Now I gave you 3 examples.No you didn't (hat tip Monte Python)
You may not like those examples but oh well. To bad I think you mean "too bad. "
For someone who likes to debate to be "right or correct". Your having a hard time getting there.I must have my webcam on if you can see that I am having a "hard time" this morning. It's just a little morning wood.
Start of by admitting the Republicans Use Fear tactics and you might have some credibility.Hmm, credibility with you and Esten. Now that is something I must save I haven't considered pursuing, at least not until you suggested it. On second thought, I'm not interested.
Where did I say that Republicans don't use them? I asked you to provide examples of what you thought was fear mongering. You offered several examples of things other than fear mongering.
Why don't we move on to some other subject with which you have a little more familiarity.
WW.
Judging from your responses your life you live is that of delusion.
But you would make a good english teacher.
Whilst the claims and counter claims are flying around, it seems like we have come to an impasse. A victory of words is very empty. Thus, a gulf that is impossible to cross, very similar to what we have in the Capitol and the reason for our present quagmire. Arrogance, righteousness, hypocrisy, what roads to they lead to. Ahh, human nature at it's very basic worse (I did not want to say, evil.
They are mirror images of each other both influenced by their own scary extreme factions. Both love to push the extreme panic button rather then have legitimate discussions about serious problems. Both name call, blow meaningless statistics out of proportion, and play on emotions of the ignorant unwilling to do their own fact finding. Where is the discussion on how we get rid of all of them and bring on a 3rd party?
They are mirror images of each other both influenced by their own scary extreme factions. Both love to push the extreme panic button rather then have legitimate discussions about serious problems. Both name call, blow meaningless statistics out of proportion, and play on emotions of the ignorant unwilling to do their own fact finding. Where is the discussion on how we get rid of all of them and bring on a 3rd party?I actually agree with that. Just as long as the 3rd party isn't the Tea Party. The way we have our government set up. Is suppose to give us checks and balances. But instead of being realistic about policy and progressing forward for the people, it always becomes party over policy. And that can cut both ways.
The rest of the real 1st world countries. Are probably just sitting back and being entertained by how this country deals with problems.
Wild Walleye
09-21-10, 14:33
I actually agree with that. Just as long as the 3rd party isn't the Tea Party. The way we have our government set up. Is suppose to give us checks and balances. But instead of being realistic about policy and progressing forward for the people, it always becomes party over policy. And that can cut both ways.
Then why wouldn't the 'party' that wants to reduce the size and role of government be attractive to you?
The rest of the real 1st world countries. Are probably just sitting back and being entertained by how this country deals with problems.They will be entertained right up until they need us to save them from something. They more likely will be impressed with the swiftness that the electorate throws Obama's agenda out the window. Germany, France and England have been moving towards capitalism while we have moved toward socialism.
Blackshirt, unfortunately the gridlock didn't come soon enough to prevent all the stimulus, Obamacare and financial reform. Gridlock is good (if gridlock means that the Congress can't pass new, overreaching legislation.
We already have too many laws. Let's just put some restraints on congress:
- For every new law passed, an archaic law should be repealed.
- make it a part time legislature, all they need to do is take up really important issues and pass budgets
- each member gets a fixed operating budget for his / her office and a limit of 5 staffers.
- Members should only get paid something on the order of 75% of the cost of living so that they have to earn something to live (with strict prohibitions on sources of income so that they really have to work. That is the ones that aren't already rich. Which is most of them)
- absolute transparency into the finances of each member's office activities.
Delaware goes for O'Donnell. Alaska is a slam dunk, Murkowski is a non-factor, side-show (a fabrication of the media trying to show the Republicans in disarray.
Wild Walleye
09-21-10, 14:54
I for one am not a proponent of a third party, unless it is dominated by liberals. I also do not believe that the "Tea Party" is actually a party. It is a movement, indicative of the conservative (smaller govt, lower taxes, etc) ascendancy that is currently taking place. The discontent with these specific aspects of government has been there for a long time, however, it would not have coalesced into a movement, let alone one that is tipping electoral scales, without Obama.
Anyhow, time to loofah my stretch marks
As I am sure some of you already heard. The senate rejected the Don't Ask Don't tell Policy. A couple of the the Dems sided with the Rep's on this. Its to my understanding that there are provisions in this bill that Rep's don't like. Theres a fucking surprise. But really thats not what I am getting at.
Why can't we just create a bill that has nothing else attached to it for either side. And just Repeal this stupid policy. Let the gays serve. If anyone wants to serve and possibly pay the ultimate price for their country. Who gives a rats ass who they or what they like to do with their private life. Every other country (France, England and Germany) get this. Except us. For the USA to be such a "land of the free" kinda place. We sure are repressive in so many ways. Especially when it comes to sexual orientation. More pussy for me.
Wild Walleye
09-21-10, 18:53
As I am sure some of you already heard. The senate rejected the Don't Ask Don't tell Policy. A couple of the the Dems sided with the Rep's on this. Its to my understanding that there are provisions in this bill that Rep's don't like. Theres a fucking surprise. But really thats not what I am getting at.
Why can't we just create a bill that has nothing else attached to it for either side. And just Repeal this stupid policy. Let the gays serve. If anyone wants to serve and possibly pay the ultimate price for their country. Who gives a rats ass who they or what they like to do with their private life. Every other country (France, England and Germany) get this. Except us. For the USA to be such a "land of the free" kinda place. We sure are repressive in so many ways. Especially when it comes to sexual orientation. More pussy for me. If every piece of shit legislation (regardless of party of origin) had to pass on its own merits in the light of the day, the govt would be much smaller as would our tax burden and our national debt. The bastardization of the legislative process is all the more galling considering that congress long ago abdicated its legislative function to the judiciary.
Member #4112
09-21-10, 18:57
I have often wondered why it is that conservatives are called the “right” and the liberals are called the “left”.
The Bible has all the answers right?
Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)
“The heart of the wise inclines to the right,
But the heart of the fool to the left. ”
Yep, that’s it!
Food for thought.
Wild Walleye
09-21-10, 19:04
I have often wondered why it is that conservatives are called the “right” and the liberals are called the “left”.
The Bible has all the answers right?
Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)
“The heart of the wise inclines to the right,
But the heart of the fool to the left. ”
Yep, that’s it! . .
Food for thought. Thank you. I will use that once or twice, in the future.
I have often wondered why it is that conservatives are called the “right” and the liberals are called the “left”.
The Bible has all the answers right?
Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)
“The heart of the wise inclines to the right,
But the heart of the fool to the left. ”
Yep, that’s it!
Food for thought. The Bible. Sounds like to me your getting your scripture from facebook. Nothing more fun than bumper sticker politics. Taking a quote from Christopher Hitchens. "God is Not great. "
http:/www.facebook.com/pages/the-Niv-Bible/107420755950435
Member #4112
09-21-10, 20:02
A friend sent that after a discussion about the left and the right and thought I would pass it along Should have noted it was a quote.
