How's that pressy-attentiony thing workin' out for 'ya, Sarah? by Niki2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Well, Frem, you've got a valid point there. But if they wouldn't come on, the interviewers wouldn't have the chance to call them on the things they DO say which are outrageous. Look at what Stewart did in his interview with Limbaugh on FoxNoise; yeah, that only ended up on the internet, but he nailed him good on a number of points.

I think it's better to have these idjits on and take 'em down on a few things--rarely do I see interviewers let more than one or two things slide, and they usually nail 'em on many more. And again, I don't think Stewart KNEW about the shoe bomber's nationality during the discussion or he'd have come back then; he couldn't do anything BUT clarify it after the fact. Didn't he even say "I'm told..." or something, like it was news to him?

I honestly don't know whether it's better to have them too scared to appear or have them appear (which means sometimes bringing their audience with them) and then let people see how stupid they are. Who knows?

As to the rest, I wrote elsewhere that "news" became "newstainment" long ago, and true "journalists" are an endangered, if not extinct, species anymore. So I agree with you 100% on THAT point, fer shore! It's a corporate business now, and the American people don't seem to want to watch anything like unbiased news or serious journalism. Ratings drive...and we're the losers.

And of course I absolutely agree with what you said, Gino, I've never claimed otherwise.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 14, 2010 9:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Call me crazy, but I'm COMFORTABLE with the concept that my President should be smarter than me.

maybe, but personally i would value wisdom a whole lot more then this so-called 'intellectualism' that Obama represents. thats the problem, IMO. there is no doubt Obama is intelligent by liberal academic standards, he subscribes to all the conventional doctrines, keynsianism, collectivism, globalism.. but he is not very wise.

a wise president would resist the urge to abuse the powers of office, and would recognize the limits of his authority under the constitution. instead, we get these ego-maniacs, with their superiority complexes, who can no longer distinguish reality from academia. then, they concoct these grandiose experiments in societal engineering, like the New Deal and the Great Society- that only serve to micromanage peoples lives. who gives them license to affect my choices in life? rather, they feel entitled to implement these hair-bained utopic fantasies they conjure up, because theyre 'smarter' then we are

Quote:
I've got neighbors who are nice guys, and I don't mind having a beer with them, but when it comes to actual issues, they're idiots, and I don't want people like that anywhere near the nuclear launch codes.

sure, id want them to have a comprehensive understanding of history and free economics, but otherwise... your friends would probably be better! if for no other reason then because they probably DONT think theyre smarter then everybody else. there is a lot of wisdom in humility, something these intellectualls certainly lack. as they say 'its difficult to fill a glass thats already full'

Quote:
By the way, since you seem so hell-bent on labeling who disagrees with you a "liberal" or a "statist", please lay out for us in explicit detail EXACTLY how you'd cut all government spending to zero, since that seems to be your comfort margin with government spending?

im not advocating zero, obviously there are a few legitimate functions of government(military, infrastructure, civil service etc), but id imagine we could raise sufficient revenue on sales taxes alone, if we just got rid of the heavy burden of government! give the people their freedom back!

if we werent paying for a monolithic federal beaurocracy and world empire, we wouldnt need to tax the life out of people. let people keep their wealth, and they wont need big brother for security. so to relieve the burden, id start abolishing agencies, go down the list of departments; thats money being stolen from the private sector- the true wealth creators. we cant afford the wellfare state, start making arrangements to phase it out, help people become self reliant again. there are a lot of things we could do, if we wanted to

Quote:
Do away with ALL entitlement spending?

besides, printing money to finance entitlements then creates inflation, which effects the poor the most- so its counterproductive! you end up hurting the people you claim to be helping.. and then we wonder what is happening to the 'middle class'

Quote:
Okay, but don't come whining and bitching to me about your stupid "death panels" when Granny croaks it because she can't afford her medicine.

if she cant afford it, its because of inflation, and the collusion of drug companies and the federal government. theres not a free market in medicine anyways, there hasnt been in a long time, not like it was prior to the governments intervention in healthcare in the 60's. and btw, however did we survive before then?

Quote:
Can we cut all defense spending and intelligence? Can we do away with border security and the border patrol? How about the immigration service? Can we get rid of them?

we could get rid of homeland security, the NSA or CIA? why do we need 4 different intelligence agencies? the FBI alone could have stopped 9/11, they had the information but the beauracracy got in the way! why add more beauracracies? and none of these agencies are enforcing immigration policy anyways

Quote:
Who will you cut? And how will you deal with the unemployment deluge when you throw all of them out of work?

as i said, phase them out over time. imagine how much wealth the government consumes just to maintain itself? the money that would be freed up in the private sector would probably create 2 jobs for every 1 government job lost.

Quote:
And don't hand me that tired old crap about how you want it all left to the states to decide. Talk about a "statist"! Why is the state better at deciding what to do with my money than the federal government, anyway?

because you live in a state, you live in a city, a community. when you make an important decision, who do you consult? your family, your friends. so why allocate those responsibilities to washington, to someone far removed and disconnected from you? its common sense

Quote:
By the way, of that alleged $60 trillion in entitlement spending, how much of that is Obama's? Be exact, please. How much of it did he inherit, and how much was on the books already?

hes increased the governments share of GDP by 3% in his first year, i mean he proposed a trillion dollar stimulus! whered that money come from? hes increasing entitlement spending acrossed the board. thats the whole point! why is it so evil when a republican does it, but its sanctioned when a democrat does? if it was wrong for Bush, why not Obama? do you have any indication hes cutting our deficits? that 60 trillion number is no lie, theyre entitlement obligations- somehow i doubt its all Bushs fault(and im NO Bush apologist)

Quote:
And how would YOU cut it to zero? You want Obama to do away with it completely; please explain to us all HOW we're going to do that.

he needs to take action in that direction, as well as congress. but he wont, he has no intention to. instead he'll just continue to spend more, with your full approval

Quote:
I'll wait. I'm sure this will be at least as enlightening as your diatribes on evolution.

hey, you know me, dare to be different. you may just avoid the cliff that the other lemmings are heading over

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 14, 2010 10:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Anti: “she was a governor” half-term, then she quit. And as governor her record isn’t exactly stellar, nor was it for any of the other offices she held. It’s all come out since then and there are myriad things to point to.

i dont want her for president, so you wont get a lot of argument out of me. but to say that Obama is more qualified, only in as much as he was groomed and hand selected to be the puppet in cheif

Quote:

Are you freaking KIDDING me?

no, Obama could learn a thing or two from the constitution. you know, the document he swore to uphold and protect?

Quote:
I won’t even GO there; the President has to be able to THINK, not be puppeted by his advisors (like Cheney) or wife ( a la Nancy), he has to have some working knowledge of government (which a fancy speaking style won’t give ‘ya), and the ability to make important decisions, meet with heads of state...the list is endless. To think that any uneducated, ignorant person could do the job is a fantasy, at best!

'uneducated/ignorant', those are your words. i simply said we dont need some egg head from academia who thinks he knows it all- its not a prerequisite

Quote:
As to his spending, I don’t like it any more than anyone else; the difference is, I see some of the things that forced him to do so

no one forced him to sign his trillion dollar job killing stimulus, or to vote for the Tarp bank bailout. this isnt a crisis we can spend our way out of, its excessive spending that got us into this mess, dont you see?

Quote:
and refuse to compare or contrast or condemn him until we see if what he does is effective in getting the country back on its feet, THEN what he does to cut the deficit. I won’t condemn him on trying to deal with the mess he was left.

hahaha come on girl! how do you fix a deficit by spending more money ya dont have?! the dollar is being destroyed, and you people think Obamas saving it, by further devaluing it! its alice in wonderland

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 15, 2010 3:00 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
he needs to take action in that direction, as well as congress. but he wont, he has no intention to. instead he'll just continue to spend more, with your full approval

Hahahahahahah - Come on, boy!

And this is why it's a waste of time trying to talk to you. It's all or nothing, black or white.

Where did you see my "full approval"? Where did you see me sanction anything?

As long as you're going to label me and everyone else who stands a half inch to the left of you "liberal statists", there's no sense in even bothering to engage you. I can just as easily label you a racist fundamentalist christian Bushite supply-side lemming, you know. And it doesn't matter if any or all of those things are really accurate - if you oppose Obama, you're automatically a right-wing fascist Republican.

Is that the way you think we should be discussing things? Are we only allowed to divide ourselves along the very narrowest of party lines?

As for spending your way out of a recession... Well, yes and no. You CAN stimulate the economy short-term with government spending; Bush tried it, only his method was to start a couple wars. He thought it was better to spend on destruction instead of CONstruction. I'd say our best investment right now would be infrastructure projects right here at home. Seems we have a whole bunch of bridges, buildings, and roads that could use some serious attention. And we have a good 10% (or more) of the work force looking for something to do.

It's not that spending as automatically evil; as you yourself have pointed out, SOME spending is good.

Oh, and WHY are all you righties so hell-bent on keeping every red cent of defense spending? I thought you were for self-reliance. Hell, I've got a damned weapons cache and thousands of rounds of ammo, so *I* sure as hell don't need any "gubmint" protection from Al Qaeda. I can take care of myself. Why can't y'all? I thought you were all about that "personal responsibility" shit. I guess when it comes right down to it, you don't want "the state" taking care of you, unless they're doing it with guns and bombs.

And speaking of "the state", you also live in a NATION, do you not? What ever happened to "Country First"? Or was that never really an option for all you right-wing lemmings? What you REALLY meant was "ME first!"

Right?

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 15, 2010 8:25 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Yes, Mike is right and I should stop trying to reason with you.

TARP was started by Bush, dammit, so after two years of it already, don't dump it all on Obama. Yes, he continued it, but he didn't START it. It matters.

The right-wing insistence on labeling everyone they don't agree with "elitist" and "academic" is a tired old horse that needs to die. It's a game; it works, especially on blue-collar people and the ignorant. Its intention is to make an "us v. them" mentality, and has no basis in fact. Just jingoism. Not that any on the right will ever believe that--or that those who DO know it's propaganda and use it to effect will ever admit it.

