Obama--the grumblings
Blah blah blah:blah:
Bitch moan bitch moan.
Wahhhhhh.
Sour grapes sour grapes.
Your turn.
liberal socialist gramsciian ...
Now you're just getting me all hawt. ;)
:corn:
Bitch moan bitch moan.
Wahhhhhh.
Sour grapes sour grapes.
Were you doing all that?
One thing you're going to have to observe, Shawnee, is just how little the responsible rightwingers behave like the common run of the leftwingers. A good place to observe this is in conservative magazines, of which perhaps
National Review and
Commentary are the best. Tough to really pick, though.
Christian Science Monitor and
American Spectator ain't no slouches either. (No experience of
The Weekly Standard.)
I was grinning like a fookin' idiot all the way to work today. Listening to NPR.
I almost forgot I could be this proud.
:corn:
Were you doing all that?
One thing you're going to have to observe, Shawnee, is just how little the responsible rightwingers behave like the common run of the leftwingers. A good place to observe this is in conservative magazines, of which perhaps National Review and Commentary are the best. Tough to really pick, though. Christian Science Monitor and American Spectator ain't no slouches either. (No experience of The Weekly Standard.)
Uh Huh. Ok. Sure. ;)
I was grinning like a fookin' idiot all the way to work today. Listening to NPR.
I almost forgot I could be this proud.
I too heard today on NPR: today was National Pie Day. Congratulations.
I cannot believe I missed National Pie Day.
I'm sorry Pie. Hope you had a great day! :)
One thing you're going to have to observe, Shawnee, is just how little the responsible rightwingers behave like the common run of the leftwingers. A good place to observe this is in conservative magazines, of which perhaps National Review and Commentary are the best. Tough to really pick, though. Christian Science Monitor and American Spectator ain't no slouches either. (No experience of The Weekly Standard.)
It would be interesting to see you define 'common run'. IMO, Slate, Salon and the New Republic match up well with National Review (I don't know Commentary) and I assume are 'responsible' examples under your definition. As for 'common run', the most watched/read conservatives of late are Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. I am having a hard time finding liberal examples who are both as popular and as damaging to the national psyche.
I find
Christian Science Monitor to be an excellent source on politics. They were probably Bush's biggest critics on almost everything.
One of the biggest losers under the Bush Era were conservative intellectuals, who seem to have become disenfranchised under the Republican 'embrace stupidity' anti-'elitist' mantra. The only thing that Bush and Buckley had in common were the first two letters of their last names.
As for 'common run', the most watched/read conservatives of late are Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. I am having a hard time finding liberal examples who are both as popular and as damaging to the national psyche.
I have a hard time not lumping Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity in there as well though.
What does it tell you when you cannot find their liberal equivalent/s? Is it that they do not exist? You agree with their views and therefore don't believe them "damaging"? Or is it something else. I'm seriously interested.
I find Christian Science Monitor to be an excellent source on politics. They were probably Bush's biggest critics on almost everything.
One of the biggest losers under the Bush Era were conservative intellectuals, who seem to have become disenfranchised under the Republican 'embrace stupidity' anti-'elitist' mantra.
Disenfranchised is nowhere near a strong enough word.
Rich, what do you read on the right, for balance?
Rich, what do you read on the right, for balance?
Actually, I read mostly local papers. I get my national news from Google/Yahoo sources, which can be anything from the New York Times to the Los Angeles Times.
As I mentioned earlier, Christian Science Monitor did a lot of good foreign reporting.
Thanks to the Internet, I have read from almost all of the sources UG and I mentioned, except for
Commentary. A long time ago, I subscribed to a magazine called
Skeptic which presented two sides to every article.
As for broadcast, I tried listening to
Air America, but couldn't get into it. I always see clips of Limbaugh and Coulter, but it's like watching a train wreck. I can stand Hannity in very short bursts. I take Maddow and Olbermann with a large grain of salt. They are both partisan, but generally do not have the pure vindictiveness of their conservative counterparts. To find the over-the-top liberals that match up with 'professionals' like Limbagh/Coulter, one would have to bring up amatuers like Garofalo. I will concede that Olbermann has added his 'structured rants', which begins to approach but does not match the level of vitriol of his conservative counterparts .
I too heard today on NPR: today was National Pie Day. Congratulations.
Don't forget, Pi day is March 14.
Can we not talk about obama on March 14?
Uh Huh. Ok. Sure. ;)
Since when do you have a real reason -- not the dubious stuff that has apparently satisfied you until now -- to respond so? Can any one person be that unenlightened? Quite beyond belief, chum. Leftists remain leftists only through stubbornly maintained ignorance, while the conservatives stride from enlightenment to enlightenment. No doubts from you or, say, Bruce can change this progress. You might start to wonder what you're missing.:headshake
Don't forget, Pi day is March 14.
At 16:00?
It would be interesting to see you define 'common run'. IMO, Slate, Salon and the New Republic match up well with National Review (I don't know Commentary) and I assume are 'responsible' examples under your definition. As for 'common run', the most watched/read conservatives of late are Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. I am having a hard time finding liberal examples who are both as popular and as damaging to the national psyche.
Not the national psyche, Rich -- the leftist psyche, which frankly requires severe damaging if you want a Republic. If you want a tyranny, stick with the Left. Personally, I'm not having any.
One of the biggest losers under the Bush Era were conservative intellectuals, who seem to have become disenfranchised under the Republican 'embrace stupidity' anti-'elitist' mantra. The only thing that Bush and Buckley had in common were the first two letters of their last names.
Such a "loss" would have been shown in an absence of conservative intellectual effort -- that absence is not in evidence. They're still cranking out the smart stuff, and if anything at a greater pace. What's more, so many of them are Republicans that you just can't show that Republican = intellectually impoverished. This was a clue to me that the left-of-center just ain't got it. Dinesh D'Souza remarked that the bright conservatives don't go into politics as much as their opposite numbers, but instead into business. What I see here is that richlevy is being suckered. Doesn't have to be that way. You may refuse to believe that I'm living proof -- but tell me, from what you've seen is that likely to stop me?
Common run: we could note Harper's and Z. Great founts of unwisdom. I suppose I could go through the labor of reading through them for sentence by sentence quotes -- do you think it would change my opinion?
do you think it would change my opinion?
Not really. Frankly, if you had lived a few thousand years earlier, you would probably have said something like "Nice rocks Moses, but the golden calf is easier to polish and my neighbors wife is pretty damn hot.'
Since when do you have a real reason -- not the dubious stuff that has apparently satisfied you until now -- to respond so? Can any one person be that unenlightened? Quite beyond belief, chum. Leftists remain leftists only through stubbornly maintained ignorance, while the conservatives stride from enlightenment to enlightenment. No doubts from you or, say, Bruce can change this progress. You might start to wonder what you're missing.:headshake
Why yes. Yes one can. Apparently.
Why yes. Yes one can. Apparently.
Whenever UG goes really over-the-top, I have another one of my "On the Internet noone knows you're a dog" conspiracy theories that UG is an alter-ego of an existing Cellarite. That maybe s/he was going to use "Urbanana Gorilla" but decided that doing that would reveal the joke.
I do not believe that a real human being could consistently self-parody the way UG has on a primary account, even anonymously.
Maybe Brianna banned herself because she was unable to continue maintaining two Cellar accounts.;)
..nah.. no way. Claudette is a live and let live person. I don't think she would be obsessed with converting others to her beliefs.
Whenever UG goes really over-the-top, I have another one of my "On the Internet noone knows you're a dog" conspiracy theories that UG is an alter-ego of an existing Cellarite. That maybe s/he was going to use "Urbanana Gorilla" but decided that doing that would reveal the joke.
I do not believe that a real human being could consistently self-parody the way UG has on a primary account, even anonymously.
Maybe Brianna banned herself because she was unable to continue maintaining two Cellar accounts.;)
Except for the Bri part, that is actually a viable theory. :p
Except that UG does have really good posts about food. That's the only place I've seen him rational, well-informed and interesting.
Whenever UG goes really over-the-top, I have another one of my "On the Internet noone knows you're a dog" conspiracy theories that UG is an alter-ego of an existing Cellarite. That maybe s/he was going to use "Urbanana Gorilla" but decided that doing that would reveal the joke.
I do not believe that a real human being could consistently self-parody the way UG has on a primary account, even anonymously.
Maybe Brianna banned herself because she was unable to continue maintaining two Cellar accounts.;)
:lol2:
Hell no. :headshake
That's because I think and I seek. What I find in the seeking tells me the Left ain't nowhere near to getting that quintessential "it" which makes a life worth the living. They don't have a lot in common with me. I have better ambitions than they, and it's not like there's only so much room over here by me: there's plenty left for you.
I know there's nothing so irritating as a good example, yet still a good example is the only one I can in conscience give, and the only one I'm going to.
Yeah, there's that Heinleinian remark, somewhere in
Starship Troopers, about the guy who doesn't have social values worth having, doesn't want them, and will fight like hell to avoid them -- he thought such men really suck, and I agree.
Except that UG does have really good posts about food. That's the only place I've seen him rational, well-informed and interesting.
But you forgot "tasty."
Except for the Bri part, that is actually a viable theory. :p
Hee hee -- too bad for Shawnee's worldview that it founders on the fact that I'm realer even than Brianna; not all your piety or wit can efface a line or blot out a word of it, as Khalil Gibran said. As for the people who say "the man's doing a self-parody," they lack a certain breadth of imagination, and they are desperately kidding themselves in an attempt to remain wallowing in their savage and silly darkness of mind. Funny thing to pick over good and enlightened thinking. Doesn't engender a lot of respect for their intellectual powers, I must say. Does display an impressive degree of procrastination, if you're looking for impressive properties. :headshake
Not the national psyche, Rich -- the leftist psyche, which frankly requires severe damaging if you want a Republican
I can't help but agree with that one.
I do not believe that a real human being could consistently self-parody the way UG has on a primary account, even anonymously.
There's a part of me will always be convinced he's a guy I knew on another forum who liked playing the right wing neocon to the max.
Huh?
I second that 'Huh'?
Hee hee -- too bad for Shawnee's worldview that it founders on the fact that I'm realer even than Brianna; not all your piety or wit can efface a line or blot out a word of it, as Khalil Gibran said. As for the people who say "the man's doing a self-parody," they lack a certain breadth of imagination, and they are desperately kidding themselves in an attempt to remain wallowing in their savage and silly darkness of mind. Funny thing to pick over good and enlightened thinking. Doesn't engender a lot of respect for their intellectual powers, I must say. Does display an impressive degree of procrastination, if you're looking for impressive properties. :headshake
"And as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!"
Hee hee -- too bad for Shawnee's worldview that it founders on the fact that I'm realer even than Brianna; not all your piety or wit can efface a line or blot out a word of it, as Khalil Gibran said. As for the people who say "the man's doing a self-parody," they lack a certain breadth of imagination, and they are desperately kidding themselves in an attempt to remain wallowing in their savage and silly darkness of mind. Funny thing to pick over good and enlightened thinking. Doesn't engender a lot of respect for their intellectual powers, I must say. Does display an impressive degree of procrastination, if you're looking for impressive properties. :headshake
I know Kahlil Gibran. I've read Kahlil Gibran. You, sir, are no Kahlil Gibran. :lol:
I know Kahlil Gibran. I've read Kahlil Gibran. You, sir, are no Kahlil Gibran. :lol:
:rotflol:
Yay...I made Pie roll! :)
Now he (see thread title) is going to postpone the digital tv conversion..... Why he's already performing miracles at 1600. Do they start the annoying ass 'days till' countdowns on the local stations back to new deadline?
I think if you are not prepared by now, you're too lazy or stoopit to be ready on any date. Whatever happened to "special ed"? Cheese & Rice!
It's not because people are too stupid to know what's going on, it's because there's a huge waiting list for the converter box coupons and the fund has run out of money. They weren't expecting so many people to consider $40 to be worth the nuisance value.
I don't know. I got my converter box coupons after waiting until early December to do so. That was after about 10 months of constant commercials, infomercials, and little marquees running down the bottom of the screen explaining to people they might want to pay attention.
Now there are people on the news pissed off 'cause no one told them but especially if they're actually antenna viewers like I was you couldn't get away from the ads. Doesn't government housing include basic cable? Around here it sure does.
Lady on the news was bitching that they wouldn't just bring her converter boxes to her house, like they do the phone book.
Geez...maybe they don't need to watch spongebob that badly.
That's because I think and I seek.