Stan Da Man
09-21-10, 20:14
With enemies like this, you don't need many friends. No joke on the info below:
On Monday, [Harry] Reid was speaking at a Manhattan fundraiser thrown on his behalf by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg when he paused to offer an unusual compliment to New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who was in the audience. "Many senators are known for many things, " Reid said (according to Politico's Maggie Haberman, who heard it from sources. "We in the Senate refer to Sen. Gillibrand as the hottest member. "
Gillibrand, according to Haberman's sources, flushed red, and the comment "created a bit of a stir" among the audience. "It was pretty shocking when he said it, " one source tells Politico.
* * * * *
[T]he comment comes just a week after Reid offered an equally unusual endorsement for Democratic Senate candidate Chris Coons in Delaware, referring to Coons as "my pet. " "I'm going to be very honest with you: Chris Coons, everybody knows him in the Democratic caucus. He's my pet. He's my favorite candidate, " Reid told the Hill's J. Taylor Rushing.
http:/news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100921/el_yblog_upshot/reid-calls-gillibrand-the-hottest-member-of-the-senate
This is the same guy that brought you:
"Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid apologized on Saturday for saying the race of Barack Obama – whom he described as a "light skinned" African-American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one" – would help rather than hurt his eventual presidential bid. "
http:/www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/09/harry-reid-negro-comment-_n_417406.html
This guy makes George Bush look like he has the gift of gab. Thank god he's on the Dems' team and thank goodness none of them have the sense to tell him to stay away from their campaigns.
Now, if they could just invite Pelosi and Obama out on the campaign trail a bit more. I suppose that would be a bit awkward, however, since most Dems are running attack ads either against her (Pelosi) or his policies (Obama) . Turns out, no one likes the House Speaker and no one actually voted for ObamaCare or any of the Stimulus measures. Who knew?
Stan Da Man
09-21-10, 20:47
President Barack Obama's top economic adviser, Lawrence Summers, plans to leave the White House at the end of the year.
http:/news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100921/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_economic_adviser
Obama purportedly asked him to "stay until the end of 2010". Translation: "You have until 2011 to get the heck out. And don't let the door hit your arse on the way out."
So, after Democrats blasted Republicans for suggesting that Obama's economic team resign, the only top member left now is Geithner. Orszag, Romer and now Summers have resigned. The end of their Keynesian experiment with our money can't come soon enough. As Obama's out there telling voters to 'stay the course and let his economic measures play out' his own staff are turning tail and running. It is not uncommon to have top economic staff resign, especially during a President's second term. It is uncommon, however, to have 3/4ths of your economic team fail to make it even two years.
What's the over-under on how long until Geithner announces his resignation? I'm going with November 3, the day after the mid-term election. Hopefully, he can manage to pay his taxes before then and take care of that nasty lien on his paycheck.
Stan posted a short essay on his views on stimulus, which I thought had enough academic merit to deserve a response. I'll respond to the main points not every single statement.
And the dire H1N1 warnings were all supposedly based on legitimate science.The dire warnings were not necessarily of what would happen but what could happen. It did meet the WHO criteria of a pandemic. Given the data available at the time the steps taken were prudent.
Your main point here is that so-called legitimate predictions based on science (or economic models, etc) are sometimes wrong. Well of course this is true. Sometimes wrong, sometimes right. Such as those few economists who predicted back in 2005-07 that the US was on the verge of a housing / financial meltdown and deep recession.
If you wanted to remind us that predictions aren't accurate all the time, fair enough.
Now, we come to the multiple "Stimulus" efforts that have been deployed, and the new ones that are being proposed. Conventional wisdom, based on what the media feeds us, is that stimulus programs were necessary because we were in a recession. But, we've been in many other recessions and came out of them without anything that approaches the massive spending done by this administration. Yes, they claim, but this recession was really bad, and desperate times call for desperate measures. Not so fast. The recession now is really bad, based on its length and the unemployment rate alone, but those were the things all this stimulus spending was supposed to fix. The only response you generally get is, "well, it would have been worse without the massive spending. " There's nothing to back it up.See how quickly you segue into right wing exaggerations of "nothing to back it up".
For one, we just had the news from NBER that the recession officially ended in June 2009. Which was 4 months after the Stimulus (ARRA) was enacted. Coincidence? Doubtful.
We have reports that ARRA boosted employment by 2.5 million to 3.6 million jobs and raised the nation's annual economic output by almost $400 billion. These conclusions are backed by economists at Goldman Sachs, IHS Global Insight, JPMorgan Chase and Macroeconomic Advisers, who say the stimulus boosted gross domestic product by 2.1% to 2.7.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-08-30-stimulus30_CV_N.htm
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=1326
The only "science" that suggests these programs were necessary or even worthwhile are based on economics. They call economics "the dismal science" for a reason: It got its name after Thomas Malthus projected that population growth would cause a parade of horribles, eventually leading to starvation and death for much of mankind. He was dead wrong, and the name stuck, if only as a reminder that economic models are notoriously inaccurate.A feeble attempt to discredit economics. Of course it is an imperfect science, but it still plays an important role in both the public and private sectors.
So, why does anyone take it seriously when the current administration, based on so-called "expert" economists, concludes that any of the stimulus packages were necessary? To the extent that any of these "experts" provide any basis for their conclusions, it almost invariably is predicated on some Keynesian economic principle that is questionable at best. Real world data debunks nearly every Keynesian theory. It's junk science, yet we're led to believe that billions in spending was and is necessary because these junk scientists tell us so.More unconvincing discreditation of economics and economists.
This whole episode we've been through of financial sector failure, followed by successful government intervention via TARP and ARRA will go down in history as one of the greatest validations of Keynesian theory.
This report from Mark Zandi and Alan Blinder analyzes the combined effect of the government's responses:
"For example, we estimate that, without the government's response, GDP in 2010 would be about 11.5% lower, payroll employment would be less by some 8.5 million jobs, and the nation would now be experiencing deflation. "
How the Great Recession Was Brought to an End
http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/End-of-Great-Recession.pdf
What proof is there that these Stimulus programs were unnecessary? Of course it's impossible to "prove" now, but the best evidence is historical. In only one recession have we even approached the record level of stimulus and deficit spending that has been happening. It's called "the Great Depression, " and it lasted longer and was deeper than any other recession. By comparison, Europe did not engage in anywhere near the government stimulus FDR rammed through (measured as a percentage of GDP), and its economies recovered more quickly and its unemployment rate stayed lower at all points than the USA. In all other recessions, we have not spent anywhere near what this team has, and we suffered less (measured in nearly any way possible) and emerged more quickly. So, you can't conclusively prove what would have happened without the massive stimulus, but the smart money bets on experience.You're free to put more weight on historical comparisons. I'll put more weight on the analysis of respected economists who factored in the unique elements of the latest recession.