There's no "full approval" of the debt by anyone I know; rather there is recognition of the situation we're in and the knowledge that every time "trickle-down" was tried, it failed miserably. One of the responsibilities of government is to be a safety net for the whole country, not just individuals.

Let's hear what YOUR response would be to the unemployment and disasterous state of affairs, please. The stimulus HAS created jobs, it's easy to find the facts just on the internet; the fact that it wasn't enough is argued by as many experts as those saying it wasn't necessary in the first place. Pick your poison.

The cutest thing about it is that when the country turns around, the right can say "it always would have anyway"...rock and a hard place and there's no losing for them either way. As Cheney takes credit for Iraq (which ISN'T stable and may never be), all the Repubs have to do is sit on their thumbs and blame the Dems for everything.

But why bother; given what I've read that you've written, it's obvious you're another black-and-whiter with no room for greys. The concept that ANY of the spending might be necessary to dig us out of this hole is impossible for you to grasp, apparently. I'm beginning to notice that the black-and-white thinking seems to appear mostly from our members on the right; I could be wrong, but anyone remember "The Authoritarians"?

Mike, "You CAN stimulate the economy short-term with government spending; Bush tried it"--you forget, his version of "stimulus" was also tax cuts for the rich. How well did that work out? About as well as the wars, from what I see!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 15, 2010 11:11 AM

Quote:
posted by Kwicko-

Hahahahahahah - Come on, boy!

And this is why it's a waste of time trying to talk to you. It's all or nothing, black or white. Where did you see my "full approval"? Where did you see me sanction anything?

all i want is an admission that Obama is no better then Bush, and you wont do that. admit, you think he is some how different, despite my pointing out that hes continuing the same policies. example? they BOTH voted for Tarp, yet you all would lead us to believe Bush rammed it down our throat via an executive order.. if i didnt know better

Quote:
As long as you're going to label me and everyone else who stands a half inch to the left of you "liberal statists", there's no sense in even bothering to engage you.

then dont engage me! i dont hear you criticizing the democrats in the same manner as republicans, im just pointing out some hypocracy there. Bush spent a lot.. youre damn right! and here goes Obama down the same road, so lets nail him on it too!

Quote:
I can just as easily label you a racist fundamentalist christian Bushite supply-side lemming, you know. And it doesn't matter if any or all of those things are really accurate - if you oppose Obama, you're automatically a right-wing fascist Republican.

that seems to be the tone around here. but for the record, i never supported Bush

Quote:
Is that the way you think we should be discussing things? Are we only allowed to divide ourselves along the very narrowest of party lines?

thats just it, forget the parties! this is what im trying to explain to you, theyre all keynesians, theyre all big spenders. Bush racked up a war debt, accepted, i wasnt for the Iraq invasion either. but Obamas continuing the wars, will you criticize him? we have 60 trillion in wellfare entitlements, and i dont hear a peep out of you about it

Quote:
As for spending your way out of a recession... Well, yes and no. You CAN stimulate the economy short-term with government spending;

so youre a Keynsian too, like Bush and Obama you too believe Govt is the spender of last resorts! i disagree, the Bush and Obamas stimulus' only succeeded in robbing Peter to pay Paul; stealing money from the productive private sector, and redistributing it to the Govt. but to you, 'Bush stimulus bad/ Obama stimulus good'

Quote:
Bush tried it, only his method was to start a couple wars.

you guys crack me up. hey, give me a heads up when Obama leaves the middle east would ya? AINT GONNA HAPPEN!

but this is what i mean, youre the real partisan here. 'Bush wars bad/ Obama wars good'

Quote:
He thought it was better to spend on destruction instead of CONstruction.

im not arguing with you, except Obamas destructing while hes constructing. still spending the money....

Quote:
I'd say our best investment right now would be infrastructure projects right here at home. Seems we have a whole bunch of bridges, buildings, and roads that could use some serious attention. And we have a good 10% (or more) of the work force looking for something to do.

the problem is you have to pay them with tax money. are you going to raise taxes? youre simply redistributing wealth, Govt cant create wealth. if the government could just simply print money and put people to work, we wouldnt have a 17% unemployment rate and a nearly worthless dollar; it doesnt work! can we agree on this in principle?

Quote:
It's not that spending as automatically evil; as you yourself have pointed out, SOME spending is good.

not when youre raising taxes, or borrowing money from China, or just printing it to put people to work, its counter-productive.

Quote:
Oh, and WHY are all you righties so hell-bent on keeping every red cent of defense spending? I thought you were for self-reliance. Hell, I've got a damned weapons cache and thousands of rounds of ammo, so *I* sure as hell don't need any "gubmint" protection from Al Qaeda. I can take care of myself. Why can't y'all? I thought you were all about that "personal responsibility" shit. I guess when it comes right down to it, you don't want "the state" taking care of you, unless they're doing it with guns and bombs.

i dont know why 'they' are. do you even listen to me? i dont want us anywhere in the world! but notice, Obamas not bringing the troops home either, closing down bases etc. cut their funding, fine! save the money! but dont expand the wars, leave the military in the thick of things, and then cut their spending. once again, no real change in policy, despite what you may wish to believe

Quote:
And speaking of "the state", you also live in a NATION, do you not? What ever happened to "Country First"? Or was that never really an option for all you right-wing lemmings? What you REALLY meant was "ME first!"

Right?

if as a union we honor the constitution, then yes. but the federal government was never supposed to usurp the states rights, to the extent it has today, where we are literally bankrupt! we're bankrupt! quit f-ing spending already!! i dont care who it is!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 15, 2010 11:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

TARP was started by Bush, dammit, so after two years of it already, don't dump it all on Obama. Yes, he continued it, but he didn't START it. It matters.

no it doesnt matter! 'oh he's different.. even though he voted THE SAME WAY!'

Quote:
The right-wing insistence on labeling everyone they don't agree with "elitist" and "academic" is a tired old horse that needs to die. It's a game; it works, especially on blue-collar people and the ignorant. Its intention is to make an "us v. them" mentality, and has no basis in fact. Just jingoism. Not that any on the right will ever believe that--or that those who DO know it's propaganda and use it to effect will ever admit it.

all the great communist dictators of the 20th century were intellectualls, its just a fact. im not stereotyping, im simply drawing a parrallel.

Quote:
There's no "full approval" of the debt by anyone I know;

ok, lets hear a criticism of Obama then? oh no, its 'different', hes cleaning up 'Bushs mess'(by further perpetuating the problem)

Quote:
rather there is recognition of the situation we're in and the knowledge that every time "trickle-down" was tried, it failed miserably.

oh come on, now thats a lie. youre telling me tax cuts on everybody is bad? thats what im advocating, let people spend their own money! what do you advocate, taxing the rich? go after and tax the corporate owners, and then tell me where these jobs will come from

Quote:
One of the responsibilities of government is to be a safety net for the whole country, not just individuals.

the government should enforce contract law, and thats about it. they shouldnt be bailing out corporations, wall street, the banks, the homeowners.. i mean where does it end? its collectivism at its worst

Quote:
Let's hear what YOUR response would be to the unemployment and disasterous state of affairs, please.

freeze spending, then begin cutting government programs. cut taxes across the board. reduce government regulations. let companies fail, let the taxpayer off the hook for failed business'. just stay the hell out of the way!

we had a depression in 1921, the government let the market correct, and it was over in a year! we have the crash of 1929, the government intervenes, creates a slew of new beauracracy, and the depression lasts until ww2! so long as you keep re-inflating and propping up these bubbles, you are preventing the neccessary correction to occur- you are setting the stage for an even worse crisis down the road! we had a housing bubble, we print trillions of dollars to prevent the correction, now we have a dollar bubble building and the housing market is still a mess! printing money is not the answer, period!

Quote:
The stimulus HAS created jobs, it's easy to find the facts just on the internet; the fact that it wasn't enough is argued by as many experts as those saying it wasn't necessary in the first place. Pick your poison.

it wasnt neccessary, its a trillion dollars that had to be borrowed from posterity, at their expense. government can not create jobs, it cant create wealth. government recieves its wealth from the tax payer. all it did was take good money and cycle it through the black hole of government to be redistributed- its a zero sum outcome

Quote:
The cutest thing about it is that when the country turns around, the right can say "it always would have anyway"

its not going to work, the economy is recovering in spite of the stimulus. you know when you dump a trillion dollars in the economy, obviously youre going to see something happen! but at what expense? we're not recovering, the bubble is growing, and when it bursts this time, it will be 5x worse then what we've experienced so far. the stimulus was just a fix for a junky, it wasnt the rehab the junky needed. Obamas still just perpetuating the problem...

Quote:
As Cheney takes credit for Iraq (which ISN'T stable and may never be), all the Repubs have to do is sit on their thumbs and blame the Dems for everything.

sort of like the democrats did the 8 years Bush was in office? people need to wake up, both parties are complicit! its a shell game

Quote:
But why bother; given what I've read that you've written, it's obvious you're another black-and-whiter with no room for greys. The concept that ANY of the spending might be necessary to dig us out of this hole is impossible for you to grasp, apparently.

its not going to work, and when it fails, ill be right here to say i told you so. i dont care if its a republican, democrat, or Ghandi himself, i will criticize Keynesian economics 'till the cows come home

Quote:
Mike, "You CAN stimulate the economy short-term with government spending; Bush tried it"--you forget, his version of "stimulus" was also tax cuts for the rich. How well did that work out? About as well as the wars, from what I see!

hey Niki, raise taxes on the Rich and see what happens. you know the wealthy pay the majority of taxes in this country, see what they do with their money when you go after them. how about tax cuts all around? youre not advocating that taxe increases are an economic stimulas are you?

and BTW, the wars ARE STILL GOING! lets see what good ol Obama does about Pakistan and Iran, my guess is youre going to be verrryyy dissapointed

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 15, 2010 1:47 PM

Quote:

Quote:

I can just as easily label you a racist fundamentalist christian Bushite supply-side lemming, you know. And it doesn't matter if any or all of those things are really accurate - if you oppose Obama, you're automatically a right-wing fascist Republican.

that seems to be the tone around here. but for the record, i never supported Bush

I think you've just said it all. Of all the things I just called you out on, the ONLY one you take issue with is the Bush part. And you never once took issue with him while he was the dictator in chief, so far as I recall.