You think there must be some, so you seek nutters that agree with you.:rolleyes:
It would be interesting to see you define 'common run'. IMO, Slate, Salon and the New Republic match up well with National Review (I don't know Commentary) and I assume are 'responsible' examples under your definition. As for 'common run', the most watched/read conservatives of late are Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. I am having a hard time finding liberal examples who are both as popular and as damaging to the national psyche.
I find Christian Science Monitor to be an excellent source on politics. They were probably Bush's biggest critics on almost everything.
One of the biggest losers under the Bush Era were conservative intellectuals, who seem to have become disenfranchised under the Republican 'embrace stupidity' anti-'elitist' mantra. The only thing that Bush and Buckley had in common were the first two letters of their last names.
Nicely said.
Since when do you have a real reason -- not the dubious stuff that has apparently satisfied you until now -- to respond so? Can any one person be that unenlightened? Quite beyond belief, chum. Leftists remain leftists only through stubbornly maintained ignorance, while the conservatives stride from enlightenment to enlightenment. No doubts from you or, say, Bruce can change this progress. You might start to wonder what you're missing.:headshake
bwahahahahahahahahaha :biggrinje
That's because I think and I seek. What I find in the seeking tells me the Left ain't nowhere near to getting that quintessential "it" which makes a life worth the living. They don't have a lot in common with me. I have better ambitions than they, and it's not like there's only so much room over here by me: there's plenty left for you.
I know there's nothing so irritating as a good example, yet still a good example is the only one I can in conscience give, and the only one I'm going to.
Yeah, there's that Heinleinian remark, somewhere in Starship Troopers, about the guy who doesn't have social values worth having, doesn't want them, and will fight like hell to avoid them -- he thought such men really suck, and I agree.
My God. Could you be any more condescending? What makes you think YOU are the ultimate authority on "getting that quintessential "it" which makes a life worth the living," or that your personal
seeking is better than anyone else's? Or that YOU have better ambitions than "they," whoever "they" are? (I assume you mean
all people on the left.) What makes you think YOU have the only social or moral values worth having? Wow. Why don't you go create your own little kingdom for us all to worship and adore?
That post was completely insulting.
That post was completely insulting.
As usual.
As usual.
It is also insulting to conservatives who actually do seek knowlege and adjust accordingly.
Now he (see thread title) is going to postpone the digital tv conversion..... Why he's already performing miracles at 1600. Do they start the annoying ass 'days till' countdowns on the local stations back to new deadline?
I think if you are not prepared by now, you're too lazy or stoopit to be ready on any date. Whatever happened to "special ed"? Cheese & Rice!
Frankly, I wish they wouldn't do it until they've perfected digital. We have cable, 3 TVs have cable from the wall, and one has a digital box. I can't tell you how often the damn box pixalates (sp?) and the picture gets all screwed up and the sound goes out when it happens. It's very annoying, especially since it costs more. You miss important things being said. I've already had the box replaced more than once. They all do it. Comcast SUCKS. Analog actually works better.
What I really wish they would do is make cable truly competetive. It isn't really now. there can be more than one cable company, but they each have their own territories, they don't directly compete with one another. If this was opened up, they way it
should be, the way it was
meant to be, I think service would go up and prices would go down.
I also wish you could just pick the channels you want and pay for them, instead of having to pay for 150 channels (or now, 900, with digital. who can watch 900 channels?), when you only watch 12 of them.
I'm thinking of just having high speed internet, and watching everything I want to see on TV over the internet, connected to the TV. Only problem with that is when people are watching different things in different rooms. *sigh*
It is also insulting to conservatives who actually do seek knowlege and adjust accordingly.
yeparoo. it is.
It is also insulting to conservatives who actually do seek knowledge and adjust accordingly.
Agreed.
It is also insulting to conservatives who actually do seek knowledge and adjust accordingly.
If you find yourself to be always right, and never adjusting, you aren't a critical thinker and will inevitably be wrong.
If you find yourself to be always right, and never adjusting, you aren't a critical thinker and will inevitably be wrong.
Kinda like bushy... :D
Kinda like bushy... :D
I would venture a guess that there are many UT's statement would apply to on both sides of the fence.
Once you are past the age of, say, 18, you have no business believing you are always right. No matter what your political affiliation is!
:angel:
I'm always surprised when people get insulted by UG's posts. Seriously, when he gets on one of his rants as he did back there...don't you just have a giggle and move on? lol I know I don't take him seriously when he starts talking like that.
Sorry UG, but it's true. ;)
Heehee...I'm guessing in UG's world that is the worst thing you could say.
He is rather humorous...I don't get really offended by him because he's just so over the top it's funny. He never seems really angry, just bent on writing some nice prose and telling you that you don't know anything.
:lol:
I think he's a nice bloke stuck inside a bit of a snob who thinks he's pretty good. I'm working hard on 'fixing' him so that he's more 'normal'...just like the rest of us...:rolleyes:
It takes all types. No-one here is all bad, and no-one is all good either. Everyone has their moments when you'd like to clout them over the nog, but when it all comes down to it, there isn't anyone here with a bad heart in my opinion...not even UG!
Well, I'm pretty new, so I don't everyone yet. When I read it, I thought it was insulting. But... I AM used to debating really irrational and contentious people on the right fringe, sooo...
You know they set a new world record at the inaugaration?
Yeah.. there were over 1.5 million people there. But only 14 missed work.
My God. Could you be any more condescending? What makes you think YOU are the ultimate authority on "getting that quintessential "it" which makes a life worth the living," or that your personal seeking is better than anyone else's? Or that YOU have better ambitions than "they," whoever "they" are? (I assume you mean all people on the left.) What makes you think YOU have the only social or moral values worth having? Wow. Why don't you go create your own little kingdom for us all to worship and adore?
That post was completely insulting.
Ask Radar about his Constitution. :D
Well, I'm pretty new, so I don't everyone yet. When I read it, I thought it was insulting. But... I AM used to debating really irrational and contentious people on the right fringe, sooo...
You're not talking about someone we all know and love are you? lol
You're not talking about someone we all know and love are you? lol
No. He and I actually get along, MOST of the time. Although I do have to bring out the whip and ball gag every now and then. :D
There are times I'd like to gag him too actually, and I doubt I'm the only one here. ;)
There are times I'd like to gag him too actually, and I doubt I'm the only one here. ;)
Stop teasing, you live to far away. :D
that's true. Maybe I'll just have a word with sugarpop next time i'm feeling that way. ;)
btw, if you wear a ball gag, does that make you a gimp?
Now look, sugarpop -- welcome to the Cellar -- I get patronizing when I think you've fucked it up back to front and circumferentially. In other words, not fucking getting it when getting it really isn't so hard.
You don't get to live comfortably when and if you do that. I embody a consequence -- actions have them. You don't like that? -- try a different and perhaps better thought, then. You might end up with a happier consequence.
UG...don't be an ass to the new girl. At least let her settle in a bit. :rolleyes:
Huh?
(pouncing) Doublethink!
Reread your Orwell and decide if doublethink is the road to virtue.
UG...don't be an ass to the new girl. At least let her settle in a bit. :rolleyes:
Or an old guy who was away for three years, but back for a return engagement!
lol...yeah that too, but then again, it must be nice to know that nothing changes in the land of UG. ;)
It's nice to see you again btw. :)
lol...yeah that too, but then again, it must be nice to know that nothing changes in the land of UG. ;)
You've mellowed since your MM days!
At least some of us live and learn. :D
There's a few around here who wouldn't agree with you though. That's the way it goes though.
Mellowing in the pursuit of liberty is no virtue, so I don't. But the world of UG is hardly chiseled in granite, either. I just know what should be retained and maintained. You could know as much yourself.
I could never presume to know as much as you UG my friend. ;)
Yup. A legend in your own mind, UG.
You've got yourself convinced. I guess that's a start.
(pouncing) Doublethink!
Reread your Orwell and decide if doublethink is the road to virtue.
No one told me I was supposed to be seeking virtue.
Now I have to rethink
everything. [/whiny voice]
One thing you're going to have to observe, Shawnee, is just how little the responsible rightwingers behave like the common run of the leftwingers.
A responsible winger? What? Being off on one wing or the other automatically disqualifies a person from being responsible.
Well behaved? Maybe. Responsible? Nope.
Change we cannot and do not believe in
This is not the kind of change Obama promised us in 2008.
When Barack Obama was running for the Democratic nomination last year and then for the presidency in the fall, one of the most attractive things about his candidacy was his promise of change that we all could believe in.
He campaigned on a promise of change that would mean no more cozy lobbyists-in-government schemes, no more ethically-challenged appointees ignoring laws that apply to everyone else.
Two weeks into the Obama presidency, we like his campaign better than his administration. While Mr. Obama has set the right tone for approaching the monumentally hard work ahead of this government and while some of his appointments are outstanding, others were either badly botched or reflect a half-hearted commitment to the change principle central to his ballot-box success last fall. Consider:
His nominee for treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, failed to pay $35,000 in self-employment taxes while working for the International Monetary Fund, and did so only after the president-elect made his decision to nominate Geithner for treasury secretary. Mr. Geithner's contention he did not realize he owed the taxes and was not prompted to report them by his tax preparation software strains the imagination at best and sounds more like a man caught in a lamentably lame lie.
His nominee for deputy secretary of defense, William Lynn, is a former lobbyist for Raytheon. His appointee for chief of staff at the Treasury Department, Mark Patterson, lobbied for Goldman Sachs. During his presidential campaign, Obama criticized a culture in which “our leaders have thrown open the doors of … the White House to an army of Washington lobbyists who have turned our government into a game only they can afford to play.” Has anything really changed?
His nominee for chief performance officer, Nancy Killefer, withdrew after disclosure she failed to pay unemployment taxes for household help at her D.C. home.
His nominee for secretary of health and human services, former Sen. Tom Daschle, failed to pay $140,000 in income taxes stemming from his use of a luxury car and driver provided to him by a campaign donor and owner of a business Daschle advised. Daschle said the failure to pay was unintentional because the firm had not provided him with an IRS Form 1099 showing the car as income. His explanation is hollow. As Democratic leader in the Senate, how could he not know that the value of in-kind services must be reported as income? Perhaps the only thing unintentional about this is that Daschle never intended to be found out. While Senate Democrats were willing to stand by him, Daschle had the gumption to withdraw Tuesday and avoid further embarrassment to the Obama administration.
President Obama has a clear vision of a bipartisan government for which millions of Americans earnestly yearn. We wish him the best – and urge him to be more vigilant about adhering to the promises that won him the White House.
I agree with the last paragraph.
Well, in Obama's defense, there is only so much he (and his team) can do to find this stuff out. They are looking at people's tax records and digging into their backgrounds, and asking extensive questions, but if people don't disclose things that aren't there in black and white, there isn't much they can do about it. Yes, they did drop the ball. But it's not like Obama cheated on his taxes. Or like he condones the behavior of those people. (And I'm not really sure they DID cheat. If someone makes an honest mistake, and then repairs it, why is that necessarily a bad thing?) I owed some back taxes once for several years before I paid them. I just think people might be making too big a deal out of this.
. . . must be nice to know that nothing changes in the land of UG. ;)
Appearances, as so often, belie the reality. What's actually going on is that most of what I write is about the permanent things. I doubt I'll have one more word to say about the disgraced Illinois Governor, the distinctly impermanent Rod Blagojevich.
A responsible winger? What? Being off on one wing or the other automatically disqualifies a person from being responsible.
Well behaved? Maybe. Responsible? Nope.
I think you're confusing "extremists" with "people rather to one side or the other of the middle of the road." For me, that's close enough to the "wings."
Welcome to the Cellar.
I think you're confusing "extremists" with "people rather to one side or the other of the middle of the road." For me, that's close enough to the "wings."
Welcome to the Cellar.
Thanks.
TGRR,
Knows that extremism in defense of extremism is no vice.
No one told me I was supposed to be seeking virtue.
High time they did. Virtue; it does a body good.
Now I have to rethink everything. . . .
That's the spirit! :cool:
I gave away my 'virtue' a long time ago, much to my mothers disappointment. :D
Obama’s 5 p.m. signing came barely three hours after the House approved the bill, breaching Obama’s promise to have a five-day period of “sunlight before signing,” as he detailed on the campaign trail and on his website.
Obama signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act only two days after it received final passage last week, and it wasn’t posted on the White House website until after it became law.
Politifact.com, a project of the St. Petersburg Times that tracks Obama’s campaign promises, says the five-day rule is the only pledge he has broken outright.