So, if it's not the junk scientists with their demonstrably false Keynesian models, You've established that only in your own mind.
then who should we believe as to why stimulus spending is necessary? Obama and Geithner? Geithner's the same guy who either can't figure out how to pay his taxes, or was attempting to evade them. We've either got a buffoon or a crook running Treasury, yet we're supposed to trust him to spend nearly a trillion dollars wisely. This is the same pair who went to the G-20 meeting in June to trumpet the success of the USA stimulus packages and to chide Europe for even thinking about cutting spending to get their budgets in line. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-26/geithner-says-g-20-needs-focus-on-domestic-demand-not-deficits.html
They were laughed out of the room by European leaders, particularly Germany, which cut spending instead. Turns out, Germany had the first and last laugh. Their economy is healthy by all accounts, while the Obama / Geithner Stimulus has succeeded only in driving up the deficit. The Obama-led Stiimulus does feed his arguments, though: He claims we can't afford tax cuts for the wealthy. Why not? Well, because he was so busy blowing our wad on worthless Stimulus projects. (He usually forgets that last part in his stump speeches) Geithner's tax issue has zero to do with the argument of whether the Stimulus was worthwhile or not.
And a comparison with Germany is possibly the poorest argument of the bunch. Germany did not have a giant housing bubble with massive financial leverage tied to it. Nor the same spike in unemployment. And yet they still had two stimulus packages worth $104B, which are credited with helping the German recovery. There is a case here that the US stimulus was in fact too small.
These are the sorts of issues that are driving the Tea Party. It's one thing to raise taxes for worthwhile projects. But, taking other people's money is justified only when the government gets its house in order and cuts all the wasteful spending that is abundantly apparent. ObamaCare and cash for clunkers are but two of many examples, and they are on top of the worthless Stimulus programs. Obama's "wish list" spending proposal today is just more evidence. Dems may think that the Tea Party is driving a wedge between the Republican party. But, the truth is, the Tea Party is symptomatic of the general disgust at the misguided policies and wasteful spending that has occurred and is still being proposed by this administration. Absent this, the Tea Party wouldn't exist. Come November, thankfully, we'll be done with all of these ludicrous stimulus proposals, brought forth by a team that couldn't govern its way out of a paper bag.You sure convinced me! Great job.
BTW, the Stimulus/ARRA included $288B in tax benefits. Was that part also worthless?
If we hadn't had a stimulus and now had even higher unemployment, you can bet almost everyone in the country would be complaining that the government didn't do anything.
Wild Walleye
09-22-10, 11:17
Stan posted a short essay on his views on stimulus, which I thought had enough academic merit to deserve a response. I'll respond to the main points not every single statement.
The dire warnings were not necessarily of what would happen but what could happen. It did meet the WHO criteria of a pandemic. Given the data available at the time the steps taken were prudent.
Your main point here is that so-called legitimate predictions based on science (or economic models, etc) are sometimes wrong. Well of course this is true. Sometimes wrong, sometimes right. Such as those few economists who predicted back in 2005-07 that the US was on the verge of a housing / financial meltdown and deep recession. You mean George W. Bush? He first rang that bell in 2001.
Don't get me wrong, other than homeland defense GWB and I don't agree on many issues. However, as the Left's boogieman (again, not the dancing kind) it is funny how in hindsight he was correct, yet they still can't bring themselves not to hate him. (please note that the use of a double negative in the preceding sentence was intentional for illustrative purposes)
If you wanted to remind us that predictions aren't accurate all the time, fair enough.What good does that do us when the earth is turning into a fiery ball of death due to bovine flatulation!
For one, we just had the news from NBER that the recession officially ended in June 2009. Which was 4 months after the Stimulus (ARRA) was enacted. Coincidence? Doubtful.Hi hip hooray! The Recession ended 15 months ago! So all you unemployed layabouts are just faking!
We have reports that ARRA boosted employment by 2.5 million to 3.6 million jobs and raised the nation's annual economic output by almost $400 billion.I have a report that says my schlong is nearly 14" long.
These conclusions are backed by economists at Goldman Sachs, IHS Global Insight, JPMorgan Chase and Macroeconomic Advisers, who say the stimulus boosted gross domestic product by 2.1% to 2.7.Goldman, across the board in its research is pretty clear that the 'stimulus" was anything other than stimulative. If the "stimulus" was actually stimulative, when it is gone there would be continued growth coming out of those investments. To the contrary, GS clearly states that the impact of the so called "stimulus" on the economy was temporary and artificial going further to say that the end of stimulus will result in unemployment going back north of 10%. Wow, great ringing endorsement of Barrack Hoover Obama.
A feeble attempt to discredit economics. Of course it is an imperfect science, but it still plays an important role in both the public and private sectors.Having been trained as an economist, I can assure you that two equally competent economists can darw diametrically opposed opinions from the same data, based upon ideology and who pays their salaries.
This whole episode we've been through of financial sector failure, followed by successful government intervention via TARP and ARRA will go down in history as one of the greatest validations of Keynesian theory."Yeah, sing with me, sing for the year.
Sing for the laughter, sing for the tear.
Sing with me, if it's just for today.
Maybe tomorrow, the good Lord will take you away "
This report from Mark Zandi and Alan Blinder analyzes the combined effect of the government's responses:
"For example, we estimate that, without the government's response, GDP in 2010 would be about 11.5% lower, payroll employment would be less by some 8.5 million jobs, and the nation would now be experiencing deflation. "
How the Great Recession Was Brought to an End.
http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/End-of-Great-Recession.pdfSee comment above regarding economists. Zandi was right on the ball at Moody's with this whole global economic meltdown thingy.
Binder is a pointed headed academic.
Why not make your own judgments based upon what you see in your day to day life? Looks pretty bleak in many parts of the US.
You're free to put more weight on historical comparisons. I'll put more weight on the analysis of respected economists who factored in the unique elements of the latest recession.Do you posses the ability to form your own opinions or do you just regurgitate what you are spoon fed?
Geithner's tax issue has zero to do with the argument of whether the Stimulus was worthwhile or not.Agreed. It was merely one other piece of evidence that he was not fit for this position. His performance bears it out. Had BHO's vetting been along historic practices (I. E. Disqualify known tax cheats, wife beaters, etc) perhaps we would have got a more qualified candidate.
And a comparison with Germany is possibly the poorest argument of the bunch. Germany did not have a giant housing bubble with massive financial leverage tied to it. Nor the same spike in unemployment. And yet they still had two stimulus packages worth $104B, which are credited with helping the German recovery. There is a case here that the US stimulus was in fact too small.There is a case that the eruption of Vesuvius was too small.