Quote:
hey Niki, raise taxes on the Rich and see what happens. you know the wealthy pay the majority of taxes in this country, see what they do with their money when you go after them. how about tax cuts all around? youre not advocating that taxe increases are an economic stimulas are you?

I guess you really DO respect the "Rich" - you even capitalize it when you say the word!

By the way, what was the top tax rate under Eisenhower? How terrible were things then?

It's said the richest 2% pay almost 50% of the income taxes in this country. I'd say they aren't paying ENOUGH, since that same richest 2% also happens to own 95% of the wealth in this country. So they're paying 45% less than their share!

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 15, 2010 1:53 PM

Quote:
we have 60 trillion in wellfare entitlements, and i dont hear a peep out of you about it

I didn't hear a peep out of YOU about it, either. I asked you SPECIFICALLY what you would do to end it all, to get it down to ZERO. Your response was along the lines of "mumble mumble grumble... I'd work on getting it down" HOW?! How EXACTLY are you going to do it? Don't give me a horseshit politician's answer - you hate politicians! Give me a SPECIFIC answer. What $60 trillion entitlement plan will you scrap, first day in office, Job One, to do away with entitlements? Which program will you do away with?

HOW WILL YOU DO IT? Be *VERY* specific, because I want to know exactly what cuts you'll be supporting. You've already ruled out cuts in defense spending - which IS the biggest part of the budget that actually COULD be cut. So what are you going to cut?

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 15, 2010 2:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

It's said the richest 2% pay almost 50% of the income taxes in this country. I'd say they aren't paying ENOUGH, since that same richest 2% also happens to own 95% of the wealth in this country. So they're paying 45% less than their [fair *Chrisisall's addition*] share!

Even Jayne could understand that math.
But authoritarian lapdogs won't.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 15, 2010 2:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Quote:

I can just as easily label you a racist fundamentalist christian Bushite supply-side lemming, you know. And it doesn't matter if any or all of those things are really accurate - if you oppose Obama, you're automatically a right-wing fascist Republican.

that seems to be the tone around here. but for the record, i never supported Bush

I think you've just said it all. Of all the things I just called you out on, the ONLY one you take issue with is the Bush part. And you never once took issue with him while he was the dictator in chief, so far as I recall.

Quote:
hey Niki, raise taxes on the Rich and see what happens. you know the wealthy pay the majority of taxes in this country, see what they do with their money when you go after them. how about tax cuts all around? youre not advocating that taxe increases are an economic stimulas are you?

I guess you really DO respect the "Rich" - you even capitalize it when you say the word!

By the way, what was the top tax rate under Eisenhower? How terrible were things then?

It's said the richest 2% pay almost 50% of the income taxes in this country. I'd say they aren't paying ENOUGH, since that same richest 2% also happens to own 95% of the wealth in this country. So they're paying 45% less than their share!

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

maybe it is not so much who is paying the taxes

maybe what should be looked at is who is benefiting from those taxes the most...

Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 10:36 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Coming in late, as usual on West Coast, and just lost the majority of my response. But I’ll try again:

To say that Obama is no better than Dumbya is, first, judging him on one year as opposed to Dumbya’s eight. That’s not logical. You expect him to change everything at once; if he continues following Dumbya's policies throughout his term, I will judge him then. We have yet to know whether he will eliminate them IN TIME, given the horrendous mess he has to deal with today.

Some of the “but bush was worse” you hear here may be the voicing of frustration that those of us held who could see what was happening for eight years yet heard no serious outcry against it, and were called “treasonous” for even doing so. Frustration is human; it comes for me from seeing so much anger at Obama when most of what people are angry about BEGAN with Dumbya, was promulgated by Dumbya, and some of Obama’s actions are predicated on trying to dig the country out of the horrible hole Dumbya put us in. It’s hard NOT to compare the horrors Dumbya committed to the far less horrific things Obama is trying to do. No, there is no way I believe Obama is AS BAD as Dumbya was; whether I believe that in four years or not is yet to be seen.

I agree that both parties are useless at this point, and that they’ve rarely been “representative” of the American people or what’s good for the country. But that’s all we have right now, so it’s all we have to deal with, and the unconscionable activities of the Republicans are, well, unconscionable. While the Democrats have cow-towed and compromised over and over again, the Republicans are sticking tight to their refusal to compromise on virtually ANYTHING, and their determination to ignore the country and the people just to block anything from happening is insane. The filibuster has never been used in even CLOSE to the fashion it is now, and their actions may force its elimination, which I think is wrong for the country. There is no comparison, as far as I’m concerned, between the Democrats’ attempts to govern and the Republican’s determination to stop any governing by anyone.

Hell, what they asked for is IN the health care bill; they demanded a meeting in the open, now that they've been given it, they're making every ridiculous excuse they can come up with NOT to do so. And on and on.

As to stimulus, Dumbya’s was vastly more dedicated to increasing the wealth of the rich; Obama’s has been more across-the-board and attempts to bring the disparity between rich and poor more in line. It is bigger now than it’s been in our history, and that’s largely a result of Dumbya giving tax cuts to his cronies. I believe a stimulus is necessary, and the one we’ve had not nearly enough. On that and many of the other things you have written, we will have to agree to disagree; our approaches to helping the country out of this mess are different, and we’re both entitled to our opinions; it’s obvious neither of us will change the other’s mind, so we’ll just have to wait and see how It turns out.

Bush wars good/Obama wars bad. Obama is trying to work his way OUT of the two wars Dumbya started; yes, in the end Dumbya wanted to get out of Iraq too (or said he did), but you can’t blame Obama for not stopping two wars cold in one year that Dumbya started and enhanced for eight!

As to TARP, yes I can blame Dumbya...he began it in 2008, that’s a long time before Obama had any say in the matter. I don’t like TARP either, but I won’t blame Obama for it exclusively.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 10:38 AM

http://www.faireconomy.org/research/TrickleDown.html

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

You want criticism of Obama? I’ve voiced it often, and will continue to—I’m not blind to deficiencies as the right seemed to have been for the past eight years. But if you want specifics:

Too wishy-washy dealing with Congress.

Broken campaign promises.

Too many lobbyists and Dumbya cronies still in the administration.

Not enough transparency.

No prosecution of Dumbya administration personnel involved with torture and other abuses of the Constitution and our laws.

No (YET) ending of Dumbya policies with regard to same.

Continuation of Patriot Act.

Continued attempts to deal with the Republicans, include their ideas/demands in the hope of buying votes which will never come.

Inability to speak to the public and help them understand policies.

Not enough doing things WITHOUT Congress which should be done.

Bailout of Wall Street, and omission (so far) of curbs on Wall Street excesses.

Continuation of Dumbya’s tax cuts to the rich.

Bailout of auto makers.

Failure on health care; no public option, no single payer, and a bill I think is a gimme to insurance companies and pharma.

Not enough action (yet)on DADT.

That’s a few; there are more and I speak up on them. But I’m not willing to judge the man and trash him completely; I’m willing to wait and see how he handles these things if/when the country digs out of this huge rut.

As to taxes. As I said, the discrepancy between rich and poor is enormous these days, and will only get worse if the tax cuts Dumbya gave his rich cronies are allowed to stand. Tell me the huge salaries and bonuses on Wall Street contribute in ANY way to decreasing unemployment, and I’ll know there’s no way we can communicate. I don’t want the “rich” taxed more than they should be, I just want the situation returned to where it was before Dumbya started handing out money to only ONE sector of the population. Enormous disparities between rich and poor are the beginning of a country’s end, have been many times, and disparities like we have today are bound to foment revolution.

I don’t believe in tax cuts across the board; the situation with productivity is bad enough, and at this point people are more likely to save or pay off their debts than spend. That’s and the fact that across-the-board tax cuts will only further enhance the disparities.

As to your opinion of the Depression:

Quote:
President Herbert Hoover started numerous programs, all of which failed to reverse the downturn. In June 1930 Congress approved the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act which raised tariffs on thousands of imported items. The intent of the Act was to encourage the purchase of American-made products by increasing the cost of imported goods, while raising revenue for the federal government and protecting farmers. However, other nations increased tariffs on American-made goods in retaliation, reducing international trade, and worsening the Depression. In 1931 Hoover urged the major banks in the country to form a consortium known as the National Credit Corporation (NCC). By 1932 unemployment had reached 23.6%, and it peaked in early 1933 at 25%, a drought persisted in the agricultural heartland, businesses and families defaulted on record numbers of loans and more than 5,000 banks had failed. Hundreds of thousands of Americans found themselves homeless and they began congregating in the numerous Hoovervilles that had begun to appear across the country. In response, President Hoover and Congress approved the Federal Home Loan Bank Act, to spur new home construction, and reduce foreclosures.

Shortly after President Roosevelt was inaugurated in 1933, drought and erosion combined to cause the Dust Bowl, shifting hundreds of thousands of displaced persons off their farms in the Midwest. From his inauguration onward, Roosevelt argued that restructuring of the economy would be needed to prevent another depression or avoid prolonging the current one. New Deal programs sought to stimulate demand and provide work and relief for the impoverished through increased government spending and the institution of financial reforms. The Securities Act of 1933 comprehensively regulated the securities industry. This was followed by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 which created the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The common view among mainstream economists is that Roosevelt's New Deal policies either caused or accelerated the recovery, although his policies were never aggressive enough to bring the economy completely out of recession. Some economists have also called attention to the positive effects from expectations of reflation and rising nominal interest rates that Roosevelt's words and actions portended. However, opposition from the new Conservative Coalition caused a rollback of the New Deal policies in early 1937, which caused a setback in the recovery.