On the Ledbetter Act, the website wrote: “We recognize that Obama has been in office just a week, but he was very clear about his plan for a five-day comment period, and we can’t see why this one needed to be rushed. It is somewhat ironic that with the same action, Obama both keeps and breaks a campaign promise.”
Not really a big deal, but still.
A White House spokesman refused to comment on the matter.
How unusual.
Tax cheats and broken promises
After just two weeks in office, the Obama administration is having a hard time living up to the Obama campaign's mantra of change for the better. Unless, of course, "better" is defined as an administration made up of a handful of tax cheats and broken promises.
While much of the United States is still basking in the afterglow of an historic election and an inspiring inauguration, much of the world is looking at Obama's first two weeks in office with incredulousness.
From a policy perspective, several countries have voiced concerns about the protectionist aspects of Obama's "stimulus" bill currently making its way through the US Senate. Meanwhile, even left-leaning France has rejected an Obama-style spending binge.
What is more troubling to many, is that at a time when the United States is saddled with unprecedented levels of peacetime (at least officially, as Congress has not declared war) debt, Obama chose outright tax cheat Timothy F. Geithner to be Treasury Secretary.
Yet, evading taxes appears to being de rigeur for the Obama team. Tom Daschle, Obama's pick for secretary of health and human services, who several years back excoriated tax evaders, happened to forget until recently to pay at least $128,000 in taxes. Meanwhile, just today, Nancy Killefer, who failed to pay employment taxes for household help for almost two years, withdrew her candidacy to be the first chief performance officer for the federal government.
Now, it is also coming to light that after promising a clean break with the politics of the past, and promising not to have a lobbyist-tainted administration, exceptions are being made.
All the while, the bill aimed a reviving the American economy is getting more expensive by the moment, with the help of ever more lobbyists. At a time of increasing pressure on the average American household, how many tax cheats, lobbyists, and broken promises will the American public tolerate before it demands real change?
http://www.examiner.com/x-2888-World-News-Examiner~y2009m2d3-Tax-cheats-and-broken-promisesHmmm...the World News Examiner wrote an op-ed slamming Obama? How will he ever sleep at night again?
The same way Bush lost sleep over anything posted by The Daily Kos or Huffington Post. :lol2:
The same way Bush lost sleep over anything posted by The Daily Kos or Huffington Post. :lol2:
Precisely.
What's the point of even posting op-eds, especially from hopelessly biased sources?
For one reason. It provides insight into how fucked up other people think. Just like when ever I read anything referenced from one of those two source. ILMAO.
For one reason. It provides insight into how fucked up other people think. Just like when ever I read anything referenced from one of those two source. ILMAO.
But your biased sources are the very end all/be all of veracity?
LOL.
Where did you get that masters?
But your biased sources are the very end all/be all of veracity?
LOL.
Where did you get that masters?
Point to my biased sources in our discussions. Thanks.
Point to my biased sources in our discussions. Thanks.
http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=19328&page=6
Post 86.
So this guy,
Craig Meister, a former newspaper reporter, studied diplomatic history at the University of Pennsylvania, worked for the State Department and in various newsgathering operations for national news outlets.
With some pretty good credentials, is less credible than a no-name poster hidden behind a forum name on The Cellar? Ok.
It was an opinion post. You remind me of someone who wants to tell the world the Bill O'Reily is a biased news reporter. :lol2:
So this guy,
Craig Meister, a former newspaper reporter, studied diplomatic history at the University of Pennsylvania, worked for the State Department and in various newsgathering operations for national news outlets.
With some pretty good credentials, is less credible than a no-name poster hidden behind a forum name on The Cellar? Ok.
It was an opinion post. You remind me of someone who wants to tell the world the Bill O'Reily is a biased news reporter. :lol2:
So, you view op-ed as a worthy contribution to a debate?
:lol:
So, you view op-ed as a worthy contribution to a debate?
:lol:
Op eds from a person with known credentials always contributes to a debate of nameless faceless forum participatants like you and me. Feel free to make critical comments about the source of the reference and I will feel free to do the same about any of your sources. Isn't that why we are debating? Or are you going to now tell me how fucked up all my sources are so I can turn around and do the same to you and then we both get to put each other on ignore and the discussion ends. Or would you rather discuss the merits of the reference? You choose.:D
God, can we just move on from the tax cheats? Personally, I think one would be hard pressed to find ANYONE in Washington who had never flubbed their taxes in their own favor.
Op eds from a person with known credentials always contributes to a debate of nameless faceless forum participatants like you and me.
No, it does not. Op eds are opinion, which is useless in debate.
Where did you say you got your masters, again?
God, can we just move on from the tax cheats? Personally, I think one would be hard pressed to find ANYONE in Washington who had never flubbed their taxes in their own favor.
I have no problem with it, just don't nominate them to be in charge of the IRS, ok? :D
No, it does not. Op eds are opinion, which is useless in debate.
Where did you say you got your masters, again?
So you are ready to post your political credential? Ok, go ahead.
So you are ready to post your political credential? Ok, go ahead.
Nope. I make no claims of having a masters in political <insert need of the moment>.
I do, however, have a basic understanding of debating, and opinion is of precisely zero use. Anyone who has taken any classes in political science would know this.
Nope. I make no claims of having a masters in political <insert need of the moment>.
I do, however, have a basic understanding of debating, and opinion is of precisely zero use. Anyone who has taken any classes in political science would know this.
So you don't want to discuss anything with anyone who disagrees with you or challenges your thinking. Ok. Just move on and don't respond to any post you disagree with. Or you could just make personal insults about the integrity of the poster or their understanding of the issues.
In the end you will not change anyones mind and no one will change yours. Great, that settles it. Thanks. Later.
btw, I am not the one that brought up education as an issue of understanding statistics.
So you don't want to discuss anything with anyone who disagrees with you or challenges your thinking.
That's not what I said.
Please exercise more intellectual honesty. Thanks.
Obama's Press List
Membership shall have its privileges.
About half-way through President Obama's press conference Monday night, he had an unscripted question of his own. "All, Chuck Todd," the President said, referring to NBC's White House correspondent. "Where's Chuck?" He had the same strange question about Fox News's Major Garrett: "Where's Major?"
The problem wasn't the lighting in the East Room. The President was running down a list of reporters preselected to ask questions. The White House had decided in advance who would be allowed to question the President and who was left out.
Presidents are free to conduct press conferences however they like, but the decision to preselect questioners is an odd one, especially for a White House famously pledged to openness. We doubt that President Bush, who was notorious for being parsimonious with follow-ups, would have gotten away with prescreening his interlocutors. Mr. Obama can more than handle his own, so our guess is that this is an attempt to discipline reporters who aren't White House favorites.
Why is Obama doing this? I really don't get it. There seems to be no need. He is smart, articulate, savvy and experienced enough. :eyebrow:
Few accounts of Monday night's event even mentioned the curious fact that the White House had picked its speakers in advance.
We hope that omission wasn't out of fear of being left off the list the next time.
Keep that hope.
So much for the unscripted open questions. Not that I am shocked. Bush probably did it as well. Reminds me of the famous stories about never calling on Helen "The Wicked Witch" Thomas.
But Bush never said ran on being transparent and open and ......
But if he's going to pre-select to his advantage, why pick a Fox News guy? Maybe the pre-selection had nothing to do with what questions they were going to ask, but was a reward/punishment for unrelated things (which would still be weird; I'm just saying, if you're going to cherry-pick friendly questioners, the Fox News guy probably isn't the one you turn to.)
So much for the unscripted open questions. Not that I am shocked. Bush probably did it as well. Reminds me of the famous stories about never calling on Helen "The Wicked Witch" Thomas.
Where in the article does it suggest that the questions were pre-screened or scripted?
I dont get the story here.
Pre-selecting reporters? So what. This has little or nothing to do with transparency
In a national press conference with a hundred+ reporters in the room, you dont want to open it up to the possibility of questions about local issues by the reporters from Dubuque or Peoria.
There is a reason why the network guys, the cable guys, the big dailies always get the questions...and Helen!
But the questions are not pre-screened.
Town meetings are for both local and national consumption, not national press conferences, and unlike the Bush administration, these have not been pre-screened for the make-up of the audience or questions.
Town meetings are for both local and national consumption, not national press conferences,
EVERYTHING is international - everything. Welcome to the age of the internet. That is just a simple fact.
Obama chose a normally very conservative town where the unemployment rate was more than double the nat'l average on purpose.
I love the way that the CEO of Catepiller countered what Obama said at the same little dog and pony show.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/doh-caterpillar.htmlI love the way that the CEO of Catepiller countered what Obama said at the same little dog and pony show.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/doh-caterpillar.html
Transparency...No pre-screening.
I would think you would like that rather than the scripted responses during the Bush town halls.
This one caught my eye:
John Boehner, House Minority Leader: "
the future of our party is Cao" referring to Anh Cao.
Anh Cao: "I'm
voting along what my conscience dictates and the needs of the 2nd Congressional District dictate, even if I were to be the only member of the GOP to vote for the stimulus package.."
A quote from the link:
Rep. Steve Scalise, R- Jefferson, said Wednesday that the bill that came back from the Senate and was emerging from the conference committee appeared bigger and worse than the original passed by the House.
"They are trying to sneak in a lot of things -- major policy and spending changes -- without any public input," Scalise said. "That is not the change of direction we've heard about for so many months."
Scalise said Congress is once again being rushed to judgment, as it was last fall when it approved the $700 billion financial bailout, which he opposed and which, he said, is widely seen as a failure.
Its amazing how they seem to cover both sides of an issue at the same time. Truly a talent of sorts.
Transparency...No pre-screening.
I would think you would like that rather than the scripted responses during the Bush town halls.
What does that have to do with my comment?
"They are trying to sneak in a lot of things -- major policy and spending changes -- without any public input,"
no way. :rolleyes:
Rep. Steve Scalise, R- Jefferson, said Wednesday that the bill that came back from the Senate and was emerging from the conference committee appeared bigger and worse than the original passed by the House.
The conference committee bill is about $30 billion smaller than both the Senate and House bills.
Worse? I think so because its not big enough!
Obama's Press List
Membership shall have its privileges.
Why is Obama doing this? I really don't get it. There seems to be no need. He is smart, articulate, savvy and experienced enough. :eyebrow:
I thought that was odd as well. I'm hoping maybe he just wanted make sure different news organizations got a question, and so had a list of reporters for various ones prepared.
I love the way that the CEO of Catepiller countered what Obama said at the same little dog and pony show.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/doh-caterpillar.html
All he said is that wouldn't have an
immediate effect because it will take time for the money to get out. I think everyone knows the impact will not be immedaite, but gradual. He still said he supports the bill.
This one caught my eye:
John Boehner, House Minority Leader: "the future of our party is Cao" referring to Anh Cao.
Anh Cao: "I'm voting along what my conscience dictates and the needs of the 2nd Congressional District dictate, even if I were to be the only member of the GOP to vote for the stimulus package.."
John Boehner is a tool. Notice how he always looks constipated? :D
The conference committee bill is about $30 billion smaller than both the Senate and House bills.
Worse? I think so because its not big enough!
I agree.
John Boehner is a tool. Notice how he always looks constipated? :D
heh...yeah I know him. Probably wanting a cig.
He does have a habit of crying on the floor of the House:
[INDENT][youtube]Ir1UABBe1v4[/youtube][/INDENT]
But he is such a fucking hypocrite when it comes to the old Republican House rules that, as part of the leadership, he helped implement as opposed to the new Democratic House rules that make him cry...its hard to take him seriously.
All the ladies in town who think they're somebody would swooooooon over Boehner, the men just kiss his butt. Ugh.
Soccer. heh.
It's like a sport, only without men. Like Olympic Womens' Badminton.
We should have another new sport at the O games next time. Extreme bitterness.
Wow if that happens we could have a gold medalist in our midst.
We should have another new sport at the O games next time. Extreme bitterness.
I can do that. Dibs on team captain.
ahh... hell w/dat!
plus they're prolly some of our atheletes that could have been exposed to secondhand potsmoke.
Not to mention the whale penis episode.
However bitter, I enjoy your posts. Welcome to the Cellar.
ahh... hell w/dat!
plus they're prolly some of our atheletes that could have been exposed to secondhand potsmoke.
Not to mention the whale penis episode.
However bitter, I enjoy your posts. Welcome to the Cellar.
Thank you.
And what the hell was all that nonsense about, anyway? Phelps is - by definition - the greatest athlete ever, and they get pissy because he ripped a bong?
WTF?
Just say no? How impolite. Just say no, thank you.