You are correct, Germany is a poor example because they are cutting taxes
"German Chancellor Angela Merkel defended her plan to cut taxes despite the country's soaring budget deficit as she introduced her conservative alliance's manifesto ahead of national elections in September.
Lower incomes taxes would "provide motivation" and encourage economic growth, Ms. Merkel told a conference of her party, the Christian Democratic Union, and its Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union.
"It would be wrong not to do what is right and necessary for growth, and so prevent ourselves emerging quickly from this crisis, " Ms. Merkel said in her conference speech. "
BTW, the Stimulus/ARRA included $288B in tax benefits. Was that part also worthless?Do you know the difference between a tax cut and a tax benefit?
If we hadn't had a stimulus and now had even higher unemployment, you can bet almost everyone in the country would be complaining that the government didn't do anything.Looking at historical analogies, most economists believe that had the govt done nothing, we'd already be on the road to recovery (whether or not the Administration declares a 'summer of recovery'. Yet here we are stuck in the mud.
You are correct that many in the public would have complained about the govt doing 'nothing. ' That is why we might want to chose candidates more focused on doing the right thing rather than the political expedient or dogmatic adhesion to a radical agenda.
Wild Walleye
09-22-10, 11:34
Not even African American, first-time-voters, on welfare, from the South Side support Obama like Esten and Miami Pro.
I obviously enjoy the back and forth and debating issues but now Esten has spoiled it by revealing himself as a fraud.
It's like being with a chica, I like being lied to a little but if she takes it too far, it kind of kills the moment. You know what I mean, the chica that says "ahhhhh siiii! " too much or the Kgirl that keeps telling you how big your noodle is. (well maybe you aren't familiar with the latter)
This spoiled the moment for me:
This whole episode we've been through of financial sector failure, followed by successful government intervention via TARP and ARRA will go down in history as one of the greatest validations of Keynesian theory.Liberals are not known for their senses of humor, therefore, Esten isn't trying to be funny, he ran out of thing to say, doesn't really believe this and threw it out along with the kitchen sink thinking it sounded like the expected liberal drivel.
Oh well, now that Esten has spoiled the moment, let's review some chicas.
Wild Walleye
09-22-10, 11:38
Daily Affirmation.
September 22,2010.
This is my choice: I listen to my inner voice.
Not even African American, first-time-voters, on welfare, from the South Side support Obama like Esten and Miami Pro.WW. You have a real problem reading into me. I clearly said that while I did vote for Obama, thinking I was going to get something different. Meaning a more pro progressive agenda. I have been disappointed by lack of desire to see the issues I really wanted fall to the way side. Which became abundantly clear after Rahm Manual made the comments he did regarding the progressive voters. At this point I am not prepared to vote for Barack again in 2012. Of course I will have to see what my options are at that time.
So when you make a comment like that, It clearly shows you have your head stuck in a dark place between your legs.
Wild Walleye
09-22-10, 15:08
WW. You have a real problem reading into me. I clearly said that while I did vote for Obama, thinking I was going to get something different. Meaning a more pro progressive agenda. I have been disappointed by lack of desire to see the issues I really wanted fall to the way side. Which became abundantly clear after Rahm Manual made the comments he did regarding the progressive voters. At this point I am not prepared to vote for Barack again in 2012. Of course I will have to see what my options are at that time.
So when you make a comment like that, It clearly shows you have your head stuck in a dark place between your legs. I did not mean to offend you by painting you with a socialist, neo-marxist brush by equating your support of Obama's most radical agenda as actual support for the President. It is amusing to see what offends you.
I understand that you think you are to the left of the President. I am quite happy to know that you are part of a very small minority.
If you're not going to vote BHO in 2012, maybe you'd consider Palin.
BTW, you can check some of my 2008-2009 post-election musings about how Hillary will seek the dem nomination in 2012 (a view I still hold. You probably think she is a right winger.
Wild Walleye
09-22-10, 15:30
Just to let you know, I have much more respect for liberals who believe what they say (Esten, MiamiPro, MiamiBob, etc) than RINOs.
I like true believers, I just happen to prefer oath-takers and 3%ers to marxists
I did not mean to offend you by painting you with a socialist, neo-marxist brush by equating your support of Obama's most radical agenda as actual support for the President. It is amusing to see what offends you.
I understand that you think you are to the left of the President. I am quite happy to know that you are part of a very small minority.
If you're not going to vote BHO in 2012, maybe you'd consider Palin.
BTW, you can check some of my 2008-2009 post-election musings about how Hillary will seek the dem nomination in 2012 (a view I still hold. You probably think she is a right winger. Oh I am not offended. I actually find it amusing how you try to paint your own picture of politics. Its to bad those paintings look more like abstracts.
Sarah Palin? Sure I will vote for her. If we are talking about which women has become the biggest punchline in political history. Even if she was to toss her hat in the Presidential Elections. Which I hope she does. She will loose and loose big.
Member #4112
09-22-10, 15:38
We all seem to be involved in a circular argument regarding the Recession.
In our (independent / conservatives) opinion the house of cards was built by the Democrat’s desire to see more home ownership, a laudable endeavor to be sure, but they decided to achieve that end via lowering lending standards at Freddie and Fannie (just a sidebar but why is the Government in the home lending market in the first place?) and it went on down the line with other private lenders. The housing market boomed and the economy along with it. Everyone was happy but ignored the fact many home buyers were marginal at best. Next the financial markets sensing money to be made bundled mortgages in to financial instruments and sold them. Everyone was making money, but the now marginal home buyers were slipping down the slippery slope of debt over load and the bubble collapsed from within initiating the Recession. (Short simple version here)
From the liberal point of view it is even simpler – the evil villain George W. Bush did it. (Long complex version here)
Now regardless what you want to say even if in analytical terms the Recession ended in June 2009 as you look around at 9.6% unemployment (and that figure does not include the folks no longer receiving unemployment – they are just invisible now, anemic growth since they have revised it down to at or under 2% annual growth, and the real possibility the economy will stall completely or worse fall into stag-flation (remember Jimmy Carter) how can anyone crow about what the government has done. The best they can say now is “it would have been worse without government intervention” which is as meaningless as the “jobs SAVED or created” which nobody really buys anymore.
I really enjoyed Esten’s statement that in 4 months TARP and Stimulus stopped the Recession. Hell, the government had not spent the bulk of the TARP money much less the Stimulus in 4 months! Please Esten tell me you were just jerking me off with that one.
The most telling indicator of Obama’s slippage and the Democrat’s demise was when in a carefully screened audience for Obama’s last “town hall meeting” a black woman stood up and challenged him, saying she voted for him, defended him and his policies but was totally exhausted and wanted to know when he was going to deliver on his promises as the economy remains in tatters directly effecting her family. Obama is so disconnected from reality he laughed first them answered with students could get loans for school, healthcare and a few other meaningless things to this woman.
Esten, Maimipro; WW is correct about economists, you can shop and fine one that will say whatever you want to hear.