I agree with Wikipedia’s take; obviously you don’t. That’s all we need say on the matter. I maintain that trickle-down doesn’t work.:

Quote:
We've all heard the claims that cutting tax rates for the richest Americans will improve the standard of living for the working class. Supposedly, top-bracket tax breaks will result in more jobs being created, higher wages for the average worker, and an overall upturn in our economy. It's at the heart of the infamous trickle-down theory.

The past 40 years have seen a gradual decrease in the top bracket's income tax rate, from 91% in 1963 to 35% in 2003. It went as low as 28% in 1988 and 1989 due to legislation passed under Reagan, the trickle-down theory's most famous adherent. The Clinton years saw the top bracket hold steady at a higher rate of 39.6%, but under the younger Bush's tax-cut policies, the rich are once again paying less. The drastic change in tax policy that has taken place since the early 1960s gives us a great opportunity to study and evaluate the claims that lower taxes for the rich translate to more wealth for the average American.

1. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to economic growth. It is true that growth increased drastically after the 1982 tax cut, reaching as high as 7.3% in 1984. However, as the Reagan-Bush, Sr. administrations went on and taxes for the rich were slashed even further, growth fell to negative levels during 1991, at the heart of the last recession. And, two of the three years with the highest growth were during the 1950s, when the top tax rate was 91%. Overall, there seems to be no close relationship between the top tax rate and the GDP growth rate, and statistical analysis backs this up: the correlation coefficient between the two variables is 0.03, meaning that there is essentially no connection. (If tax cuts were strongly related to GDP growth, we would see a coefficient close to -1.) So much for upper-class tax cuts boosting the economy; now it's on to median income growth.

2. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to income growth. Again, we see inconclusive evidence for the power of tax cuts. We do see small peaks in median income growth, a good measure of how the average American household is doing, after top-bracket tax cuts in the mid-1960s and early 1980s, but we also actually see income decreases after the tax cuts of the late 1980s, and strong growth after the tax increase of 1993. It is true that in the year with the worst median income decrease (3.3% in 1974), the top tax rate was 70%. However, it was also 70% in the year with the highest median income growth (4.7% in 1972)! Once again, the lack of connection between the two measures is backed up by a correlation coefficient near zero: 0.06, to be exact. And yes, yet again, the coefficient is positive, indicating that income has gone up slightly (though negligibly) more in years with higher taxes. Two strikes. How about hourly wages?

3. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to wage growth. Growth in average hourly wages did increase during the 1980s following the first Reagan tax cuts, albeit two years after the cuts took effect. But, just like GDP growth and median income growth, hourly wages decreased following the late 1980s tax cuts, and spiked upwards after the 1993 tax increase.

Furthermore, wages grew at a level of at least 1%, and usually much more, all throughout the period when the top income tax rate was 91%. In fact, it isn't until 1972 that we see a wage growth rate of less than 1%. However, if we look at the 19 years of the study period when the top tax rate was 50% or less, we see that 8 of the years saw an increase in wages of less than 1%. Thus, it seems that hourly wages grew more when taxes were higher - indeed, the correlation coefficient is 0.34, indicating a mild positive relationship between higher taxes for the rich and higher hourly wages. This finding flies in the face of the conservative theory. As if that's not enough, now let's see about what President Bush claimed would be the biggest result of tax cuts - job creation.

4. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to job creation. Here, we see the change in the unemployment rate laid against the top tax rate from 1954 to 2002. Thus, negative values signify a decrease in unemployment -- in essence, job creation. Once again, while the top tax rate trends downward over the period, the annual change in unemployment doesn't seem to trend at all! Although the largest increase (2.9%) did occur in 1975, when the top marginal tax rate was 70%, three of the four largest decreases in unemployment occurred in years when the top rate was 91%. The mixed results do not bode well for those who see tax cuts for the richest as a sparkplug to incite job growth. The correlation coefficient between the variables here is 0.11 -- meaning that there have been slightly more jobs created in years with lower top tax rates, but this pattern is negligible -- nowhere near strong enough to signify a relationship.

Quote:
{The stimulus is} not going to work, the economy is recovering in spite of the stimulus.

There you go. If it doesn’t recover, it’s the stimulus’ fault; if it recovers, it would have done so without the stimulus. The only way you could be proven wrong is if Obama were to follow what you propose and THAT didn’t work, but nobody’s going to advocate that for the country.

Quote:
see what they do with their money when you go after them

They already do it; they have more ways of getting out of paying taxes than the rest of us through loopholes and illegal methods.

Quote:
Four current and former partners at Ernst & Young, one of the world's largest accounting firms, were indicted Wednesday for allegedly orchestrating a scheme to create illegal tax shelters for the firm's richest clients. The scam catered to clients who earned more than $10 million to $20 million a year, finding them ways to reduce their taxes, according to an indictment handed up in the federal court for New York's Southern District.
One of these complicated tax shelters involved converting clients' ordinary income into capital gains. The idea behind the alleged scheme is that the tax rate on capital gains is significantly lower than the regular income tax rate, especially for the rich. The rich clients in question would normally be taxed at a rate of about 40 percent, according to court records. But the income allegedly filtered through the tax shelters and was taxed only at the long-term capital gains rate of about 20 percent.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/IndustryInfo/story?id=3226432&page=1

Quote:
Here is a nice object lesson in how a couple of obscure changes in the tax law can save a few people a lot of money. The IRS has reported that the number of those earning $200,000 or more who paid no taxes rose sharply in 2005. More than 7,300 of these worthies avoided U.S. income tax entirely, two-and-a-half times the year before. About 85,000 paid worldwide taxes of less than 10% of their income.
The study, by the IRS’ Brian Balkovic, cites two big reasons for this plunge in tax liability. One was a 2004 law that let individuals use foreign tax credits to reduce their Alternative Minimum Tax. The other, passed in response to Hurricane Katrina, opened a temporary window for people to make big cash charitable contributions without facing the normal limits on how much they can deduct. The 2005 tax return data are the most recent available.

The impact of just these two changes was stunning. Balcovic reports that in 2004, 412 of 3 million high-income taxpayers reported about $16 million in foreign tax credits. In 2005, more than 3000 wealthy filers took nearly $450 million in these credits. The increase in reported charitable contributions was also dramatic.

http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2008/5/29/3719254.htm
l

There’s lots more, but that will suffice to respond to you. And now I'm off to breakfast (at 1:00--that took longer than I thought!)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 11:07 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I'm still trying to figure out how Obama is "an egg head from academia". It's a bit off topic, but it was mentioned more than once, so it seems to be important to SOMEbody.

Any HELPFUL response to this question would be appreciated.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 1:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

I think you've just said it all. Of all the things I just called you out on, the ONLY one you take issue with is the Bush part. And you never once took issue with him while he was the dictator in chief, so far as I recall.

well, ill excuse you for not being around long enough then. and im not a racist

Quote:

I guess you really DO respect the "Rich" - you even capitalize it when you say the word!

simple grammar error, you'll notice LOTS of them

Quote:
By the way, what was the top tax rate under Eisenhower? How terrible were things then?

personally i dont believe taxing nearly everything someone earns away from them is fair. so you must have objected to JFKs tax cut proposal too then right? when are tax increases ever an economic stimulant? government stimulant maybe. in principle, i think there should be low, flat taxes for everyone. you wouldnt be financing a world empire and wellfare state that way, but you would be more FREE!

Quote:
It's said the richest 2% pay almost 50% of the income taxes in this country. I'd say they aren't paying ENOUGH, since 0that same richest 2% also happens to own 95% of the wealth in this country. So they're paying 45% less than their share!

that may have more to do with the dollar then anything else though. its also said that todays dollar has lost 95% of its purchasing power, compared to the dollar of 1913. thats because the Federal Reserve has been creating money out of the clear blue sky for nearly 90 years. when its printed, the first beneficiaries of the money get the full value of its worth(usually banks or the government. but when it cycles back through the economy, it creates inflation, which hurts the low income the most. America is(was) wealthier per capita, then any other nation in the world; so the wealthy top percent here represent hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars. we're not just talking moviestars and CEOs, youre looking at banking and very private interests that go back a century, centuries or more. it goes beyond just soaking the 'rich', the entire system, Banking and government is the problem

say you work for ACME, you make 50k a year, the CEO makes 50 Mil. you both pay a tax rate of IDK, 17%. proportionately, is that not fair? if you dont like it, dont work for the company! dont buy their product! become a CEO yourself and make 50 Million a year

you want to tax them more, in order that government might redistribute it properly? for every $1 taxed for wellfare, how much of it makes it to the recipient? 50% would be optimistic. so youre left with $.50 instead of a full 1$ circulating in the private economy. again, government does not create wealth, it can only redistribute it. do you think the road to prosperity, affluence, self-reliance, is wellfare?

the Federal Reserve system has more to do with this then anything. they are the ones shuffling money on the order of trillions around, behind closed doors, without any transparency. and government redistribution of this wealth is not the answer, its part of the problem. remember the Tarp bailout? understand, we were pressured, under threat of martial law, to pass a trillion dollar bail out. where did the money come from? the private Federal Reserve. so they loan it to us, AT INTEREST, only to give it back to the same banks who gambled our money away from the start! the Fed and GOVT colluded in creating this system, with out this fake money, we couldnt finance our world empire or our 60 trillion in entitlements.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 1:50 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I'm still trying to figure out how Obama is "an egg head from academia". It's a bit off topic, but it was mentioned more than once, so it seems to be important to SOMEbody.

Any HELPFUL response to this question would be appreciated.
.

Because he's a law professor ? And has virtually no experience running anything, or had any appreciable time in business, outside of "community activism" or government ?

Director: Bureau of Bigfoot Affairs

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 1:52 PM

Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 1:54 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

I can see by your sig that you approve of what happened on 9/11

Quote:

Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Pretty fucking pathetic.