But I'd rather say yes, please pass the funz stuff. ;)
Mazda, who's using Phelps to sell their cars in China, had him make an apology to the Chinese people. That's it, all is forgiven, here's your million dollars, let's sell some cars. Fuck Kellogg's.
Agreed!
He's a kid, relatively. So he smoked some doobage...is that so wrong?
Actually it should be a promotional. Maybe he stomps the shit out of everyone else because they don't bump the bongo, eh?
RE: Kellogg's
LOFL... yep. I think they have someone who'll keep 'm crunchitized.
We need this dude on our swim team. Let's all send him some weed.
New thread alert!!!!!
~~~Cellar Weed Exchange~~~
Actually it should be a promotional. Maybe he stomps the shit out of everyone else because they don't bump the bongo, eh?
RE: Kellogg's
LOFL... yep. I think they have someone who'll keep 'm crunchitized.
We need this dude on our swim team. Let's all send him some weed.
New thread alert!!!!!
~~~Cellar Weed Exchange~~~
Special K! Theyyyyyyyy're Gr...uh, what was I talking about?
I think there's a difference between the demographics for a car manufacturer and a breakfast cereal. I can understand Kellogs point of view here. Lots of kiddies eat cornflakes and Phelps is a role model.
You don't want your kids sucking a pipe after their bowl of cornies do you?...well do you???
Actually, considering the munchies, maybe it was a bad decision to dump him. Instead, they could have come up with a new slogan. Something like, "For the times when you just have to eat something!"
Heehee, I think I made the point earlier that they missed a great marketing connection with the munchies.
Now, about this new Cellar exchange...
I think there's a difference between the demographics for a car manufacturer and a breakfast cereal. I can understand Kellogs point of view here. Lots of kiddies eat cornflakes and Phelps is a role model.
So, of course, he has to stop being anything resembling an actual person, thus rendering him totally unbelievable.
You don't want your kids sucking a pipe after their bowl of cornies do you?...well do you???
My kids don't have a clue who he is. Now, if you ask them about the latest music video star, well, that's another story.
Actually, considering the munchies, maybe it was a bad decision to dump him. Instead, they could have come up with a new slogan. Something like, "For the times when you just have to eat something!"
Oh, yeah. Or "Kellogs: Because stuffing your face with Doritos is gauche".
My opinion is that sports stars get paid a lot of money and most of that comes only because they are loved by the public. You don't shit where the money's coming from. Yes you can have a normal life, but learn to be discreet and try not to get caught breaking the law, no matter how archaic that law might happen to be.
My kids know who he is and I suspect most kids in school know who he is. maybe yours are too young.
Ali:"My opinion is that sports stars get paid a lot of money and most of that comes only because they are loved by the public. You don't shit where the money's coming from. Yes you can have a normal life, but learn to be discreet and try not to get caught breaking the law, no matter how archaic that law might happen to be."
"My kids know who he is and I suspect most kids in school know who he is. maybe yours are too young."
No problem.
pssstt... you could have just read her post again.;)
After years of rigorous training, the Olympics, then a whirlwind of TV shows, interviews and being told do this/do that, he finally had a chance to relax with old friends.
:cry: Leave Michael Alone :cry:
Some great friends he has. lol
MICHAEL:
We love your stroke even though you smoke.
Your stroke is long, even with a bong
You swim like fish, even though you smoked a dish.
NP, man...people don't really care.
:lol:
Just to get back on topic....
Where's the President Obama who promised to unite us?
Before it gets lost in the mists of time, here's a fact worth recalling. Prior to President Obama's inauguration, his team had big dreams about the stimulus bill. As Politico.com reported early last month, "Obama aides have said they want to get 80 votes in the Senate to demonstrate bipartisan support and so that Democrats alone cannot be blamed for the breathtaking spending."
That's only six weeks old, but already it feels like ancient history. The hopes of our government uniting to face the staggering financial crisis have been dashed. Instead, we have a deepening mistrust that is so infuriating because it is so ordinary.
With only three Republicans supporting the $800 billion stimulus package, and with its 1,100 pages getting a final vote before they are read, the measure that was supposed to lift the nation has added to the sense of breakdown.
The solution is now part of the problem.
Obama deserves most of the blame. Because he's the President with a mandate and a congressional majority, Republicans would have had to go along - if the President had kept his word to change Washington.
But Obama isn't keeping his word. He is shutting out views that don't match his own, and is back on the campaign trail, as though giving a speech to adoring crowds liberates him from the burdens of the White House. After more than two years of campaigning to get there, one would think he would be ready to govern.
The evidence that he is instead choosing a partisan path and a permanent campaign lies most recently in Sen. Judd Gregg's abrupt withdrawal to be commerce secretary. The New Hampshire Republican's decision to join the administration was hailed as proof of Obama's sincere bipartisan outreach, so Gregg's withdrawal over his unease with Obama's policies must be seen as proof to the contrary.
This is no small moment in the making of an administration. The sense of disappointment in Obama is spreading, as are concerns about the consequences of a bait-and-switch presidency.
The global selloff in stock markets after Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner put out a half-baked plan for fixing the financial system is a clear verdict. His arguing that investors missed the point is telling.
Once again, a White House has all the answers and everybody else is wrong. Obama, like his predecessor, doesn't lack for confidence, only for others who share it.
Just to get back on topic....
Where's the President Obama who promised to unite us?
I'm not sure I get your point?
One conservative columnist at the NY Post who thinks Obama deserves most of the blame for the continued partisanship after one month....represents what? Public opinion?
You could have simply posted Limbaugh.
Obama--the grumblings?
Where are the grumblings coming from other than Republicans who are unwilling to budge from their rigid ideology at all (
the stimulus plan MUST be mostly tax breaks!) Damn, you got 1/3 of the package in tax breaks - an accommodation by Obama.....(
the Democrats are passing the burden on to our kids)....hypocrites...look at your own record and policies that contributed to the mess we're in before you start throwing stones.
All I have heard for the last few weeks is a lot of misrepresentations of the stimulus bill (
the mouse, the mouse!) and lots whining when they don't get everything they want.
Suck it up...you're the minority. You have to give a little. In fact, you have to give alot to get a little. That's what it means to be the minority.
But I honestly don't believe the Republicans want to compromise or build consensus. I think they have chosen the strategy of putting all their eggs in the basket that if Obama fails, it will be to their advantage in 2010.
You could have simply posted Limbaugh.
Maybe he should have just posted a poll.:D
Actually, said "rigid ideology" is better called adult thinking. Being sloppy about this drives inflation more powerfully than anything else: I'll predict that the Act will cause noticeable inflation at a greater rate.
Simply put, Government debt drives inflation, and the Government is going to create dollars out of nothing. Real antiinflationary measures mean retiring at least eight tenths of that debt. Libertarians like me consider that outside of genuine emergencies like prosecuting a war, there's really nothing a government does that necessitates borrowing money to cover anyway.
You cannot, however, absolve the Democrats of fiscal blame -- not while Barney Frank yet lives and whose record is one of mandating that financial institutions make those poorly secured loans rather than erring on the side of security; nor can you with the Democrats' record of doing things that declare their economic illiteracy. I've never encountered a display of sound, conservative, anti-deficit management by Democratic Administrations in all my fifty-two years. Clinton may possibly have approached it, some argue, but we'd've needed another ten years of peacetime to actually have achieved a paydown of the national debt or a genuine surplus.
Maybe he should have just posted a poll.:D
Nah...you and Classic can keep posting your partisan editorials and claim they represent something resembling public opinion.
Actually, said "rigid ideology" is better called adult thinking. Being sloppy about this drives inflation more powerfully than anything else: I'll predict that the Act will cause noticeable inflation at a greater rate.
Simply put, Government debt drives inflation
Adult thinking is not limited to one economic model...unless you are a rigid ideologue.
Another equally adult economic model is that government spending gets you out of deep recession and hundreds of thousands of job losses every month.
We tried the adult thinking of deregulation and supply side trickle down economics....and it that didnt work....in fact, it contributed to the problems we're now facing.
Why do you believe that one?! Read Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson to repair your thinking.
Name, if you can, one example of a government EVER ONCE ANYWHERE spending a nation into prosperity: public sector spending doesn't make prosperity -- it can protect prosperity generated elsewhere. An antelope's horns don't contribute to him fattening up or increasing bone and muscle, yet they cost him some energy and materials (resources) to make. But those horns not only attract mates, they stick a lion pretty good too. The antelope benefits, but the benefits should be correctly understood.
The New Deal was recently and authoritatively deconstructed, was it not? The Depression continued right through the New Deal, altogether unaffected -- though the public works projects of the time were indisputably helpful afterwards. Only the increase of production and employment caused by the Second World War, combined with not getting those factories and producers of the sinews of both war and wealth bombed or even hardly damaged (Port Chicago's dockside explosion being perhaps the loudest exception to the trend), ended the Great Depression.
The scales have long fallen from my eyes, Redux. Should you therefore remain blinded, not quite off your road to Damascus?
Why do you believe that one?! Read Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson to repair your thinking.
I'm more of a Keynesian.
Nice revisionist history on the New Deal.
The New Deal raised the GDP significantly between 32-37...until FDR slowed it down in 37 because of pressure from Republicans that it was creating deficits. Then the growth stopped until WW II.
Name, if you can, one example of a government EVER ONCE ANYWHERE spending a nation into prosperity: public sector spending doesn't make prosperity
The short term spending is to get out of the deep hole created by supply side economics and deregulation. It is not intended as a long term growth strategy but rather a short term fix to stabilize the economy.
The scales have long fallen from my eyes, Redux. Should you therefore remain blinded, not quite off your road to Damascus?
Hey..im still waiting for you to respond to my post on your claim that Republicans have more integrity....but you went silent on that one.
Nah...you and Classic can keep posting your partisan editorials and claim they represent something resembling public opinion.
And I'll just keep laughing at your polls and pointing out how weak of statistical significance they have among real number crunchers.
And I'll just keep laughing at your polls and pointing out how weak of statistical significance they have among real number crunchers.
Cool !
I reckon the only thing worth doing is the longterm, and be damned to the short -- even the present batch of pols tell us "we didn't get into this overnight and we won't get out of it overnight." I see no example of spending into prosperity from anywhere or anywhen comes to mind.
Redux, dear, stick to the question at hand rather than hurriedly changing the subject. That doesn't work; only a moron will so continue having been advised of this, okay? The record speaks for itself: the Republicans think like adults. The Democrats need to. This is why no man of palpable sense supports them, until they wise up. Wisdom, in our Capitol, remains in too short supply.
UG...have you been drinking too much brandy again? ;)
Redux, dear, stick to the question at hand. The record speaks for itself: the Republicans think like adults. The Democrats need to. This is why no man of palpable sense supports them, until they wise up. Wisdom, in our Capitol, remains in too short supply.
UG...I'm not surprised you dont want to respond to links I posted on the
Republican corruption of the 109th Congress (and the influence peddling of the K Street Crowd)...or the
internal DOJ reports on illegal politicizing of the DoJ.
Adult thinking and behavior?
Keeps those blinders on.
I just might keep raising those issues every time you sling the "republicans think like adults" or have more "integrity" bullshit. :)
UG...I'm not surprised you dont want to respond to links I posted on the Republican corruption of the 109th Congress (and the influence peddling of the K Street Crowd)...or the internal DOJ reports on illegal politicizing of the DoJ.
Adult thinking and behavior?
Keeps those blinders on.
I just might keep raising those issues every time you sling the "republicans think like adults" or have more "integrity" bullshit. :)
I understand your point here but you do realize that the one department criticized in the report is only One of Sixty-One Divisions in the DOJ. You are heaping the bad behavior in one department and basically punishing another 60 departments by your sensationalism over the improper activities of one. The DOJ is filled with good people who do good hard work for all the right reasons. Keep things in perspective will you so you don't sound like a mouth piece for MoveOnDotOrg. I am not criticizing the factual statements of the report, things were defiantly amiss in the organization. Those guys just happened to get caught IMHO.
http://www.usdoj.gov/02organizations/02_1.htmlI'm not sure I get your point?
You could have simply posted Limbaugh.
Obama--the grumblings?
That’s what this thread is for – to post grumblings about Obama.
Who else do you think they are going to come from other than the R’s?
look at your own record and policies that contributed to the mess we're in before you start throwing stones.
The R’s have a lot of culpability for their actions – AGREED!
Repeating the R’s mistakes will not help. Obama ran his campaign on “Change.” I’m still hopeful that this is what we are going to get.