Reminds me of the joke about three CPA’s interviewing for the same job. The prospective employer gave all three the same root information and asked them to come up with the correct answer. CPA 1 came up with one answer, CPA 2 came up with a different answer, CPA 3 did nothing and when asked by the prospective employer for his answer CPA 3 asked “What do you want it to be? ” Guess who got hired? I hope I have not belabored the point but this should answer your questions regarding economists, statisticians, and the CBO.
Stan Da Man
09-22-10, 22:32
First they bail, now they're eating their own.
Jimmy Carter has been making the rounds the past week, trying to rehab his image as the worst President in modern history. He should be waiting two years and the problem would take care of itself.
Among other things, he emphatically stated that the country is on the wrong track. That's nothing surprising, but I'm sure Obama appreciates the support.
He also asserts that he would have had health care coverage for all, but Ted Kennedy killed the CarterCare bill out of spite and ego. According to Carter, but for Ted Kennedy we'd all already have CarterCare.
Finally, this: "I feel that my role as a former president is probably superior to that of other presidents', " Carter said. "Primarily because of the activism and the. And the injection of working at the Carter Center and in international affairs, and to some degree, domestic affairs, on energy conservation, on. On environment, and things of that kind. We're right in the midst of the. Of the constant daily debate. ""
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100921/pl_yblog_upshot/jimmy-carter-hasnt-been-mincing-many-words-of-late.
Hey, if folks won't give you the credit you think you deserve, then you just take it. It's part of that whole entitlement mentality that Democrats are so fond of. So there you have it: The Most-Superior-Ex-President award goes to Jimmy Carter.
Al Gore's got a press conference called tomorrow to claim the award for Most-Superior-Ex-Vice-President before anyone else grabs the mantle. Biden's crying foul because he can't get his resignation paperwork processed in time to get in the game.
Biden's crying foul because he can't get his resignation paperwork processed in time to get in the game.I just pissed myself laughing! Happy Mongering All. Toymann.
Ps. Tick Tick Tick. Never underestimate America you Liberal Bitchs. Tick Tick Tick!
Now that I've spoiled things for Walleye, I do hope he spends more time reviewing chicas and less time cluttering this thread with crackpot commentary.
Jimmy Carter has been making the rounds the past week, trying to rehab his image as the worst President in modern history. He should be waiting two years and the problem would take care of itself.Jabs at Carter?? LOL. Must be a slow news day. Carter does his own thing, he is not on someone's ship.
And I see Doppel brought up Bush again today. As I said before, the conservatives in this thread bring him up far more than other posters. And when I sometimes respond about Bush, Doppel complains, oh Esten, you always love to blame everything on Bush. LMAO!
For the record, I liked Bush. I agreed with the wars and with his bold support of TARP to address the financial crisis. I've said that before. Obviously I also disagree with much of the right wing philosophy and policies he and his party represented. But I certainly do not hate him or blame everything on him.
Stan commented that Carter is viewed as the worst president in modern history. Let's see how that assertion holds up with the Siena College Research Institute's recent survey of 238 presidential scholars:
http://politics.usnews.com/news/articles/2010/07/02/survey-ranks-obama-15th-best-president-bush-among-worst.html
1. Franklin D. Roosevelt.
13. William Clinton.
15. Barack Obama.
18. Ronald Reagan.
32. James Carter.
39. George W. Bush.
43. Andrew Johnson.
Clinton and Obama ahead of Reagan. Carter ahead of GW Bush. Poor Bush in the bottom five.
Now interesting is FDR at #1. As we know, FDR was a Democrat who implemented Keynesian approaches to lift the country out of the Great Depression. Not unlike Obama and the Great Recession he inherited. I'm sure you have read the comparisons. Just remember where FDR ended up on this presidential survey.
Wild Walleye
09-23-10, 12:06
Now that I've spoiled things for Walleye, I do hope he spends more time reviewing chicas and less time cluttering this thread with crackpot commentary.Crackpot?
Jabs at Carter?? LOL. Must be a slow news day. Carter does his own thing, he is not on someone's ship.That's right, he is an independent (wishful thinking) The funny part is liberal columnists are the ones drawing the Obama = Carter analogy.
I believe that Carter popping up right now is part of the Democrat strategy. Hold up Carter and hope that people's instinctive reaction is "well it could be worse. "
I've said that before. Obviously I also disagree with much of the right wing philosophy and policies he and his party represented. Please illuminate us on the subject of GWB's right wing philosophies. GWB was not conservative.
Stan commented that Carter is viewed as the worst president in modern history.That's only because BHO is currently in the office and not yet history.285 months from now, Carter will need to hand over the crown.
Let's see how that assertion holds up with the Siena College Research Institute's recent survey of 238 presidential scholars:Boy, I wonder what the average political persuasion of those "scholars" happens to be.
This is like saying the Michael Jordan-era Bulls were the best team in history. Any such poll is just a subjective, opinion survey.
I don't need a poll to tell me what I know.
Clinton and Obama ahead of Reagan.Save your breath.
Now interesting is FDR at #1. As we know, FDR was a Democrat who implemented Keynesian approaches to lift the country out of the Great Depression. Not unlike Obama and the Great Recession he inherited. I'm sure you have read the comparisons. Just remember where FDR ended up on this presidential survey.Like I said, I don't need a poll to tell me what I know. FDR is one of the main reasons why were are in the mess that we are in. He trampled all over the Constitution and the Framers' intent and burdened this country (even worse for the individuals with in it) with a permanent underclass, dependent upon the govt for everything. Wow, what a great president.
Member #4112
09-23-10, 15:42
Esten, in my post I only alluded to the liberals using George W. Bush as their primary fall guy. You are now trying to tell me that Obama, the Democrats and liberals in general have not been hammering the electorate over the head with “It’s Bush’s Fault” since before the 2008 presidential elections, as well as using him as the fall guy and general boogieman for every failure of their economic plans to improve the economy since Obama took office are you?
Regarding your “ranking” citation of former presidents, perhaps you read my little joke about the 3 CPA’s and the comparison with the CBO, economists and statisticians, it’s all in who you select and what their bias and political bend is. Check the link below, in general none of your boys make it into the top ten nor is George Bush in the bottom ten as you posted. In viewing the website you can easily see a person could pick and choose only those outcomes they have a vested interest in and ignore the rest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States
Esten, both you and Maimipro seem to fail to grasp the electorate is mad at everyone in Washington (Democrat and Republican) for pushing programs they neither asked for nor wanted on them and for the sorry state of the economy. Conservatives and independents are “mad as hell and they’re not going to take it anymore” and they are going to the polls to vote. The Democratic base is disillusioned and demoralized at this point which explains the nearly 2 to 1 advantage the Republicans have in primary voters who have turned out. While the dissatisfaction is taking a toll on both parties it is the Democrats who will by far suffer the worst.