Director: Bureau of Bigfoot Affairs

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 1:56 PM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
No, I mean Obama. He's added more debt in 1 year than Bush has in 8.

Cites?

I've got Bush down for over $10 trillion added onto the national debt on his watch. Care to show us where Obama topped that figure in one year?

Or are you just lying again?

Quote:
But I see you do endorse violence against women. Figures.

Not quite to the degree that you do, though, with your "Two for one" t-shirt joking about killing two terrorists with one bullet when you shoot a pregnant Palestinian woman in the stomach.

But it's different when you endorse it, isn't it?

I know we're ignoring him now and all - but I thought it worth pointing out that Rappy boy once again bitched out on a direct question (the above underlined segment), deftly deflecting the conversation to important issues like a joke about a bumper sticker.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 2:06 PM

I think we all tend to look at this backwards...

you guys are looking at taxes, how high they are and who pays what...

what about approaching this from a value for your money angle

What services do you want your government to deliver?

Then look at the price tag and ask is that a reasonable amount to pay for the level of service I receive.

The answer sadly is almost alway no.

Also, the rich folk have better roads, better schools, better services right ? so it is only fair they pay for that upgrade, or we need to make all services offered the same.

Healthcare, Prime example

what does said service really cost removed from the 14 levels of administration that add to the bill ? How can we reduce costs while maintaining good standards ?

If government is cut out of things they don't need to be involved it, think of the overall tax deduction.

here are some crazy examples

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/most-outrageous-government-wa
ste/

value of service vs tax paid

and hold the bastards accountable for it

and there would be far less problems

Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 2:11 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Because he's a law professor ? And has virtually no experience running anything, or had any appreciable time in business, outside of "community activism" or government ?"

Since he is NOT a law professor, how does that make him "an egg head from academia" ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 2:20 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

He TAUGHT Constitutional law.

Happy now ?

From FactCheck :

His formal title was "senior lecturer," but the University of Chicago Law School says he "served as a professor" and was "regarded as" a professor.
Sen. Obama, who has taught courses in constitutional law at the University of Chicago, has regularly referred to himself as "a constitutional law professor," most famously at a March 30, 2007, fundraiser when he said, "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution." A spokesman for the Republican National Committee immediately took exception to Obama’s remarks, pointing out that Obama’s title at the University of Chicago was "senior lecturer" and not "professor."

"an egg head from academia" ?

Columbia and Harvard Law .... ?

Director: Bureau of Bigfoot Affairs

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 2:32 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

His formal title was "senior lecturer," but the University of Chicago Law School says he "served as a professor" and was "regarded as" a professor.
Sen. Obama, who has taught courses in constitutional law at the University of Chicago, has regularly referred to himself as "a constitutional law professor," most famously at a March 30, 2007, fundraiser when he said, "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution." A spokesman for the Republican National Committee immediately took exception to Obama’s remarks, pointing out that Obama’s title at the University of Chicago was "senior lecturer" and not "professor."

There is a big diffence between "senior lecturer" and "professor." A professor is expected to do original research before and after they become a professor which is then published in a recognized journal both (Obama has no has academic publications to his name), and a professor has tenure (which Obama doesn't have).

While lectures are ADDRESSED AS 'professor', they are not in fact professors.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 2:32 PM

Rue, you hear that noise? There must be concert nearby, 'cause I hear lots of yelling that makes no sense...

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 2:37 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Rue, you hear that noise? There must be concert nearby, 'cause I hear lots of yelling that makes no sense...
The laughing Chrisisall

When will I ever learn ? If you say FACT backwards and upside down, you'll get a RapFact™. And yet, sometimes sheer force of habit makes me try real facts on Rap anyway.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 2:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

To say that Obama is no better than Dumbya is, first, judging him on one year as opposed to Dumbya’s eight. That’s not logical.

ok. so, can we look at the Obama administrations projected deficits for 2016 then? its supposed to be naerly double what it is today.

this is my problem. when Bush was in office, i was aligned with the left. they cried about the war, the patriot act, the spending, and justifiably so. but now Obama takes office, the patriot act stays, the spending increases, and the wars arent ending! theres no intention of really leaving Iraq, its not going to happen

i understand why the republicans lack credibility, they did this to themselves. but why am i supposed to believe the democrats, theyre doing the opposite of what they ran on!?

Quote:
You expect him to change everything at once; if he continues following Dumbya's policies throughout his term, I will judge him then. We have yet to know whether he will eliminate them IN TIME, given the horrendous mess he has to deal with today.

will he take responsibility for his policies and their consequences? or in 2012, 2016, will Bush and the republicans 6 yrs in control STILL be blamed for all this? its more likely that Bernanke and Greenspan had more to do with the recession then Bush or Obama did. it wasnt just the war spending that got us into this mess, it was the expansion of medicare and huge trade imbalance as well. one thing is for sure, the poor government policies of both the democrats and the republicans are at fault; it was not just the republicans. the democrats have controlled the house since '06, have they no responsibilty for the recession of '08? lets be honest here

Quote:
Some of the “but bush was worse” you hear here may be the voicing of frustration that those of us held who could see what was happening for eight years yet heard no serious outcry against it, and were called “treasonous” for even doing so.

i was included in that! but i still am, i havent let my guard down, i ive seen behind the veil and recognize that Obama is not some liberal knight in shining Armor. hes just another puppet with different objectives

Quote:
Frustration is human; it comes for me from seeing so much anger at Obama when most of what people are angry about BEGAN with Dumbya, was promulgated by Dumbya, and some of Obama’s actions are predicated on trying to dig the country out of the horrible hole Dumbya put us in.

Bush was religious, ignorant, white Texas hick, i get it. oh, but prince Robin Hood Obama, he's not like evil Bush, hes an intellectual, hes african American, hes.. 'messianic'.

dig us out of this mess? the Tarp bailout, the stimulus, continuing the wars.. whats different? hes going to solve the dollar crisis, which was created by our debt and deficits, by... printing more money, and adding to the deficits? just wanted to be clear on that.

oh wait, hes raising taxes instead of cutting them. that should be a big benefit to the private sector economy

Quote:
It’s hard NOT to compare the horrors Dumbya committed to the far less horrific things Obama is trying to do. No, there is no way I believe Obama is AS BAD as Dumbya was; whether I believe that in four years or not is yet to be seen.

when a civilian or US troop dies in Afghanistan, is the blood on Bushs hands? it seems to me Obama is the commander and cheif, and that he formed a strategy for Afghanistan that did not include coming home. want to come home from Iraq? then do it! he has the power! but he wont. so rather, if 10 civilians die in Afghanistan, or 100 soldiers die, is it on Obamas hands? my guess is, you will never concede this point, because you have a vested interest in seeing Obama in a positive light. i didnt vote for Bush, or Obama, ill criticize them both deservingly because i havent had a horse in the race(save maybe the future of AMerica)

Quote:
While the Democrats have cow-towed and compromised over and over again, the Republicans are sticking tight to their refusal to compromise on virtually ANYTHING, and their determination to ignore the country and the people just to block anything from happening is insane.

i agree with them on this one. we need to be cutting spending and government, not adding to it. and the democrats healthcare bills cant even be called bandaids, they would just perpetuate the problems

Quote:
The filibuster has never been used in even CLOSE to the fashion it is now, and their actions may force its elimination, which I think is wrong for the country. There is no comparison, as far as I’m concerned, between the Democrats’ attempts to govern and the Republican’s determination to stop any governing by anyone.

what ive noticed is the stimulus, the cap and trade bill, and the healthcare bills have all been passed almose SOLELY along party lines. is that what you would call a 'representative democracry?' disagree with libertarians or conservatives all you like, but the Dems dont have the authority to force legislation opposed by (arguably) more then half the population. with matters that literally deal with an individuals right to his body, his health, and his relationship to a private practicing physician, maybe a full majority is a good thing, before a bill gets crammed down our throat to become law

Quote:
Hell, what they asked for is IN the health care bill; they demanded a meeting in the open, now that they've been given it, they're making every ridiculous excuse they can come up with NOT to do so. And on and on.

Niki have you read hr3400? it was released last summer, just as the healthcare debate took center stage. the republicans have had alternative all along, the establishment has stone-walled it because it fits the narrative that youve adopted, that republicans are obstinate and obstructionists. its simply not true!

Quote:
As to stimulus, Dumbya’s was vastly more dedicated to increasing the wealth of the rich; Obama’s has been more across-the-board and attempts to bring the disparity between rich and poor more in line.

they were both stupid ideas. districts that dont even exist are recieving stimulus money. government cannot create wealth, period. we would have been better off using that money to cut the income tax for a year. then, atleast every tax paying citizen would have seen an increase in income, immediately.. instead of just the GOVERNMENT WORKERS

Quote:
It is bigger now than it’s been in our history, and that’s largely a result of Dumbya giving tax cuts to his cronies.

that is simply not true. its possible those tax cuts blunted a much worse recession that was the result of the dot com bubble. most the time, tax cuts create a greater surplus in sales tax revenue, usually many times more then the taxes would have collected themselves. his mistake was he created medicare part D and the no child left behind programs(along with the war).

its not going to change under Obama. instead he'll raise those taxes, and still continue growing government and expanding the wars.