Suck it up...you're the minority. You have to give a little. In fact, you have to give alot to get a little. That's what it means to be the minority.
Agreed. The R’s need to deal with it and stop whining. Whining isn’t going to accomplish anything.
But I honestly don't believe the Republicans want to compromise or build consensus. I think they have chosen the strategy of putting all their eggs in the basket that if Obama fails, it will be to their advantage in 2010.
I am not really blaming Obama as much as those involved in the congressional war that is taking place. This is where real change needs to take place. The D’s are doing what the R’s did when they were in power. Nothing has changed at all. The R’s are going to do NOTHING for the next two years and play everything off, as it was the D’s plans and programs. That is bullshit on both sides. I think the R's really believe that the public is stupid enough to believe that. Well good – then those idiots won’t get elected either. The party needs to be purged of those people anyway. They are delusional. The D's want some R's to sign on so that they can claim bipartisanship and not be solely responsible for the success or failure of Pelosi's plan. I think there is plenty of culpability on both sides. This is the same old shit - not change at all.
Additionally, I do not see a rebalancing in the 2010 elections where the R’s regain lost seats. If anything I think they will lose more. If Obama's programs don’t work the D’s still have the “We didn’t create this mess” or “It takes time” to respond with. Both of which are relatively reasonable.
I hope the natural cycle of the economy combined with whatever measures the Gov’t has done so far will enable that to happen.
That’s my grumble for the moment with a ray of sunshine - perhaps.
I understand your point here but you do realize that the one department criticized in the report is only One of Sixty-One Divisions in the DOJ. You are heaping the bad behavior in one department and basically punishing another 60 departments by your sensationalism over the improper activities of one. The DOJ is filled with good people who do good hard work for all the right reasons. Keep things in perspective will you so you don't sound like a mouth piece for MoveOnDotOrg. I am not criticizing the factual statements of the report, things were defiantly amiss in the organization. Those guys just happened to get caught IMHO.
http://www.usdoj.gov/02organizations/02_1.html
Lets see:
We have the former AG Gonzales facing possible obstruction of justice and perjury charges for lying to Congress about the firing of the US Attorneys. (
link)
We have the former head of the Civil Rights Divisions action of politicizing the department as described in the above investigation, including blocking the work of hard working DoJ attorneys. (
link)
W have several DoJ attorneys DoJ attorneys who may have "deliberately slanted their legal advice to provide the White House with the conclusions it wanted to justify torture." (
link)
We have a former top aid to the AG who stated under oath that she violated the Civil Service Act as many as 40 times by basing hiring on political affiliation and a DOJ report found the same (
link)
We have another internal investigation of the firing of the US attorneys that concluded that it severely damaged the credibility of the Department and raised doubts about the integrity of Department prosecutive decisions. (
link)
I would say that is the worst politicization of the DoJ, the one department that is supposed to enforce the law and be above politics, in our lifetime.
I would say it is sensationalizing a few bad apples at the top. Their rot did not always trickle down. Only one department has had formal complaints, there are some others under investigation. So far no one has been charged. Most of the problems were in the Civil Rights Divsion as you point out or with the political appointment of Gonzales. The rest are speculative or under investigation. Don't accuse the whole department because of a few bad actors.
Don't accuse the whole department because of a few bad actors.
I am not accusing the whole department, I am accusing those "adult thinking" political appointees with "integrity" at the top.
Most wont be charge with a crime because their acts were not criminal. For the most part, with the exception of Gonzales' alleged perjury, they were violations of administrative law and department policies and procedures that results in firing. Most resigned before they could be fired. Others may face disbarment.
I am not accusing the hold department, I am accusing those "adult thinking" political appointees at the top.
Redux: I would say that is the worst politicization of the DoJ, the one department that is supposed to enforce the law and be above politics, in our lifetime.
Every single member of the DOJ is an adult and capable of clear, concise, moral judgement.
Every single member of the DOJ is an adult and capable of clear, concise, moral judgement.
I agree, but UG seems to be of the opinion that only Republicans are "adult thinking" and have "greater integrity". That was the point of my posts. But I dont expect to respond.
but I have to laugh at how you guys keep finding a way to excuse the actions of the Bush administration.
Speaking of the Justice Department....
From
here
February 04, 2009
Justice Department Rehires Attorney Fired for Being Gay
Leslie Hagen has returned to her job as an attorney for the Justice Department, 10 months after she was sacked for being gay.
Despite sexual-orientation discrimination protections within the Justice Department, Hagen lost her job. Monica Goodling, senior counsel to Gonzales, was responsible for removing Hagen from her position, and after an investigation by the inspector general it was discovered that Goodling had also been instrumental in preventing Hagen from seeking a new position within the Justice Department.
In attempting to fill Hagen's open position a nationwide search was conducted by the Justice Department. Hagen herself was one of the many who applied, and after several rounds of interviews, Hagen was offered her former position. On Monday, Hagen assumed a permanent position at the department's Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys. (She had formerly worked on a yearly contract basis.)
The good news is that she went from yearly contract to permanent. The bad news is that they have still not admitted guilt and paid her legal fees.
Whatever happened to Monica Goodling?
I agree, but UG seems to be of the opinion that only Republicans are "adult thinking" and have "greater integrity". That was the point of my posts. But I dont expect to respond.
but I have to laugh at how you guys keep finding a way to excuse the actions of the Bush administration.
Don't lump me in with that thinking. I don't think that way. I make no excuses for Bush that I can't and don't relate to any previous administration, including but not limited to Demoncrats.
Speaking of the Justice Department....
From here
The good news is that she went from yearly contract to permanent. The bad news is that they have still not admitted guilt and paid her legal fees.
Whatever happened to Monica Goodling?
I would guess the question is did they sue for legal fees at the time of the original complaint? Or did she just bargin with them.
Whatever happened to Monica Goodling?
For a lighter recollection of Monica and the DoJ
She was a top deputy to Ashcroft when he was AG and was the one who reportedly ordered drapes to be placed over the partially nude statue of the Spirit of Justice in the Justice Department's Great Hall where he would hold press conferences.
The press would takes pics from an angle to show Ashcroft right below her breasts or so they were accused by Monica of doing it deliberately to embarrass stuffy old Ashcroft.
[INDENT]
[/INDENT]
And then this came out after she had the statue covered.."I hide you, babe"
http://polisat.com/ashcroft/ihideyoubabe.html
In some ways, the "cover up" was very symbolic of the Bush DoJ.
I think John was just worried that people would be distracted trying to figure out which one was the bigger boob.;)
I would say it is sensationalizing a few bad apples at the top. Their rot did not always trickle down. Only one department has had formal complaints, there are some others under investigation. So far no one has been charged. Most of the problems were in the Civil Rights Divsion as you point out or with the political appointment of Gonzales. The rest are speculative or under investigation. Don't accuse the whole department because of a few bad actors.
Once you find the rot, you assume the whole tree is bad until you prove otherwise.
I think John was just worried that people would be distracted trying to figure out which one was the bigger boob.;)
Much to my shock and surprise, he turned out to be okay in the end...I am referring to when Gonzales and his flunky tried to get him to go along with illegal wiretapping and torture while he was whacked out from surgery.
Much to my shock and surprise, he turned out to be okay in the end...I am referring to when Gonzales and his flunky tried to get him to go along with illegal wiretapping and torture while he was whacked out from surgery.
Yeah, but once the decision was made after he stepped down, I didn't hear anything about him criticizing it.
I will give him props for having limits when noone else did.
Yeah, but once the decision was made after he stepped down, I didn't hear anything about him criticizing it.
Not his place, in his mind, I suppose. He was quitted, so he left.
I will give him props for having limits when noone else did.
Him, Russ Fiengold, Ron Paul, Chuck Hagel. That's about it.
Redux, that's because it's so hard to find adult thought among the common run of the Democrats. Once you've totted up Joe Lieberman, then who? It gets thin after that.
The stimulus is nothing other than a borrowing to cover the damage of bad borrowing, is it not? That's the overarching grounds for criticizing the stimulus bill. Doesn't sound like something to repose confidence in to me, yet remarkably large numbers of Democratic congresscritters are alllllllll for it. Somebody is NOT PAYING ATTENTION to the federal deficit, and that is the thing that debases the currency. But who's stopping the debasement of the currency?
Redux, that's because it's so hard to find adult thought among the common run of the Democrats. Once you've totted up Joe Lieberman, then who? It gets thin after that.
Liebermann isn't a democrat.
And I was impressed with Fiengold's record, during the last 8 years of fucked up lawmaking.
but I have to laugh at how you guys keep finding a way to excuse the actions of the Bush administration.
The actions of the Bush Administration have not imperiled you. They have not imperiled Mercenary. They have not imperiled me. They haven't even imperiled that leftist ass tw. Objective observers will agree with me, noting full enjoyment of the Bill of Rights, no impairment of legal gun trafficking, and no effectual terrorist assaults on US soil, the battle having been carried to the terrs rather than fought in our streets. They will note there has never been a knock on the door at midnight at the Administration's behest. My civil rights have not been reduced in the slightest, nor have yours. Even radar, who could generate some verbiage about this thing or that being a violation of civil rights, is only going to come off like a madman when he tries. (His ideas of what are civil rights violations seem more akin to offenses to his bloated ego than anything unconstitutional.)
The actions of the Bush Administration have made the Left howl, and as a general rule, what's bad for the Left benefits the Republic. You could examine matters from that angle and see if I'm right.
Really, you are where you were in 2000, and with regard to gun rights, you've been better off in the eight years between then and now. This is at least a small net plus.
The Left has attached itself to this remarkably stupid, blatantly pro-fascist idea that actively trying to win a war with undemocratic, explicitly fascist shitheads should be not merely somehow reprehensible, but somehow should be made illegal too. Absurd, and demonstrative of just how Nazi the Left is, and how closed its mind is to the wonders, rewards and joys of republican democracy. It tells me the farther left of center your philosophies are, the less likely you are to be competent at anything of value in this world, exceptions like George Soros notwithstanding -- but George never did strike me as a poster boy for wellgroundedness either, what with being the billionaire communist. It may be illustrative that he's approximately the sole example to be found on all the Earth.
UG...the facts speak for themselves.
Circumventing FISA and spying on citizens w/o a warrant.
Politiicizing the DoJ, particularly the civil rights division and using DoJ resources to attempt to create bogus voting rights cases to block minority voters.
Blocking or delaying FOIA requests and limiting the "peoples" right to know.
Blocking or editing federal science research that did not meet their ideological test.
The politicizing of Inspectors General in many executive branch agencies.
The list is endless.
Gun rights? WTF?
And your condescension it just a load of crap in attempt to divert the facts.
In fac, the Bush administration has made most of the country howl...not just the left.
You're an adult thinker..so am I ....and we both know the game you're playing.
And how about those Republicans of "integrity" in the 109th Congress...and the K Street influence peddling (I thought you might another reminder :) )
You mistake me for playing a game. What I am doing is enlightening you whether you're with it enough to appreciate it or not. The blinkers have to come off, and then you are fully free, adult, and human.
When were you or anyone you know wiretapped? I haven't been, either, and I might theoretically be a better candidate for monitoring: decades ago, I held compartmented access to top-secret information, pursuant to my job at the time. Could somebody wonder if I have secrets to sell?
People have hollered that "FISA is being circumvented" but a closer look says they're still controlling intelligence gathering on communications between foreign "persons of interest" and US persons speaking with them.
FOIA's access frankly goes up and down, broadening and then narrowing, and its determination of what is releasable and what isn't remains closed to the public -- just as it always was. As a onetime intelligence professional, I can say I understand why this must be. It boils down to one thing: you never compromise your sources. Make your targets figure 'em out themselves. Meanwhile, you do all in your power to let the targets stay complacent. All in your power amounts to quite a bit.
"Bogus voting rights cases to block minority voters" is a popular shibboleth among the Left, but evidence remains lacking. Even the most determinedly anti-Administration newspapers have nothing they'd call solid. And if they have no confidence, as much as they'd prefer to...
That you would say "Gun rights? WTF?" that blankly illustrates how terribly unversed you are in a republic's fundamentals -- that you don't know enough to value even this basic thing. Sorry, Redux, but that was patronizable in the largest manner. You must grasp this national fundamental before you can think intelligently, and if you're a man of parts, you can grasp it with ease. If you're not smart, you will exhibit no understanding. It is a basic mechanism for "a Republic, if you can keep it."