In Delaware the major news media and Democrats have been castigating O’Donnell with personal attacks, not even getting near the issues of the election – probably because they know they will lose. I would not count her out – she hasn’t even cast her first spell yet! Dennis Miller had a great idea for her bumper sticker “Bewitched or Bewildered” referring to her vs her Democratic opponent.
Esten, both you and Maimipro seem to fail to grasp the electorate is mad at everyone in Washington (Democrat and Republican) for pushing programs they neither asked for nor wanted on them and for the sorry state of the economy.I am pretty sure you don't need to bring up my name in your quote. You have no idea what I grasp. I actually agree with you when you say everyone is mad at Washington. But I am mad at things like why can't both Parties come to agreements on whats best for the people instead of whats best for Party. I am mad at the Dems for not pushing hard enough on polices they said they were going to push all the way on and then cave in for self serving reasons.
Member #4112
09-23-10, 18:22
Since we appear to be on opposite sides regarding what should be done, it was my understanding from your posts you did not understand the depth of discontent.
Not sure why you get so upset. Miamipro is just your avatar and not your name anyway.
You believe the Democrats did not go far enough using their majorities in both houses as well as the White House to push their agenda. I believe they went too far. I see the Tea Party as purging the Republican party of “RINO”s (Republican in Name Only) and bringing the party back to its conservative roots of lower taxes and smaller government. I am sure you are diametrically opposed to this but that is why we have a two party system presently.
The political pendulum has swung very far “Left”, in my opinion) and it has reached its zenith. It is about to return to the “Right”, I can only hope it does not swing as far “Right” as it did “Left” as that will serve no one in the long term.
The answer to Rodney King’s lament “Can’t we all just get along” will probably only be reached when, as with the President, Congress is subject to the same 2 term limit. The founders never envisioned “career politicians”, perhaps by not giving them such power for life and also forcing them to live under the same rules we do (their healthcare is Medicare and retirement is Social Security) the two parties could just get along and do what is best for the country.
But there we go again about what is best for the country always goes back to the two parties.
Stan Da Man
09-23-10, 18:23
The mistake most Democrats are making is that they are misconstruing what the coming referendum is all about. You see media reports and comments from Democratic leaders that they believe it's about spending, jobs and housing, and our dimwitted President is out there finally accepting some blame, but only if he can pat himself on the back in the process. He takes blame for failing to "sell" ObamaCare to voters. Implicit in his statement is that ObamaCare is still a great idea, but they haven't done enough to promote it, despite spending millions on advertising and hiring Mayberry RFD as their spokesperson. They don't get it, and the President is incapable of getting it.
The Tea Party means different things to different people, but this is not just about the Tea Party. Voters who don't identify themselves with the Tea Party are breaking right in a big way, including 50% of the Independents who voted for Obama this last election. Many of them bought what Obama sold about "change" and a new way of governing, about being the most transparent administration ever (for example, televising the debate on ObamaCare on CSpan) and about going through the budget line by line and eliminating waste, about reducing the deficit, etc, etc. At this point, it's abundantly apparent to them and many others that this was all a Big Lie told to get elected.
Those are issues that turn voters off to the current administration. They especially dampen the liberal base. But, the coming referendum is much bigger than that. The real issue, encapsulated, is: What should the role of government be, particularly the federal government? The tide consists predominantly of folks who believe the federal government's role should be limited, both in historical terms, and particularly in relation to this administration's actions and its espoused vision for the future. It is not just the Tea Party folks and the Independents. There are at least two other components:
(1) the conservative base is alarmed at the path the current administration is on. They were complacent in the last Presidential election. My own view is that they did not have a particularly good candidate to vote for, which is why I didn't vote. But, they aren't complacent any more. They will turn out in droves.
(2) liberals and those who lean left are dispirited. Many of them will sit this election out, just as many conservatives sat out the last election. They haven't been given good choices by their party. Many of them are alarmed at the spending and the inept way it has been handled, as well. No doubt, the unions and Acorn-like groups will spend millions on get-out-the-vote drives. But, there's an element of "fool me once, fool me twice" at play. That worked two years ago. Many of these folks won't fall for it again. (That notwithstanding, you can see that the Democrats' strategy is based on "fool them twice" as their campaign so far is not about what supposedly good ideas they have; instead, they're still running against George Bush and the idea that Republicans want to bring back the policies that failed. They aren't running on their own ideas, stimulus, ObamaCare, federal immigration control, or even tax breaks for all but those making over $250,000. That's because their ideas don't sell. Indeed, to the extent you see any Democrats raising these ideas, they are running against them. )
The size and role of the federal government definitely touches on spending. Every new bloated federal program, every new cabinet, brings with it more spending, and a public skeptical that the federal government can manage anything properly. But, it goes beyond that. You see it in the reaction on immigration issues, where the Feds are suing a state over the state's desire to secure its borders. You see it in the reaction to ObamaCare, where folks mistrust projections on cost, but they especially resent the notion that the federal government is going to force them to purchase insurance. You see it in the reaction to the misguided stimulus spending, where the feds decided who got bailed out, and then sent billions to their union buddies in state and local government and teachers unions (and labeled this waste as "stimulus") . You see it in the national reaction to the greed of public officials in tiny Bell, California, who got away with as much as they could while no one was looking. And, you especially see it in the reaction to the arrogance of the current administration, who pronounce what should be done (because they know better) with little regard for the will of voters who are saying stop or slow down.
There is little doubt that the next election will see large gains by Republicans. The only real open issue at this point is whether the Republicans take the Senate. That's doubtful, and it's also why you see virtually all the national Democratic effort (with their media allies) directing their attention at Christine O'Donnell. They want to defend that one seat and, in so doing, increase their chances of going 50-50 or better in the Senate. It's a smart tactic.
But, the larger question becomes: What will Republicans do with their gains. If they focus just on spending, jobs and housing, they will have wasted the effort. The real effort should be focused on what limited role government should have, defining where that line is and why some issues are on one side of the line while others are not, and then rolling back the excess. That's certainly no easy task, and there will be much disagreement. But, from there, the focus can then be directed to getting the federal government out of people's daily lives to the fullest extent possible. Ultimately, that issue, or some variation thereof, will be the touchstone issue of this election, in my opinion. It will be interesting to see when, or whether, Democrats ever figure this out.
Since we appear to be on opposite sides regarding what should be done, it was my understanding from your posts you did not understand the depth of discontent.I understand it but also understand that the discontent are for different reasons.
Not sure why you get so upset. Miamipro is just your avatar and not your name anyway.I'm not upset. Just don't assume you know how I feel about something or what I get or don't get.