Quote:
I believe a stimulus is necessary, and the one we’ve had not nearly enough. On that and many of the other things you have written, we will have to agree to disagree; our approaches to helping the country out of this mess are different, and we’re both entitled to our opinions; it’s obvious neither of us will change the other’s mind, so we’ll just have to wait and see how It turns out.

yes ma'am we will. but i will take this conviction to my grave, government can not create wealth, only distribute it. keynesian economics does not work, and will not work, because central economic planners cannot predict market forces, it is impossible. it is their malinvestments that lead to these bubbles and eventually the busts(like Freddie and Fannie)

Quote:
Bush wars good/Obama wars bad. Obama is trying to work his way OUT of the two wars Dumbya started; yes, in the end Dumbya wanted to get out of Iraq too (or said he did), but you can’t blame Obama for not stopping two wars cold in one year that Dumbya started and enhanced for eight!

yes you can, it really is just that easy. and the authorization to use force in Iraq came under Clinton. as you suggested earlier, the pentagon and state department personel play magical chairs, but do not really change that much. istead of Kosovo, it was Iraq. dont put it past Obama to get involved in his own debacle.. maybe Iran? God forbid, but ill never be so naive to put it past them

Quote:
As to TARP, yes I can blame Dumbya...he began it in 2008, that’s a long time before Obama had any say in the matter. I don’t like TARP either, but I won’t blame Obama for it exclusively.

and Obama's just as much to blame. he could have voted NO, and didnt. as a matter of fact, he promoted it! i was against it, he should have been to. but as it turns out, the banks have got him on the pay-roll too

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 2:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
His formal title was "senior lecturer," but the University of Chicago Law School says he "served as a professor" and was "regarded as" a professor.
Sen. Obama, who has taught courses in constitutional law at the University of Chicago, has regularly referred to himself as "a constitutional law professor," most famously at a March 30, 2007, fundraiser when he said, "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution." A spokesman for the Republican National Committee immediately took exception to Obama’s remarks, pointing out that Obama’s title at the University of Chicago was "senior lecturer" and not "professor."

There is a big diffence between "senior lecturer" and "professor." A professor is expected to do original research before and after they become a professor which is then published in a recognized journal both (Obama has no has academic publications to his name), and a professor has tenure (which Obama doesn't have).

While lectures are ADDRESSED AS 'professor', they are not in fact professors.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

It's odd that not one single conservative has ever voiced a problem with Dubya's being an egg-head from academia or an Ivy League Ivory Tower elitist (Yale AND Harvard? Really?). Hell, these big-business free-marketeers don't even seem to have any problem with his utter failure at ever running anything.

I find that curious.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 3:22 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Did you bother to read any of my response to you? I guess not because you didn't refer to it or give counterpoints. Okay.

Quote:
i dont believe taxing nearly everything someone earns away from them is fair

I don't either. Which is what happens to most poor people; but as you could see if you read it, there are many ways for the rich to duck taxes, and they use them to good purpose. The day I know the rich are PAYING what they are taxed, I'd be willing to talk about lowering their tax status...maybe. But in large part, they DO NOT PAY WHAT THEY ARE TAXED. I'm betting anyone with a couple of million has attorneys, tax advisor, analysts and whatever else to ensure that they pay the absolute minimum tax. IF THEY PAID A FAIR PROPORTION of taxes, I'd have no argument. But the majority of them do not.

Try reading Charles Lewis and Bill Allison called “The Cheating of America: How Tax Avoidance and Evasion by the Super Rich Are Costing the Country Billions--and What You Can Do About It”. To give you a bit of an idea what it contains, here are two reviews of the book:

Quote:
Publisher’s Weekly:
Probing everything from smart legal maneuvers to outright tax fraud by the wealthy, this fascinating, highly readable survey explores the tax code's haphazard evolution since 1913, and how it has favored rich individuals and large corporations over average taxpayers. Citing IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti, who testified in 1998 that tax evasion costs the federal government $195 billion annually, Lewis and Allison et al. (The Buying of the President) note that almost 1,000 families earning more than $200,000 paid no income tax in 1995 and that corporate income taxes, which made up 28% of federal tax revenue in 1956, now are only 10%. Familiar ploys like hiding money in offshore trusts, tax shelters and nonprofit fronts figure in these

Amazon.com:
This book is a group project; Charles Lewis and Bill Allison are the principle authors, but they have relied on an investigative team that includes 19 other individuals affiliated with the Center for Public Integrity, a left-of-center research organization in Washington, D.C. What they've assembled in The Cheating of America is a survey of how the rich and powerful shirk their responsibilities: "We investigate the people and companies who have benefited most from our society and our way of life and then chosen to thumb their noses at the rest of us, by paying little or no taxes." The book is full of facts and figures, many sure to outrage. The authors identify, for instance, some 45,000 tax returns filed by people earning more than $100,000 and paying less than 7 percent of their income to the federal government--compared to millions of workers who earn much less and proportionally pay much more. (One recent IRS report counted 2,680 filers with incomes of $200,000 or more claiming they owed no taxes at all, up from just 85 in 1977.)

What makes the book succeed, however, is not its careful number crunching, but all the little stories that detail "the phenomenon of tax avoidance (that's legal), tax evasion (that's illegal), and tax 'avoision' (catch us if you can)." There are the wealthy film producers who use offshore trusts and tax shelters to hide their income, the millionaire tax evaders who renounce their U.S. citizenship in order to escape making tax payments, and the accountants who help it all happen. At times, the book feels like a long Reader's Digest article, all told in the service of an outrageous conclusion: "Many of the nation's wealthiest individuals and its largest corporations are not paying their fair share of taxes today."

http://www.amazon.com/Cheating-America-Avoidance-Evasion-Billions/dp/0
060084316 Lewis, a former investigative reporter for ABC and CBS news, and producer for "60 Minutes," is founder and executive director of the Center for Public Integrity ( www.publicintegrity.org), a nonprofit, nonpartisan research group concentrating on ethical and public service issues. Coauthor Bill Allison is a former researcher for the Philadelphia Inquirer. They were aided by a team of investigators who for two and one-half years combed IRS files and tax court records, interviewed government officials and traveled from Beverly Hills to Belize to find the individuals and corporations profiled in the book. Lewis and the Center have also published The Buying of the President, The Buying of Congress and The Buying of the President 2000.

The next examples of naked greed the authors cite are the "Benedict Arnold billionaires" who took foreign citizenship, relocating offshore to legally escape corporate taxes, leaving their unpaid tax burden to be made up by the rest of Americans.

Then there are the corporations. For example, after a huge government bailout 20 years earlier, Chrysler Corporation in 1998 bailed out of America, becoming a German company, joining a long line of American companies switching countries to avoid U.S. taxes.

Furthermore, the super wealthy, when caught illegally evading taxes, can settle with the IRS for pennies on the dollar, unlike less affluent citizens without political clout or large legal teams.

The unfairness persists in Medicare and Social Security taxes as well. Following the colorful and convoluted career of Roy M. Speer, founder of the Home Shopping Network, the authors note he paid just 1.2 percent of his income into the trust funds in 1989.

Movie industry moguls are right up there with oil producers (who could give lessons to Enron in fleecing shareholders) utilizing offshore trusts and tax shelters to generate millions, but end up with no profits through accounting illusions. The taxing policies of Ireland, Aruba, Belize and other countries have also become a powerful lure to prominent movie stars as well as underworld characters.

Joe Conforte, when owner of Nevada's (in)famous Mustang Ranch, led the trend followed by firms like Microsoft and Xerox, saving millions in Social Security taxes, health insurance and pensions by reclassifying the employees of his brothel as Independent Contractors, shifting the tax burden to them.

The investigators found various ominous trends. In 1995, for example, more than 39,700 millionaires, representing 3 of every 10,000 taxpayers, claimed 38 cents of every dollar in deductions for investment interest expense. And so it goes, in every aspect of finance. As the corporate percentage of federal income taxes decrease, the tax burden upon non-millionaire, individual taxpayers increases.

Charities did not escape their scrutiny. In 1999 more than 1.5 million non-profits, including 350,000 religious organizations, controlled $l.3 trillion in assets, and engaged in many businesses.

Although the book's subtitle promises to tell you what you, the individual taxpayer, can do about all this greed and corruption, the answer, they confess, is little:

You can refuse to pay cash for services ($29.3 billion in revenue is lost yearly that way).
You can be leery of schemes that promise tax savings too good to be true, such as the ever-popular line: "The IRS doesn't want you to know about this."
Stockholders can demand to receive copies of each corporation's 10K, the annual report filed with the Securities Exchange Commission (for what we now know it's worth).

In an Epilogue to the Paperback Edition, the authors focus on corrupt banking and money laundering.

"The rule of law is one of the greatest inheritances of civilization, the great bulwark against anarchy and barbarism. And the perils of having a financial Wild West, operating alongside the regulated, legitimate economy, are all too real. Osama bin Laden reportedly boasted that his followers had used to their advantage 'the cracks inside the Western financial system' .... It seems the world can no longer afford to neglect mending those cracks."

The authors' exhaustive details in this book seem, in some cases, a little too exhaustive -- but the widespread pattern of corruption is intriguing and tends to grow upon the reader as chapter after chapter reveals more of the tax aspect of the tangled web of corporate greed which is today being played out before Congress and TV audiences.

There is fodder here for several more Center books.

http://www.curledup.com/cheating.htm

I don't see how the Fed affects this.

I repeat: When the rich pay their share, I'll have no complaint.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 3:42 PM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

It's odd that not one single conservative has ever voiced a problem with Dubya's being an egg-head from academia or an Iv League Ivory Tower elitist (Yale AND Harvard? Really?). Hell, these big-business free-marketeers don't even seem to have any problem with his utter failure at ever running anything.

I find that curious.

Go in by legacy rather than merit, to boot.

But I guess that's why. Dumbya wasn't smart enough to make it on his own, so they identify better.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 3:45 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Just caught your last post. I can only say that we are diametrically opposed in what we believe, and we can only wait and see what happens to find out which of us is right.

Quote:
i was included in that! but i still am, i havent let my guard down, i ive seen behind the veil and recognize that Obama is not some liberal knight in shining Armor. hes just another puppet with different objectives

It sounds to me like you expected a "knight in shining armor" to fix things; perhaps I had lower (or more realistic?) expectations. I KNOW how bad things are and never expected a miracle; as I said, I'll wait and see.

The bills have been passed on party lines? What do you expect, when NO Republican will vote "yes" on ANYTHING? I believe in several cases Democrats DID cross party lines and vote with the Republicans; but NEVER the reverse. The use of the filibuster is unconscionable. You expect the Democrats to vote with them, just for the sake of bipartisanship? What happened to "majority rule" in this country, if the minority can decide everything? I dont count the 60-vote majority because the Repubs have a small tent; don't go with the party, you're in trouble. The Dems had the only big tent, so they got Blue Dogs into the bargain. If Repubs had a 60-vote majority, you betcha they'd pass any and all legislation they wanted. Minority rule is "representative democracy" to you, apparently.