Nobody I know was howling in this country, Redux, and I'm no hermit. Your circle of friends seems too small, too cloney, and too much an echo chamber. Never confuse the Left with "the country;" the data do not support this idea.
You mistake me for playing a game. What I am doing is enlightening you whether you're with it enough to appreciate it or not. The blinkers have to come off, and then you are fully free, adult, and human..
Thanks for your revisionist enlightenment.
"Fully free, adult, and human"....could you be more childish in your characterizations of those who disagree with you?
But if you want to play that game, I think you're an arrogant blowhard.
BTW, its a game with me...I dont take people like you in a political forum very seriously. But its fun to cut you down with facts. :)
If you had facts at your disposal, I daresay you could have fun. But you aren't having the fun you think you're having.
Let's see, no wiretapping of self or friends, or even enemies, correct? No midnight knock on the door either, I daresay.
No labor camps for citizens either, come to that.
Arrogant? Maybe: and look at what I have for opposition. Try three of the examples: one who cannot escape a taint of antisemitism and has no clear idea maybe she should, and a couple of neurotic bellowers I'd not invite to dinner, one who believes everything the Soviets ever said about the United States, and one who doesn't, but is a strict Constitutional obstructionist. Can anyone besides themselves take them seriously? I've earned every atom of arrogance I command, and I've earned it here.
No support for the "blocking minority votes" idea comes to mind, I see.
Nonetheless, I do respect your intellectual abilities. You can write. I think you try and be fair -- I'm just still reckoning "garbage in -->garbage out." Time to take out the garbage.
If you had facts at your disposal, I daresay you could have fun. But you aren't having the fun you think you're having.
Then why am I sitting here laughing at you...you pompous ass.
I'm off to bed now...still laughing :D
Couldn't tell ya. If you can't believe me, how does that turn me into a liar, or an anything?
Indeed, do you see how your replies progressively retreat from cogency? You shouldn't do that.
Now off to insert a damning Janet Reno quote -- maybe the Blagojevich thread.
UG...the facts speak for themselves.
Circumventing FISA and spying on citizens w/o a warrant.
Politiicizing the DoJ, particularly the civil rights division and using DoJ resources to attempt to create bogus voting rights cases to block minority voters.
Blocking or delaying FOIA requests and limiting the "peoples" right to know.
Blocking or editing federal science research that did not meet their ideological test.
The politicizing of Inspectors General in many executive branch agencies.
The list is endless.
Gun rights? WTF?
And your condescension it just a load of crap in attempt to divert the facts.
In fac, the Bush administration has made most of the country howl...not just the left.
You're an adult thinker..so am I ....and we both know the game you're playing.
And how about those Republicans of "integrity" in the 109th Congress...and the K Street influence peddling (I thought you might another reminder :) )
Let me guess, talking points lifted from MoveOn.whoreg?
Let me guess, talking points lifted from MoveOn.whoreg?
As you well know, I provided cites for many of those in other discussions...(FISA, FOIA, DOJ politicization, politicization of IGs...) ..none of which was moveon.org
I can give you more cities if you like, when i have time :)
Couldn't tell ya. If you can't believe me, how does that turn me into a liar, or an anything?
Indeed, do you see how your replies progressively retreat from cogency? You shouldn't do that.
Now off to insert a damning Janet Reno quote -- maybe the Blagojevich thread.
I dont think I ever called you a liar. I did respond in kind to your name-calling with your childish characterization of those who disagree with you as somehow less than "fully free, adult, and human"
I would prefer to focus on the issues and the facts. I try to document my posts when I think my opinion needs support with cited sources.
I would hope you would want to do the same.
As you well know, I provided cites for many of those in other discussions...(FISA, FOIA, DOJ politicization, politicization of IGs...) ..none of which was moveon.org
I can give you more cities if you like, when i have time :)
No, as I clearly pointed out, you are concentrating on some very small segments of the last 8 years. Not that
some of them have not had a significant impact on that single narrow area of government cited. But the fact remains that the example you have cited are very small and detract from the fact that there are a lot of good people in the rest of these agencies who have worked hard for all the right reasons for the last 8 years, and they have done a good job making things work. So far I have not seen anyone getting dragged into the Senate to be Impeached before Congress. Wait, that did happen before Bush. I think it was for Lying Under Oath.
No, as I clearly pointed out, you are concentrating on some very small segments of the last 8 years. Not that some of them have not had a significant impact on that single narrow area of government cited. But the fact remains that the example you have cited are very small and detract from the fact that there are a lot of good people in the rest of these agencies who have worked hard for all the right reasons for the last 8 years, and they have done a good job making things work. So far I have not seen anyone getting dragged into the Senate to be Impeached before Congress. Wait, that did happen before Bush. I think it was for Lying Under Oath.
I have never impugned the reputation of the honest workers in the executive branch.
My focus has been the political appointees at the top. And the evidence of questionable practies, some of which were violations of administrative policies and practices and others violation of law.
The number of such questionable actions across the executive branch over the last eight years exceeds any recent administration and that is a fact.
added:
Here is an example I raised before....the appointment of Inspectors General in the Executive Branch.
The IGS are supposed to be the watchdogs of the federal agencies. There are guideline for their appiointment that makes it clear that the appointment should not be political but rather merit based.
In nearly 2/3 of the agencies of the executive branch, the Bush appointment to the position of IG did not meet those guidelines, but were political (former WH employees, RNC employees, staff members of Republicans in Congress) with no auditing, investigation or legal experience. In the Clinton admin, it was less than 1/3.
This action is not illegal or even a violation of administrative laws or procedure...IMO, it is unethical.
And it is not a small matter...it runs across the board of the executive branch and impacted the manner in which impartial oversight was not in place to ensure that federal agencies acted legally, ethically and in the public interest.
So that would include tax dogers like Geithner?
So that would include tax dogers like Geithner?
LOL....Merc, you crack me up :eek:
First you complain that I was "
sensationalizing a few bad apples at the top. Their rot did not always trickle down..."
So I showed you how it trickled down at DoJ wth five examples of improper and/or illegal conduct in the agency that is supposed to uphold and enforce the laws of the US.
And I point you back to the issue of IGs, who are responsible for providing impartial oversight and upholding the integrity of the agencies in the executive branch..and where 2/3 of Bush's appointments across the board in such agencies were political (and not qualified based on legal, audit or investigation experience) ignoring the standards identified in the law for the appointment of IGs...far more than Clinton.
Then you "
sensationalize" by pointing out one guy's tax problems that has no bearing on his performance in office since he just took office.
Damn...denial ain't just a river in Africa...its alive in well in the Cellar.
One guys tax problem that heads up the people in charge of taxes? It is not against the law to not pay your taxes? Certainly we don't want to rehash the events of 8 years of Clinton's failures and contributions to the present crisis.
LOL....Merc, you crack me up :eek:
First you complain that I was "sensationalizing a few bad apples at the top. Their rot did not always trickle down..."
So I showed you how it trickled down at DoJ wth five examples of improper and/or illegal conduct in the agency that is supposed to uphold and enforce the laws of the US.
I point to change in FOIA policies based on the respective memos and more openness and transparency with a new presumption of releasing information as opposed to previous policy of finding a legal justification not to release information.
And I point you back to the issue of IGs, who are responsible for providing impartial oversight and upholding the integrity of the agencies in the executive branch..and where 2/3 of Bush's appointments across the board in such agencies were political (and not qualified based on legal, audit or investigation experience) ignoring the standards identified in the law for the appointment of IGs...far more than Clinton.
Then you "sensationalize" by pointing out one guy's tax problems that has no bearing on his performance in office since he just took office.
Damn...denial ain't just a river in Africa...its alive in well in the Cellar.
Then you "sensationalize" by pointing out one guy's tax problems that has no bearing on his performance in office since he just took office.
What you approve of the double standards?
Why are you quoting yourself?
I figured you might actually read it if I post it again....since you obviously chose to ignore facts you dont like :)
I like the new double standards....more opennesss and transparency of FOIA....less politicization of the appointment of IGs (so far), the new EO canceling Bush's interpretation of torture under US treaty obligations....transparency with the new website,
recovery.gov, to track the spending from the stimulus bill.
And those are just the new standards in the first month.
I figured you might actually read it if I post it again....since you obviously chose to ignore facts you dont like :)
I like the new double standards....more opennesss and transparency of FOIA....les politicization of the appointment of IGs (so far)...
You like double standards! :lol2: Figures.
You like to ignore the facts you don't like.
You mean those nasty wiretaps of American Citizens the Demoncratically controlled Congress approved!
Fact...the illegal wiretapping took place between 2003 and 2006.
Fact...the new FOIA policy is more open
Fact...the old torture policy is dead
What part of that dont you get?
Are you really this fucking ignorant?
Fact.... The complaint was about eavesdropping on Americans, not how it was done or by whom.
Fact... The eavesdropping on Americans, that everyone complained about like they were having their first born child stolen from them, was eventually approved by the Demoncratically controlled Congress, almost identical in verbage as Bush wanted it. They sold out.
What part of that don't you get?
Fact.... The complaint was about eavesdropping on Americans, not how it was done or by whom.
Fact... The eavesdropping on Americans, that everyone complained about like they were having their first born child stolen from them, was eventually approved by the Demoncratically controlled Congress, almost identical in verbage as Bush wanted it. They sold out.
What part of that don't you get?
Are you really that ignorant or do you just like coming off as obtuse?
Bush circumvented FISA and did it illegally and w/o FISA court oversight. Congress (Ds and Rs) corrected that illegal action by strengthening the last FISA bill they enacted so it wouldnt happen that way again.
***
Merc...I ignored all the comments I read here about you being a flaming asshole and I tried.
I've concluded they were right.
I give up.
Are you really that ignorant or do you just like coming off as obtuse?
Bush circumvented FISA and did it illegally and w/o FISA court oversight. Congress (Ds and Rs) corrected that illegal action by strengthening the last FISA bill they enacted so it wouldnt happen that way again.
***
Merc...I ignored all the comments I read here about you being a flaming asshole and I tried.
I've concluded they were right.
I give up.
So again, beause we disagree you call me a flaming asshole? You want me to see things from your perspective and get in a tizzy because I refuse so you resort to name calling? You fail to see the double standard well documented in the implementation of the eavesdropping on Americans that the left-wing nuts melted down about and yet you want to spin it as if it is something elsle. I guess I will put you on ignore with tw and the other psycho wackos.
Have at it. Live in your fantasy world.
I guess I will put you on ignore with tw and the other psycho wackos.
Please ignore me!
Thank you!
Please ignore me!
Thank you!
That is your only response? Wow. I expected more from you. I have even learned a thing or two from your posts. Pretty sad.
Quitter. :p
This thread is now officially a fucking toolbox.
All the ladies in town who think they're somebody would swooooooon over Boehner, the men just kiss his butt. Ugh.
ugh is right! yuckaroo! pfftt
I think there's a difference between the demographics for a car manufacturer and a breakfast cereal. I can understand Kellogs point of view here. Lots of kiddies eat cornflakes and Phelps is a role model.
You don't want your kids sucking a pipe after their bowl of cornies do you?...well do you???
Actually, considering the munchies, maybe it was a bad decision to dump him. Instead, they could have come up with a new slogan. Something like, "For the times when you just have to eat something!"
yea, most people eat the cereal AFTER sucking the pipe! :D think of all the money they make off of potheads...
I'm more of a Keynesian.
Nice revisionist history on the New Deal.
The New Deal raised the GDP significantly between 32-37...until FDR slowed it down in 37 because of pressure from Republicans that it was creating deficits. Then the growth stopped until WW II.
That bears repeating...
Have you heard some republicans now trying to blame Roosevelt for the great depression? :D apparently he found a time machine somewhere...
That bears repeating...
Have you heard some republicans now trying to blame Roosevelt for the great depression?
Stop that.
I have seen on tv and read that there are differing opinions about what got out America out of it. Many seemed to believe the war was the biggest factor. That makes sense. I think its very difficult to quantify the impact otherwise.
Stop that.
I have seen on tv and read that there are differing opinions about what got out America out of it. Many seemed to believe the war was the biggest factor. That makes sense. I think its very difficult to quantify the impact otherwise.
US GDP was at about $30 billion in '32 when FDR took office....having dropped from over $40 bill between '29 and '32.
As the New Deal programs were implemented, it rose each year between '33 and '37 to over $45 billion, then dipped in '37, the year FDR cut back on the New Deal spending.
Federal government spending rose each year from about $4 billion in '32 to over $8 billion in 37, then dropped for one year to under $7 billion, when FDR cut back on New Deal spending.