You believe the Democrats did not go far enough using their majorities in both houses as well as the White House to push their agenda. I believe they went too far. I see the Tea Party as purging the Republican party of “RINO”s (Republican in Name Only) and bringing the party back to its conservative roots of lower taxes and smaller government. I am sure you are diametrically opposed to this but that is why we have a two party system presently. Lower taxes, yes it all sounds great to have lower taxes across the board. But the problem is shit has to be paid for. Now you can argue, well just have smaller government. And maybe you can have smaller government in some areas. But there might be other areas where you might need more government. It would depend on what specific targets we were talking about.
The political pendulum has swung very far “Left”, in my opinion) and it has reached its zenith. It is about to return to the “Right”, I can only hope it does not swing as far “Right” as it did “Left” as that will serve no one in the long term. It probably has swung more to the left than you would like. Thats just a matter of likes and dislike. For me in the first 8 years of this decade it was to far to the right. For me. GWB will get credit from me for this one thing. "Need something passed"? Fuck you pass it. And it was passed. DEMS need something passed? Lets talk about and try to talk to the other side and waste a bunch of time. Fucking No balls in my opinion. This is where I am discontent with the Dems. Maybe I am to progressive for them. Which yes puts me in even a smaller minority. But thats no matter to me.
The answer to Rodney King’s lament “Can’t we all just get along” will probably only be reached when, as with the President, Congress is subject to the same 2 term limit. The founders never envisioned “career politicians”, perhaps by not giving them such power for life and also forcing them to live under the same rules we do (their healthcare is Medicare and retirement is Social Security) the two parties could just get along and do what is best for the country.
But there we go again about what is best for the country always goes back to the two parties. That I totally Agree with
Members of Congress have been part of Social Security (including Medicare) since 1984. If somebody doesn't know something this basic, why would anybody pay any attention to any other opinion they hold about Congress and the federal government?
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congresspay.htm
Member #4112
09-24-10, 00:09
Members of Congress have a separate healthcare plan and a separate retirement plan for which they qualify after serving one term. They will not be on ObamaCare as they exempted themselves from it as well as OSHA and Title 7 actions. Better look again my friend
Members of Congress have been part of Social Security (including Medicare) since 1984. If somebody doesn't know something this basic, why would anybody pay any attention to any other opinion they hold about Congress and the federal government?
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congresspay.htmDon't try to understand comments from an [Deleted by Admin] like EasyGo. Typical Seattle hypercrit liberal [Deleted by Admin]. These types never let the facts get in the way. Medicare applies to all americans after age 65. The independent health plan that covers all these politicians becomes secondary to medicare after 65. Whereas the rest of us unclean unwashed masses have to buy a secondary to medicare (ie. AARP) if we want full coverage (20% medicare co-pay. The politicians just get a free ride PLUS never have to experience OBAMACARE as their own privately funded plan represents the BEST of private idemnity insurance. Sadly, EasyGo will never get to read this post as BT (Bad Toymann) is on his ignore list. This [Deleted by Admin] informed me of this face to face at Jackson's play house this past April as apparently the ol' Toymann is, in his words, "just too hardcore". In [Deleted by Admin] In the liberal city this type of exchange should lead to more verbal debate. Toymann regrets he didn't [Deleted by Admin]. Shame on me for behaving in such a civilized manner. Regrets. Regrets. Regrets. Happy Mongering All. Toymann.
PS: EasyGo would prefer to put anyone with a differing opinion to himself on the ignore list. We'll just wait another 30 days or so to see if america handles their business in the same shamefull manner. Tick. Tick. Tick. LOL! .
EDITOR'S NOTE: This report was edited in accordance with the Forum's Zero Tolerance policy regarding reports containing any personal attacks or derogatory comments directed towards another Forum Member or the Forum Membership in general.
EDITOR'S NOTE: This report was edited to remove what appeared to be a threat made towards other Forum members. Threatening other members in any way, either veiled or directly, is strictly prohibited and will result the the perpetrator being banned from the forum. Please read the Forum's Posting Guidelines for further information.
Esten, in my post I only alluded to the liberals using George W. Bush as their primary fall guy. You are now trying to tell me that Obama, the Democrats and liberals in general have not been hammering the electorate over the head with “It’s Bush’s Fault” since before the 2008 presidential elections, as well as using him as the fall guy and general boogieman for every failure of their economic plans to improve the economy since Obama took office are you? Huh?? I said nothing on what others are saying. If you ask me, the left talking points are mostly about the "failed policies" of the Bush era, not the man himself. BTW, Gallup's latest poll last week still shows 71% of Americans blame Bush for US economic problems.
Regarding your “ranking” citation of former presidents, perhaps you read my little joke about the 3 CPA’s and the comparison with the CBO, economists and statisticians, it’s all in who you select and what their bias and political bend is. Check the link below, in general none of your boys make it into the top ten nor is George Bush in the bottom ten as you posted. In viewing the website you can easily see a person could pick and choose only those outcomes they have a vested interest in and ignore the rest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_StatesGood link, thanks. Most of those polls have Clinton in the second quartile and ahead of Bush. Reagen also does well. Only the Siena poll is recent enough to include Obama. I care little about Carter. The most interesting thing to me is how consistently high FDR is ranked, even among conservatives.
Esten, both you and Maimipro seem to fail to grasp the electorate is mad at everyone in Washington (Democrat and Republican) for pushing programs they neither asked for nor wanted on them and for the sorry state of the economy. Conservatives and independents are “mad as hell and they’re not going to take it anymore” and they are going to the polls to vote. The Democratic base is disillusioned and demoralized at this point which explains the nearly 2 to 1 advantage the Republicans have in primary voters who have turned out. While the dissatisfaction is taking a toll on both parties it is the Democrats who will by far suffer the worst.The 'anger' is real but also exaggerated. A vocal minority is getting a lot of attention. That's why you see Stewart and Colbert announced their planned events on October 30 "Rally To Restore Sanity" and "March to Keep Fear Alive" (I'm looking forward to both of them BTW). A lot of people are tired with the extremist rhetoric.
Obama has been delivering on much of the platform he ran on in 2008, so it's disingenuous to claim people are getting things they didn't want. Maybe Republicans feel this way, but they lost the election. That's how it works.
Dems are better than you think, though I do hope to see a stronger, coordinated message and effort in October. They could absolutely lose the House, I agree. However, by most accounts Congress is looking to be roughly evenly split after the midterms. A slight Dem majority in the Senate and slight Repub majority in the House. So this 'giant conservative wave' still only gets them to about 50:50?? LOL. With high unemployment and a constant right wing media attack on Obama and Dems, this is the best that Republicans can achieve? That tells you something. Personally, I see the advantages that a Republican House will bring and am not too adverse to that result. You better hope Repubs do in fact win the House though, or the fallout will be spectacular to watch.
The latest Gallup generic ballot shows a 46% Democratic and 45% Republican split in registered voters' preferences for the midterm congressional elections. So the elections may be closer than some people think. A strong coordinated push by Dems in October will make the House result close.