As to cutting spending and government, I responded to your remarks about how that affected the Depression. You have no comment, probably didn't even read it, just choose to stick by your beliefs to the opposite. Not much to say; you’re not giving any facts to back up your contentions, just opinion.

Quote:
republicans are obstinate and obstructionists. its simply not true!

Remarks like that and saying Obama could just end the wars immediately ‘cuz he wants to, make it just impossible to continue, and not worth my time. Especially because of

Quote:
prince Robin Hood Obama, he's not like evil Bush, hes an intellectual, hes african American, hes.. 'messianic'.

Okay, now you've lost me completely. I was very clear in listing the things I disagree with Obama about, I’ve quoted sources to back up my points, I've tried hard to have an honest debate, but you can still make statements like this. That about does it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 3:46 PM

Quote:
originally posted by Niki2-

As to your opinion of the Depression ... I agree with Wikipedia’s take; obviously you don’t. That’s all we need say on the matter.

thats the conventional, Keynesian explanation, certainly thats what the text books claim. where were they in preventing the crash of '29? we've had atleast 5 other recessions since that time, why didnt they predict them? you are listening to the same people who were 'blindsided', who didnt see the housing bubble or the dot com bubble(but rather, helped inflated them).

i recommend you read the Austrian economists view of the Great Depression, as i tried to explain earlier, the Federal Reserve and government were to blame for causing, and then prolonging the Great Depression. i posted this link which is fairly comprehensive, its worth reading, if you want to understand why we oppose government 'stimulus'

Quote:

Old myths never die; they just keep showing up in economics and political science textbooks. With only an occasional exception, it is there you will find what may be the 20th century’s greatest myth: Capitalism and the free-market economy were responsible for the Great Depression, and only government intervention brought about America’s economic recovery.

A Modern Fairy Tale
According to this simplistic perspective, an important pillar of capitalism, the stock market, crashed and dragged America into depression. President Herbert Hoover, an advocate of “hands-off,” or laissez-faire, economic policy, refused to use the power of government and conditions worsened as a result. It was up to Hoover’s successor, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, to ride in on the white horse of government intervention and steer the nation toward recovery. The apparent lesson to be drawn is that capitalism cannot be trusted; government needs to take an active role in the economy to save us from inevitable decline.

But those who propagate this version of history might just as well top off their remarks by saying, “And Goldilocks found her way out of the forest, Dorothy made it from Oz back to Kansas, and Little Red Riding Hood won the New York State Lottery.” The popular account of the Depression as outlined above belongs in a book of fairy tales and not in a serious discussion of economic history.

to read the rest, click the link below

http://fee.org/articles/great-myths-of-the-great-depression/

your other news article references just proved my point. the rich will hide their money and you still wont get youre revenue. and tax cuts work when spending levels remain steady. but as Gino said, you cant finance a cradle to grave nanny state, and maintain low tax levels.. its a trade off. do you want personal liberty, or government security?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 3:47 PM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
No, I mean Obama. He's added more debt in 1 year than Bush has in 8.

Cites?

I've got Bush down for over $10 trillion added onto the national debt on his watch. Care to show us where Obama topped that figure in one year?

Or are you just lying again?

Quote:
But I see you do endorse violence against women. Figures.

Not quite to the degree that you do, though, with your "Two for one" t-shirt joking about killing two terrorists with one bullet when you shoot a pregnant Palestinian woman in the stomach.

But it's different when you endorse it, isn't it?

I know we're ignoring him now and all - but I thought it worth pointing out that Rappy boy once again bitched out on a direct question (the above underlined segment), deftly deflecting the conversation to important issues like a joke about a bumper sticker.

Did I just bump this? Oh, I guess I did.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 3:48 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
Go in by legacy rather than merit, to boot.

That too, Story; good point (that was the original post; he/she (?) changed it while I was posting this).

If one is talking about taxing all of what "earns", then those who inherited all don't come into it. But of course the response will be that those who earned it in the first place should be able to leave what they "earned" to their children who then don't have to earn anything. We should just go out and become CEOs, will be the answer. Yeah...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 3:48 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"It's odd that not one single conservative has ever voiced a problem with Dubya's being an egg-head from academia or an Iv League Ivory Tower elitist (Yale AND Harvard? Really?). Hell, these big-business free-marketeers don't even seem to have any problem with his utter failure at ever running anything.

I find that curious."

I've been wondering that myself. I was going to ask, if anyone answered my post.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 3:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

It's odd that not one single conservative has ever voiced a problem with Dubya's being an egg-head from academia or an Iv League Ivory Tower elitist (Yale AND Harvard? Really?).

He got his degrees the old fashioned way.

He PAID for them!

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 3:58 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Speaking of the recovery ...

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/recoveryanniversary/

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 4:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Speaking of the recovery ...

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/recoveryanniversary/

This does not jibe with right-wing authoritarian ideology, therefore it is false & misleading non-factual rose-coloured nonsense, backed by no known important conservative radio talk-show hosts.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 4:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

Just caught your last post. I can only say that we are diametrically opposed in what we believe, and we can only wait and see what happens to find out which of us is right.

yes we will

Quote:
It sounds to me like you expected a "knight in shining armor" to fix things; perhaps I had lower (or more realistic?) expectations. I KNOW how bad things are and never expected a miracle; as I said, I'll wait and see.

i was more or less moching the euphoria of 'yes we can' that surrounded the Obama inception. i didnt expect any different, i was thinking about the Who song, you know 'meet the new boss! same as the old boss!' i wont be fooled again

Quote:
The bills have been passed on party lines? What do you expect, when NO Republican will vote "yes" on ANYTHING?

if they dont agree, why should they? for bi-partisanship?

Quote:
I believe in several cases Democrats DID cross party lines and vote with the Republicans; but NEVER the reverse.

what does that tell you?

Quote:
The use of the filibuster is unconscionable. You expect the Democrats to vote with them, just for the sake of bipartisanship? What happened to "majority rule" in this country, if the minority can decide everything?

thats why we are a democratic REPUBLIC, so a majority cannot vote to take way the 'rights' of a minority. we have a constitution, so that the mob DOEST rule

Quote:
As to cutting spending and government, I responded to your remarks about how that affected the Depression. You have no comment, probably didn't even read it, just choose to stick by your beliefs to the opposite. Not much to say; you’re not giving any facts to back up your contentions, just opinion.

i did respond, and did read your post, but to be honest it wasnt anything new. you posted the same revision of history that the text books and the shills in the corporate/government media propogate. you know, the ones who NEVER SEE THESE CRISIS COMING? lets see if you read my link

Quote:
Remarks like that and saying Obama could just end the wars immediately ‘cuz he wants to, make it just impossible to continue, and not worth my time.

you know if Ron Paul had been elected, we wouldnt be in Afghanistan, and we would probably be coming home from Iraq. Obama however, no, because he shares the same globalist agenda as Bush, hes just entering a different phase of it. hes commander in cheif! he DOES have the power, you just want to make excuses for the democrats completely selling out their anti-war position

Quote:
Especially because of
Quote:
prince Robin Hood Obama, he's not like evil Bush, hes an intellectual, hes african American, hes.. 'messianic'.
Okay, now you've lost me completely.

ok. 'Dumbya', thats not suggestive or inferring anything. but Obama.. to paraphrase one Tv reporter 'may be the smartest President in our history'. it was an LA TIMES columnist who called him ' Barack the magic negro,' not me

Quote:
I was very clear in listing the things I disagree with Obama about, I’ve quoted sources to back up my points, I've tried hard to have an honest debate, but you can still make statements like this. That about does it.

i read your criticisms, i had my disagreements, but i wont argue with you about them. atleast you show some criticism. maybe i shouldnt be critical of Obama until after he's out of office, would that be better? since i disagree, maybe i should just shut up about it. im sorry, but calling Bush 'Dumbya', calling Bush a fascist and a Nazi... why is that ok, but one should NEVER use hyperbole to slander the anointed Barack Obama? im sorry, i dont see the difference. they are both deserving, IMO

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 4:21 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

The Republicans are not voting "no" on everything because they disagree. They stated very early on that they intended to be the "party of no" (which they now refute) and that they were going to do everything in their power to defeat Obama or anything he proposes. Or in some cases, even things THEY CO-SPONSORED OR BACKED, once Obama agreed with them! Disagreement is honest; expressed intetion of voting no on everything (you can't even know what each of them believes is good for the country, because they have been told to vote as a block).

Quote:
what does that tell you?

That Democrats are willing to compromise and vote against what they BELIEVE is wrong.

Quote:
same revision of history that the text books and the shills in the corporate/government media propogate

So only you know "the truth". Your faith that everyone else has it wrong tells me all I need to know.