The historical data is available from the
US Bureau of Economic Analysis, but you have to search for yourself.
Perhaps the Keynesian model is not the only explanation for the growth of GDP (and the drop of unemployment by half) being tied to the growth in government spending between 1933-1938....economics is not an exact science. I'm not an economist, but it makes sense to me.
It certainly wasnt war spending in those years.
I would suggest the Roosevelt New Deal contributed dramatically to the revival of the moribund economy he inherited (not only preventing further tanking, but providing slow and steady growth and job creation) thus stabilizing the economy and then WW II took it to new heights.
I did mention differing opinions in my post, right?
I did mention differing opinions in my post, right?
Hey.I'm just trying to understand the opinion that WW II ended the Great Depression and not the New Deal....which is the argument many Republicans in Congress (and the talking heads) opposed to the stimulus bill are still making...but never documenting.
UG made the same claim earlier.
I would like to see some one of that opinion back it with wiith data or even a simple explanation of how WW II, rather than the New Deal, contributed to the GDP rising about 5%/year between '33 and ''37 (after 4 years of negative growth) and unemployment rate dropping about 3%/year between '33 and 37 (after rising to nearly 25% between '29 and '32).
Both the significant rise in GDP rise and significant drop in unemployment between '33 and '37 meant a fairly strong economic growth and a hell of alot of jobs created between '33 and '37 somehow..and it sure seems like a stretch to me to suggest it was as a result of a war that was 4-7 years in the future.
The one blip in the pre-war economic data is in '38, the year FDR cut spending.
IMO, the only case they can make is that WW II contributed to driving down the unemployment rate even further to what could be characterized as "full" employment.
I wonder how ready or capable the US would have been for a war industry build-up in '41 if the economy had continued the slide downward every year through the '30s as it did from '29 to'33..before the New Deal.
And no looking by
any debater here into GDP 1941-45, or where it was in 1946? What do you suppose we might find? Seems those figures would support my claim about what the combination of war production infrastructure and no destruction would do, would they not?
It's easy to find GDP
growth rate more than doubling 1941-45. Growth slumped a bit from '45-50, but growth rate took an upward trend thereafter.
Actual GDP in constant billions can be seen in this Wiki graphic:
GDP over the Depression. What's striking is the similar angles of slump and of recovery over time. I wonder if there might have been a way to steepen the recovery curve, or not?
And no looking by any debater here into GDP 1941-45, or where it was in 1946? What do you suppose we might find? Seems those figures would support my claim about what the combination of war production infrastructure and no destruction would do, would they not?
It's easy to find GDP growth rate more than doubling 1941-45. Growth slumped a bit from '45-50, but growth rate took an upward trend thereafter.
Actual GDP in constant billions can be seen in this Wiki graphic: GDP over the Depression. What's striking is the similar angles of slump and of recovery over time. I wonder if there might have been a way to steepen the recovery curve, or not?
UG....thanks for the Wiki graphic
[INDENT]
[/INDENT]
It clearly shows the significant drop (negative growth) of GDP in the years '29-'32 (causing the Great Depression) and
the turn around beginning in '33, the same time the New Deal spending and job creation programs begain to be implemented, and growing annually in the pre-war years, with the exception of '37, when FDR cut back on the New Deal spending.
I dont dispute the facts that the GDP continued to rise during WW II and the post-war years.
But I am still trying to understand how WWII, rather than the New Deal spending and job creation programs, contributed to preventing further economic decline or accounted for the economic growth that took the country out of depression in FDR's first two terms (33-40)
An economic recession (or depression) is measured in quarters (or years) of negative economic growth.
As your chart illustrates, the
negative economic growth ended with the implementation of the New Deal programs that FDR introduced in his first 100 days and started funding by mid-to-late '33.....well before WW II.
I'm not suggesting the depression ended immediately with the New Deal jobs and spending programs.....but the negative growth did and further economic decline was prevented.
And the steady annual economic growth in the subsequent 5-8 years (before WW II) with the New Deal jobs and spending programs effectively ended the Great Depression by the time the US entered WW II.
Stop that.
I have seen on tv and read that there are differing opinions about what got out America out of it. Many seemed to believe the war was the biggest factor. That makes sense. I think its very difficult to quantify the impact otherwise.
Stop what? :p
I don't remember now. But it must have been important at the time :p
Byrd: Obama in power grab
Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), the longest-serving Democratic senator, is criticizing President Obama’s appointment of White House “czars” to oversee federal policy, saying these executive positions amount to a power grab by the executive branch.
In a letter to Obama on Wednesday, Byrd complained about Obama’s decision to create White House offices on health reform, urban affairs policy, and energy and climate change. Byrd said such positions “can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials.”
While it's rare for Byrd to criticize a president in his own party, Byrd is a stern constitutional scholar who has always stood up for the legislative branch in its role in checking the power of the White House. Byrd no longer holds the powerful Appropriations chairmanship, so his criticism does not carry as much weight these days. Byrd repeatedly clashed with the Bush administration over executive power, and it appears that he's not limiting his criticism to Republican administrations.
Byrd also wants Obama to limit claims of executive privilege while also ensuring that the White House czars don’t have authority over Cabinet officers confirmed by the Senate.
“As presidential assistants and advisers, these White House staffers are not accountable for their actions to the Congress, to cabinet officials, and to virtually anyone but the president,” Byrd wrote. “They rarely testify before congressional committees, and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege. In too many instances, White House staff have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability.”
The West Virginia Democrat on Wednesday asked Obama to “consider the following: that assertions of executive privilege will be made only by the president, or with the president’s specific approval; that senior White House personnel will be limited from exercising authority over any person, any program, and any funding within the statutory responsibility of a Senate-confirmed department or agency head; that the president will be responsible for resolving any disagreement between a Senate-confirmed agency or department head and White House staff; and that the lines of authority and responsibility in the administration will be transparent and open to the American public.”
Obama faces a decision as early as next week on whether to support a claim of executive privilege made by former President Bush in refusing to allow Karl Rove, the former deputy White House chief of staff, to be deposed by the House Judiciary Committee on the White House’s role in the 2006 firing of nine U.S. attorneys.
Bush claimed “absolute immunity” for top advisers in resisting such subpoenas, but Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, filed a lawsuit over the issue. The case is on appeal, and the Obama administration is scheduled to file a motion next week laying out its stance on the issue.
Wow, Where'd that come from. Should be an interesting week.
I did mention differing opinions in my post, right?
Opinions are like assholes. Numbers, on the other hand, rarely lie.
That's where your wrong.
There are numerous opinions on this forum.
But not the first asshole.
But not the first asshole.
That's what we'd have been calling Bill, if Hillary had won the election.
//: rimshot://
with cigar.....
Opinions are like assholes. Numbers, on the other hand, rarely lie.
Numbers lie all the time - thats what pollsters and statisticians are paid to do.
An asshole however, like you, is a constant.
Numbers lie all the time - thats what pollsters and statisticians are paid to do.
An asshole however, like you, are a constant.
Nah...its not the polls and stats.
Its voodoo economics! Its $billions in corrupt contracts! Its the lies about military and civilian casualty counts! Its fudging science to support an ideology!
And after eight years, the people had enough.
Oh thats fucking bullshit and you know it. Like the only ones who ever do anything corrupt are the one on the "other side."
Jeebus cheese itz - get off your high horse.
I never said corruption is one-sided.
Just focusing on the most recent. History will judge if it has been the most corrupt in our lifetime.
Haliburton...to name one issue of corruption which is unlikely to be judged favourably.
Goodness Classic, surely even you have to admit that's a fact.
Of course it is. Its the onesidedness of it all that bothers me.
Well that's just what happens when people are excited about a new leader, and Obama hasn't had time to reveal any direct dealing in corruption yet. If and when the time comes, I guess those of you who are not as happy about his presidency will get to say 'I told you so', but till then, he'll be compared to Bush, and with Bush's history, the comparison isn't going to be good.
It's just the way it is classic. Maybe Redux and others of us will get to eat crow, but for the sake of your country, I hope not.
Obama Declares War on Investors, Entrepreneurs, Businesses, And More
Let me be very clear on the economics of President Obama’s State of the Union speech and his budget.
He is declaring war on investors, entrepreneurs, small businesses, large corporations, and private-equity and venture-capital funds.
That is the meaning of his anti-growth tax-hike proposals, which make absolutely no sense at all — either for this recession or from the standpoint of expanding our economy’s long-run potential to grow.
Raising the marginal tax rate on successful earners, capital, dividends, and all the private funds is a function of Obama’s left-wing social vision, and a repudiation of his economic-recovery statements. Ditto for his sweeping government-planning-and-spending program, which will wind up raising federal outlays as a share of GDP to at least 30 percent, if not more, over the next 10 years.
This is nearly double the government-spending low-point reached during the late 1990s by the Gingrich Congress and the Clinton administration. While not quite as high as spending levels in Western Europe, we regrettably will be gaining on this statist-planning approach.
Study after study over the past several decades has shown how countries that spend more produce less, while nations that tax less produce more. Obama is doing it wrong on both counts.
And as far as middle-class tax cuts are concerned, Obama’s cap-and-trade program will be a huge across-the-board tax increase on blue-collar workers, including unionized workers. Industrial production is plunging, but new carbon taxes will prevent production from ever recovering. While the country wants more fuel and power, cap-and-trade will deliver less.
The tax hikes will generate lower growth and fewer revenues. Yes, the economy will recover. But Obama’s rosy scenario of 4 percent recovery growth in the out years of his budget is not likely to occur. The combination of easy money from the Fed and below-potential economic growth is a prescription for stagflation. That’s one of the messages of the falling stock market.
Essentially, the Obama economic policies represent a major Democratic party relapse into Great Society social spending and taxing. It is a return to the LBJ/Nixon era, and a move away from the Reagan/Clinton period. House Republicans, fortunately, are 90 days sober, as they are putting up a valiant fight to stop the big-government onslaught and move the GOP back to first principles.
Noteworthy up here on Wall Street, a great many Obama supporters — especially hedge-fund types who voted for “change” — are becoming disillusioned with the performances of Obama and Treasury man Geithner.
There is a growing sense of buyer’s remorse.
Well then, do conservatives dare say: We told you so?
Numbers lie all the time - thats what pollsters and statisticians are paid to do.
An asshole however, like you, is a constant.
Well, I can be relied on, anyway, yes?
And of course numbers lie. That's why math doesn't work.
TGRR,
Knows there's a difference between numbers lying and people lying about numbers.
Obama Declares War on Investors, Entrepreneurs, Businesses, And More
:lol:
Larry Kudlow.
Listen, Larry...if your way worked, your side wouldn't have lost the election. You failed. It's over.
Hey TGRR- thats what this thread is all about - the "evil other side" and what they are saying.
And yes, you can be relied upon for one thing - on that we agree.
Hey TGRR- thats what this thread is all about - the "evil other side" and what they are saying.
And yes, you can be relied upon for one thing - on that we agree.
First you have to assume that there's another side. One "side" bankrupts you paying for stupid wars, and the other bankrupts you paying for stupid bankers.
I fail to see a practical difference.
Bankers are less aesthetically pleasing than wars. There are no booms on the news, and you can't get all jingoistic about it.
I mean, they're not even jumping out of windows yet. So far, Bush wins points for stage-management and cliffhangers.
Bankers are less aesthetically pleasing than wars. There are no booms on the news, and you can't get all jingoistic about it.
I mean, they're not even jumping out of windows yet. So far, Bush wins points for stage-management and cliffhangers.
Point. War porn for the redneck crowd is kind of hard to top.
[LEFT]Yes. Now, if Obama started actually declaring war on bankers, instead of throwing money at them to maintain the illusion of their independence, maybe he'd claw back a few points. Pfft, some crypto-Marxist this guy is. He hasn't even threatened to shoot a single member of the hated oppresser class, nor throw them into Bagram for a bit of slap and ticke with some Afghan security service members.
[/LEFT]
[LEFT]Yes. Now, if Obama started actually declaring war on bankers, instead of throwing money at them to maintain the illusion of their independence, maybe he'd claw back a few points. Pfft, some crypto-Marxist this guy is. He hasn't even threatened to shoot a single member of the hated oppresser class, nor throw them into Bagram for a bit of slap and ticke with some Afghan security service members.
[/LEFT]
They don't make Manchurian Candidates the way they used to. :(
HA HA HA HA HA @ TGRR
They also, it seems, do not make loudmouth republican rednecks the way they used to.
Are they outsourcing, or something?