In Delaware the major news media and Democrats have been castigating O’Donnell with personal attacks, not even getting near the issues of the election – probably because they know they will lose. I would not count her out – she hasn’t even cast her first spell yet! Dennis Miller had a great idea for her bumper sticker “Bewitched or Bewildered” referring to her vs her Democratic opponent.Good to see a sense of humor! That's a clever bumper sticker but it would probably do more harm than good for O'Donnell. Don't think she has a chance though, not in Delaware. She is toast.
Here's one for you.... Obama said recently, when you drive you have to put the car in "D" to go forward, and in "R" to go in reverse. hehe
This idiot informed me of this face to face at Jackson's play house this past April as apparently the ol' Toymann is, in his words, "just too hardcore". [Deleted by Admin] In the liberal city this type of exchange should lead to more verbal debate. Toymann regrets he didn't [Deleted by Admin].What part of the world would that be for you? "Tuff Guy USA"? At least he had the balls to tell you to your face. You don't have to like the guy or agree with what he says but no need for insinuating some form of physical assertion. Maybe you should take a lesson from the liberal city and learn how to debate verbally instead of making physical innuendo's.
What part of the world would that be for you? "Tuff Guy USA"? At least he had the balls to tell you to your face. You don't have to like the guy or agree with what he says but no need for insinuating some form of physical assertion. Maybe you should take a lesson from the liberal city and learn how to debate verbally instead of making physical innuendo's.In case you didn't notice I already (along with one other) pointed out the total foolishness of EasyGo's statement. The arrogant insinuation that ended EasyGo's statement just reminded me of regretting not giving him the bum's rush to the door at Jackson's party house. Not all parts of the US suffer fools gladly. LOL.
Hope I didn't offend the newest serial antagonist. LOL. Monger on Dude. Toymann
Don't try to understand comments from an [Deleted by Admin] like EasyGo. Typical Seattle hypercrit liberal [Deleted by Admin]. These types never let the facts get in the way. Medicare applies to all americans after age 65. The independent health plan that covers all these politicians becomes secondary to medicare after 65. Whereas the rest of us unclean unwashed masses have to buy a secondary to medicare (ie. AARP) if we want full coverage (20% medicare co-pay. The politicians just get a free ride PLUS never have to experience OBAMACARE as their own privately funded plan represents the BEST of private idemnity insurance. Sadly, EasyGo will never get to read this post as BT (Bad Toymann) is on his ignore list. This [Deleted by Admin] informed me of this face to face at Jackson's play house this past April as apparently the ol' Toymann is, in his words, "just too hardcore". In [Deleted by Admin] In the liberal city this type of exchange should lead to more verbal debate. Toymann regrets he didn't [Deleted by Admin]. Shame on me for behaving in such a civilized manner. Regrets. Regrets. Regrets. Happy Mongering All. Toymann.
So, if I had been there, I certainly would have easily recognize you. Were you the guy with the dirty unwashed jeans, cut off t-shirt, bandana and chains? And speaking very loud.
Member #4112
09-24-10, 12:40
I like Obama's metaphor of the Republicans driving the car in the ditch, but if you take to its logical conclusion Obama kept right on going up the other side of the ditch, through the fence and is now stuck in the middle of the field with no idea where the road is.
As far as the Democrats articulating a wining message in October, I doubt that will happen since they are not talking about Stimulus, ObamaCare or any other of their 'hallmark' legislative accomplishments – some are not even identifying themselves as 'Democrat' in their campaign ads. They have to this point pretty much run a full bore negative campaign against the Tea Party. Even the talking heads are now going to the extreme of calling the Tea Party folks 'crazy', something I think only energizes them all the more.
Well I guess we will just have to wait and see on Nov 3rd as to how great the anger is and how well the Democrats do in the House and the Senate. We will just have to agree to disagree until then.
While I agree O'Donnell is going to have a hard time winning Delaware I don't think I would count her out. Is it true Elizabeth Montgomery is coming down to campaign for her? (Joke there)
While I agree O'Donnell is going to have a hard time winning Delaware I don't think I would count her out. Is it true Elizabeth Montgomery is coming down to campaign for her? (Joke there)Count her Out.
Member #4112
09-24-10, 13:28
Black Shirt, from your response to Toyman I got the impression you were calling him a Redneck.
Got this from a frined and though I would pass it along in defese of all us Rednecks:
We have enjoyed the redneck jokes for years. It's time to
Take a reflective look at the core beliefs of a culture that
Values home, family, country and God. If I had to stand
Before a dozen terrorists who threaten my life, I'd
Choose a half dozen or so rednecks to back me up.
Tire irons, squirrel guns and grit. That's what rednecks are
Made of. I hope I am one of those.
Y'all know who ya are
You might be a redneck if: It never occurred to you to
Be offended by the phrase, 'One nation, under God. '
You might be a redneck if: You've never protested about seeing
The 10 Commandments posted in public places.
You might be a redneck if: You still say ' Christmas'
Instead of 'Winter Festival. '
You might be a redneck if: You stand and place your
Hand over your heart when they play the National Anthem.
You might be a redneck if: You treat our armed forces
Veterans with great respect, and always have.
You might be a redneck if: You've never burned an
American flag, nor intend to.
You might be a redneck if: You know what you believe
And you aren't afraid to say so, no matter who is listening.
You might be a redneck if: You'd give your last dollar to.
A friend.
I guesse I was overdue. After 265 posts I have now finally been censored (somewhere in BA Exon is smiling). For whatever it's worth, I didn't know regetting something I didn't do could constitute a threat. The worst part is that that worthless cocksucker won't even get to read it because I am on his ignore list. That's certainly adding insult to injury. LOL. Me thinks El Jeffe is inviting too many democrats to his thursday suppers. This will be nicely remedied next thursday by the attendance of not 1, but 2 rednecks from Montana. Suggest you send out disclaimers El Jeffe prior to the party. LOL.
I now stand corrected. I head for BA soon and will make sure all my jeans, bandanas and cutoff T's are freshly washed and folded. I didn't know I was a redneck but after reading the last post I perfectly fit the persona and so does my buddy who's coming next week as well.
Happy Mongering All. Toymann
Wild Walleye
09-24-10, 15:22
So, if I had been there, I certainly would have easily recognize you. Were you the guy with the dirty unwashed jeans, cut off t-shirt, bandana and chains? And speaking very loud.Did you like my Confederate Flag tattoo? I can't tell what a pain in the ass it was to park my ford F150 in Recoleta.
Wild Walleye
09-24-10, 15:27
I now stand corrected. I head for BA soon and will make sure all my jeans, bandanas and cutoff T's are freshly washed and folded.Dude, it's getting warm in Bs As, leave the cutoff T's at home (unless you want to get dressed up) I'm only packing my cleanest wife-beaters.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.4 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.