The reason you lost me is not because you dissed Obama. It is because I had made it clear I did not see him the way you described, yet you happily accused me of doing so AND added that I had called Dumbya facist and Naziwhich I have never done. That is not honest discussion or debate. If you want to misquote me and pretend I said Obama was infallible, there can be no communication. I'll not waste any further effort and time on trying, I've already spent too much. I'm off to dinner.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 4:50 PM

Quote:
So only you know "the truth". Your faith that everyone else has it wrong tells me all I need to know.

you gave me the accepted view of the Great Depression, which i feel is a distortion. i dont claim to have a monopoly on the truth, but i do feel i have some kind of grasp on economics, and capitalism isnt the problem, its government and the Federal Reserve that is. thats all i said.. but im glad i can get under someones skin

Quote:
The reason you lost me is not because you dissed Obama. It is because I had made it clear I did not see him the way you described, yet you happily accused me of doing so AND added that I had called Dumbya facist and Naziwhich I have never done.

ok, im sorry, i should clarify. you have not called Bush a fascist Nazi, i was more referring to the left, and their politics of 'change'. i guess the change was that, when a democrat took over, the hyperbole was to stop! no more hate, we should all just get along and give him his 'chance'. but you are calling him dumb, and blaming every down turn of events from the past 8 years on him. to prevent people from doing the same to Obama(especially when ive consistently criticized both), to me, is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black

Quote:
That is not honest discussion or debate. If you want to misquote me and pretend I said Obama was infallible, there can be no communication. I'll not waste any further effort and time on trying, I've already spent too much. I'm off to dinner.

ok, happy eating. we wont come to an agreement anyways, because you believe in keynesian economics, and i believe in Austrian economics. you are on the side of the central bankers, i see them as the problem.

the 20th century has been an experiment in keynesianism, and judging by the shape of the world economy, i believe its been a failure(the western nations are all virtually bankrupt). the New Deal hasnt created security, and the war on poverty hasnt cured poverty. the Federal Reserve was a Keynesian creation, it was supposed to provide full employment and stable prices, to prevent market crashes. what have we gotten? a dollar that has been devalued 95%, and a (real world) unemployment rate of probably 20%, and recession after recession! its been a failure! we have 60 trillion in entitlements with no way to pay for them! big government is a failure, and some of you people stubbornly look to it for the answer, as if more govt, more money thrown at it will change anything. its a terrible ideology, a lesson the world will one day learn the hard way

Quote:
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

-Thomas Jefferson

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 5:10 PM

TRAVELER

So if we were to pull out of Afganistan today we would be allowing the Taliban to retake the country. The first thing they would do is give Al-Qaeda the support it needs to raise and train more terroists to attack us. It was this very tactic that brought us there. Maybe it's why Obama is increasing our presence there and forcing the Taliban out. He would like Afganistan free of these guys and thus prevent it from becoming a training ground for Al-Qaeda again.

If we had not started a war in Iraq we would have had more troops available to deal with Afganistan and may have been through with that war. But we went chasing after Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. So our forces were stretched and we didn't get the job done in Afganistan. We are now pulling troops out of Iraq. That finally gives use the capability to take the offensive to the Taliban. Something we should have done years ago.

I believe Obama wants us out of Afganistan. He is not going to leave until Al-Qaeda has no safe place in that country to support attacks against us. I also believe he wants to give the people there the government they want. It appears we are getting more support from Pakistan. So we may see another country that will be free of these troublesome guys. The more countries we get to support our cause the less chance that Al-Qaeda has of causing the acts of 911. I prefer seeing these guys ground to dust in Afganistan then allowing them the opportunity to do that again.

If it takes a person from Harvard Law School to get the job done, I am not going to stand in his way.

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=28764731
Traveler

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 5:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

here are some crazy examples

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/most-outrageous-government-wa
ste/

exactly! thats my only point, there is SOOO much waste, that the governments overhead is incredible! if we could cut out all this wastefull spending, dramatically, it would reduce the need for these new taxes that are constanly preposed- and theyre never enough! and its a cycle we need to break, because so many people have been encouraged to become dependant on this 'safety net', that they cannot fathom deconstructing some of this excess.

like this issue in New Jersey, the new governor stating hes going to be making some HUGE cuts in the public sector in order to balance the budget. well now, the highly overpayed public unions employees are upset, because they do not want to lose their generous tax payer funded retirement packages, and are looking to cash out early. but if they had it their way, theyd just as soon let the state go bankrupt then give up their special 'entitlements'.

like the saying goes, 'when you rob from Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on Pauls support'

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 6:04 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

What I understand OTB to be saying is that The Fed is The Great Satan, responsible for all economic evils.

But The Fed was created in 1913. "The Federal Reserve was created on December 23, 1913, with the signing of the Federal Reserve Act by President Woodrow Wilson." And note that before that, there were many depressions/ recessions in the US. To list a few: 1807-1814, 1837-1844, 1873-1879, and 1893-1898. Considering the country didn't get going until 1776, that quite a record of economic failures in short order - that, may I note, had nothing to do with The Fed.

OTB may then shift to saying it's not The Fed ! What is is, really is manipulation of currency supply that causes all our ills ! If we could get get back to the good ol' days of the gold standard (or perhaps the silver standard) then all would be well ! Ahhhhh, bliss ...

But according to those historian dupes, as the silver standard diminished over time from the Spanish real on forward, the gold standard was ascendant and was formally adopted by the US in 1900, being rescinded only in 1971.

So apparently neither the silver standard, nor the gold standard, nor a combination of the gold standard AND a lack of The Fed in that idyllic gap between 1900 and 1913 was enough to stop depressions, even severe ones.

What then could be the cause ? Could it be the cyclical nature of capitalism which was elucidated almost 150 years ago ? The fact that the nature of capitalism is as a bistable state - of either grow or contract ?

This is not to defend The Fed. The banking system has, in effect, the power to print money by making loans out of thin air. And those banking interests are looking after their number 1 goal, which is to increase their own profits. Also, a government which is only tenuously in control of the economy has all sorts of ways to lose that control.

And as a way of further faulting The Fed, I'd like to point out that I could find NO Canadian banks failures during this 'international' crisis, one British one, no French ones, no Italian ones ... in the countries with the most government control banking seems to be doing very, very well. As for the US 'free market' banking-system approach, in 2007 there were 3 bank failures, in 2008 there were 30, and in 2009 --- 140 ! http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-bank-failures-in-the-united-state
s.php

Yeah, that worked out well.

But the problem is not regulation per se. It's the leaving of regulation to those who have goals other than a healthy economy in mind.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 6:14 PM

Quote:
Okay, now you've lost me completely. I was very clear in listing the things I disagree with Obama about, I’ve quoted sources to back up my points, I've tried hard to have an honest debate, but you can still make statements like this. That about does it.

Niki, you're wasting your time. You should see him try to debate evolution. It's always, "Where are the missing links? Where are the fossils records?" I think he even asked to see proof of the missing links between his parents and him. :)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 6:17 PM

Quote:
Posted by antimason:

i dont claim to have a monopoly on the truth

Actually, that's exactly what you DO claim. Over and over and over and over and over and over...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 6:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by traveler:

I believe Obama wants us out of Afganistan. He is not going to leave until Al-Qaeda has no safe place in that country to support attacks against us.

Okay, so... that's gonna take a REALLY long time...

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 7:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by traveler:
So if we were to pull out of Afganistan today we would be allowing the Taliban to retake the country. The first thing they would do is give Al-Qaeda the support it needs to raise and train more terroists to attack us. It was this very tactic that brought us there. Maybe it's why Obama is increasing our presence there and forcing the Taliban out. He would like Afganistan free of these guys and thus prevent it from becoming a training ground for Al-Qaeda again.

well, i dont accept your premise, we dont know that flushing the Taliban out of afghanistan will prevent a future terrorist attack(alqaeda, whomever). we could go through the whole middle east, and we STILL would be susceptable to an attack. we are so very vulnerable at our ports of entry, the airlines what have you. i mean.. we couldnt stop the underwear bomber, and his own dad tipped them off!

its almost a charade..

and the war on the taliban is just a continuation of the 'war on terror.' i thought we determined that you cannot wage war on a tactic? didnt we come to that conclusion under Bush? we're just perpetuating this notion of preventative(pre-emptive) warfare, which is what led to the Iraq war

why not just come home? lets try to get serious about security here in this country! we can chase boogeymen around the world from now until eternity, or we can be pro-active and establish a firm 'defense'. if we were completely neutral in the area, no espionage, no aid, no military- i believe we would cut back terrorism dramatically. as it is, we are literally creating conflict(i hate to say it)

Quote:
If we had not started a war in Iraq we would have had more troops available to deal with Afganistan and may have been through with that war. But we went chasing after Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. So our forces were stretched and we didn't get the job done in Afganistan. We are now pulling troops out of Iraq. That finally gives use the capability to take the offensive to the Taliban. Something we should have done years ago.

i agree. my only point is we're still fighting these psuedo wars under the pretense of a 'war on terror'. and its counterproductive! for example, in the 80's we armed alqaeda to fight the soviet occupation of afghanistan! now theyre fighting our occupations. the Gulf war was under the pretenses of Saddams and the kurds; well we armed Saddam to put pressure on the Shah, who we put in as part of a CIA coup! the same Shah that radicalized islam. and then we put a military base in Saudi Arabia, which Bin Laden himself says what a motivating factor of 9/11. meanwhile we put sanctions on 'Saddam' that may have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. so we invaded Iraq, we're going into Afghanistan.. its just a perpetuation of failed policy! the taliban werent even involved in 9/11

Quote:
I believe Obama wants us out of Afganistan. He is not going to leave until Al-Qaeda has no safe place in that country to support attacks against us.

on 9/11, most the hijackers had VISAs, they did their flight training here. the madrid bombing, London 7/7, the execution of the terror attack is performed locally. they dont need these 'training camps', jungle gyms and monkey bars to attack us; they just need to exploit our weaknesses!

Quote:
I prefer seeing these guys ground to dust in Afganistan then allowing them the opportunity to do that again.

my fear is, when you grind them to dust there, how many will spring up their place? that probably depends on the toll of casualties, but why risk it? this is what their stated motive to terrorize us is!

Quote:
If it takes a person from Harvard Law School to get the job done, I am not going to stand in his way.

it would be great if he could get the job 'done', thats for sure

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 7:07 PM

TRAVELER

It may take a long time. But with offences like the one we are involved in now we free more of Afganistan and give the Taliban fewer places to hide and resources to use. The Afgans have troops fighting along with ours. The next battle may see them taking the lead. Give them time to stabilise their government and they will stand on their own feet.

The recent Pakistan capture of a Taliban leader shows their willing to support us. Their hiding places are getting fewer and smaller. We are moving forward. To walk away only gives Al-Qaeda their playground again. I don't want another Vietnam, but Al-Qaeda will not stop their attacks if leave.

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=28764731
Traveler

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 7:09 PM