The 2% Illusion
Take everything they earn, and it still won't be enough.
President Obama has laid out the most ambitious and expensive domestic agenda since LBJ, and now all he has to do is figure out how to pay for it. On Tuesday, he left the impression that we need merely end "tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans," and he promised that households earning less than $250,000 won't see their taxes increased by "one single dime."
This is going to be some trick. Even the most basic inspection of the IRS income tax statistics shows that raising taxes on the salaries, dividends and capital gains of those making more than $250,000 can't possibly raise enough revenue to fund Mr. Obama's new spending ambitions.
Consider the IRS data for 2006, the most recent year that such tax data are available and a good year for the economy and "the wealthiest 2%." Roughly 3.8 million filers had adjusted gross incomes above $200,000 in 2006. (That's about 7% of all returns; the data aren't broken down at the $250,000 point.) These people paid about $522 billion in income taxes, or roughly 62% of all federal individual income receipts. The richest 1% -- about 1.65 million filers making above $388,806 -- paid some $408 billion, or 39.9% of all income tax revenues, while earning about 22% of all reported U.S. income.
Note that federal income taxes are already "progressive" with a 35% top marginal rate, and that Mr. Obama is (so far) proposing to raise it only to 39.6%, plus another two percentage points in hidden deduction phase-outs. He'd also raise capital gains and dividend rates, but those both yield far less revenue than the income tax. These combined increases won't come close to raising the hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue that Mr. Obama is going to need.
But let's not stop at a 42% top rate; as a thought experiment, let's go all the way. A tax policy that confiscated 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning over $500,000 in 2006 would only have given Congress an extra $1.3 trillion in revenue. That's less than half the 2006 federal budget of $2.7 trillion and looks tiny compared to the more than $4 trillion Congress will spend in fiscal 2010. Even taking every taxable "dime" of everyone earning more than $75,000 in 2006 would have barely yielded enough to cover that $4 trillion.
Fast forward to this year (and 2010) when the Wall Street meltdown and recession are going to mean far few taxpayers earning more than $500,000. Profits are plunging, businesses are cutting or eliminating dividends, hedge funds are rolling up, and, most of all, capital nationwide is on strike. Raising taxes now will thus yield far less revenue than it would have in 2006.
Mr. Obama is of course counting on an economic recovery. And he's also assuming along with the new liberal economic consensus that taxes don't matter to growth or job creation. The truth, though, is that they do. Small- and medium-sized businesses are the nation's primary employers, and lower individual tax rates have induced thousands of them to shift from filing under the corporate tax system to the individual system, often as limited liability companies or Subchapter S corporations. The Tax Foundation calculates that merely restoring the higher, Clinton-era tax rates on the top two brackets would hit 45% to 55% of small-business income, depending on how inclusively "small business" is defined. These owners will find a way to declare less taxable income.
The bottom line is that Mr. Obama is selling the country on a 2% illusion. Unwinding the U.S. commitment in Iraq and allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire can't possibly pay for his agenda. Taxes on the not-so-rich will need to rise as well.
Take everything they earn, and it still won't be enough.
Meanwhile, reality: the rich had so many exemptions as to pay equal or less taxes then the average American. Warren Buffet was quite blunt about this years ago when wackos were promoting tax cut myths and lies. Buffet was paying less in taxes than his receptionist. Such facts get lost when partisans promote their political agendas rather than first learn the facts.
Nobody who is honest can criticize Obama. Nobody has facts to justify all this criticism. The 36% ownership of Citigroup may have been necessary because wackos in Citigroup will not do what must happen. Citigroup probably must be broken up and sold off. Therefore no decent Americans lose jobs. Irresponsible top management and stock holders who failed to demand changes all lose.
Is that Obama's intent? Nobody knows which again demonstrates the foolishness of those partisan inspired criticisms. A person dealing in facts does not yet have sufficient facts to justify that hate and so much criticism.
We do know one fact. Tax cuts without spending reductions only create short term economic improvement followed by worse economic downturns. Eliminting those destructive tax cuts are necessary to restore actual productivity (and responsiblity) to the economy.
We'll know by second quarter next year.
We'll know by second quarter next year.
Shit, we'll be eating bankers and congressmen by then.
At least I will be, anyway.
Byrd: Obama in power grab
Quote:
Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), the longest-serving Democratic senator, is criticizing President Obama’s appointment of White House “czars” to oversee federal policy, saying these executive positions amount to a power grab by the executive branch.
In a letter to Obama on Wednesday, Byrd complained about Obama’s decision to create White House offices on health reform, urban affairs policy, and energy and climate change. Byrd said such positions “can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials...”
ummm, don't we need someone overseeing those things? they are going to be really big things to get passed, and very important (IMO) for the future of this country. I am really opposed to "czars" in general, but that is just a name. Someone needs to be heading those things, don't you think?
Obama Declares War on Investors, Entrepreneurs, Businesses, And More
Isn't he just putting the taxes back to where they during the Clinton years? And you know, when Clinton raised taxes, there was all this whining by the right about how it would wreck the country. In fact, we had a pretty great economy under Clinton, and he even balanced the budget, even though, he too, inherited a deficit that, at that time, was the highest in history. One thing that did surprise me though, was the thing about charity write-offs.
And you know, if the richest people/corporations had not been so corrupt about trying not to pay ANY friggin' taxes, this might not be happening. They really only have themselves to blame. It is greed. "I have a hundred million dollars, but I don't want to pay taxes, I want to keep it all. Fuck the person making 30 grand a year and trying to live off of that. Why is he my responsibility? Even though I did make my money on the backs of people like that."
[LEFT]Yes. Now, if Obama started actually declaring war on bankers, instead of throwing money at them to maintain the illusion of their independence, maybe he'd claw back a few points. Pfft, some crypto-Marxist this guy is. He hasn't even threatened to shoot a single member of the hated oppresser class, nor throw them into Bagram for a bit of slap and ticke with some Afghan security service members.
[/LEFT]
:D I like what Bill Maher said.
"And, finally, New Rule: Stop pretending that other governments have nothing to teach us. From those socialists in Sweden, we can learn how to fix a banking crisis. And from our friends in China, we can learn how to punish the jerks who caused it.
You know, the ones who took bailout money and bought private jets made out of rubies and veal. This is Dick Fuld of Lehman Brothers. [slide of Fuld] What a "dick" Fuld. He personally made $500 million in sub-prime mortgages, and he gets to keep it while you and I pay off his bad bets. [slide of Madoff] This is Bernie Madoff. Bernie stole $50 billion, mostly from other Jews. For Jews, this was the worst pyramid scheme since the actual pyramids.
Which brings me back to China. Now, a couple months ago, some greedy businessmen in China were caught spiking the milk they sold to children with melamine, a plastic-derivative which boosted the protein levels and, thus, their profits. Well, you know what the Chinese are doing to the businessmen behind their milk scandal? They're putting them to death.
Talk about lactose intolerant.
Now, am I saying we should treat the bankers who poisoned our financial markets with tainted investments the way China treated its poisoners? Please, we're not China. We're just owned by China. So, no, I don't think we should put all the bankers to death.
Just two. I mean, maybe it's not technically legal, but, let's look at the upside. If we killed two random, rich, greedy pigs. I mean, killed. Like, blew them up at halftime at next year's Super Bowl. Or left them hanging on the big board at the New York Stock Exchange. You know, as a warning, with their balls in their mouth. I think it would really make everyone else sit up and take notice.
This crisis is rooted in greed. And if two deaths shocked a society of 300 million into acting decently enough to avoid this in the future, well, they'd die as heroes. And, you know, it's not like collateral damage isn't built into our assessment of things.
Cars kill almost 50,000 people a year, but we accept that as a fair price for being able to get around without riding on top of an animal.
So, two dead bankers really starts to look like a bargain. And isn't that what they love? Bargains?"
The 2% Illusion
Take everything they earn, and it still won't be enough.
Do you honestly think a lot of those people report all their income? They have it hidden offshore. It's not like they get a W2 like working people do.
Down girl - I just post links to articles that I thought would lead to some interesting conversations. Actually, I don't know what income the writer was referring to - do you?
If what he says is true, then a tax increase on the next group is all but guaranteed to happen.
Actually, I don't know what income the writer was referring to - do you?
The article says taxable income, which means reported income minus legal loopholes, deductions, and dodges, of which there are considerable if you don't need that money for awhile.
Well there you have it then. Thanks xoB.
Which is why the ONLY fair way to tax people is the flat tax. Taxes would be paid on a percentage basis, right on the spot. Nearly impossible not to pay your share.
Imagine the revenue that would be created from hidden drug monies, cash labor payments, etc. Even the crack dealers would be taxed. And fairly, at that.
And you know, if the richest people/corporations had not been so corrupt about trying not to pay ANY friggin' taxes, this might not be happening. They really only have themselves to blame. It is greed. "I have a hundred million dollars, but I don't want to pay taxes, I want to keep it all. Fuck the person making 30 grand a year and trying to live off of that. Why is he my responsibility? Even though I did make my money on the backs of people like that."
:rolleyes:
Do you honestly think a lot of those people report all their income? They have it hidden offshore. It's not like they get a W2 like working people do.
Do you honestly think that individual contractors and small business owners report all of their income? I know three people who are good friends who make well over $70 a year and report only $30. In this economy it is even easier to report a loss and get further tax breaks. If all the people who ran a cash business reported their income and let it be taxed we wouldn't need to raise taxes. You have a hang up with socio-economic classes.
Do you honestly think that individual contractors and small business owners report all of their income? I know three people who are good friends who make well over $70 a year and report only $30. In this economy it is even easier to report a loss and get further tax breaks. If all the people who ran a cash business reported their income and let it be taxed we wouldn't need to raise taxes. You have a hang up with socio-economic classes.
Anecdotes aren't evidence.
You have any presentable evidence to demonstrate that small contractors cheat on their taxes at the same rate that the "2%" do?
Which is why the ONLY fair way to tax people is the flat tax. Taxes would be paid on a percentage basis, right on the spot.
Excellent. So we'll have a permanent lower class.
Woot!
:rolleyes:
Translation: No argument.
Translation: No argument.
No. Translation: Same ole rant without a lot of merit.
Excellent. So we'll have a permanent lower class.
Woot!
If it was anyone else I'd ask you to elaborate. However I'll spare myself the pain of your bitter life extensions today.
Plus I doubt you could get it on one line.:headshake
Anecdotes aren't evidence.
You have any presentable evidence to demonstrate that small contractors cheat on their taxes at the same rate that the "2%" do?
60%:
http://archive.gao.gov/d26t7/139722.pdf
the GAO cited an IRS estimate that the annual tax gap caused by self-employed individuals (including independent contractors) who did not report all of their income was $20.3 billion.
http://www.treas.gov/tigta/auditreports/2001reports/200130132es.html
2. State income tax revenue: According to published data, workers classified as independent contractors are known to underreport their personal income; as a result Illinois suffers a loss of income tax revenue when employees are misclassified. According to the IRS reports, wage earners report 99% of their wages whereas non-wage earners (such as independent contractors) report approximately only 68% of their income. This represents a gap of 31%. Other reliable studies estimate this gap to be as high as 50%.
Based upon IRS estimates that 30% of the income of misclassified workers is not reported, we estimate that an average of $125 million of income tax was lost annually in Illinois for 2001 through 2005. In just 2005, we estimate that $149 million of income tax was not collected in Illinois.
Based upon the higher estimate that up to 50% of the income of misclassified workers is not reported, an average of $208 million of state income tax was lost annually in Illinois from 2001 through 2005. For just 2005, we estimate this loss to have been $248 million.
I wonder how much I could save if I didn't report 30-50% of my income?:rolleyes:
Excellent. So we'll have a permanent lower class.
Woot!
That differs from now how?
Obama's plan does nothing to change that. Well until he truely goes Socialist on us. I wouldn't put it past any of them.
pssssstttt......
We always have and always will have a permanent lower class.
Some people just refuse to rise above it.
If it was anyone else I'd ask you to elaborate. However I'll spare myself the pain of your bitter life extensions today.
Plus I doubt you could get it on one line.:headshake
Okay. I'll bear in mind from now on that you can't support your argument beyond whatever is on the front page of ronpaul.org.
That differs from now how?
Now, the poor just deal with low wages. With a flat tax, the percentage tax required to run the country would have to be high enough to run the middle class into the working class, the working class into the lower class, and the lower class right under the nearest bridge.
A flat tax benefits only the rich, and they have enough benefits already.
Obama's plan does nothing to change that. Well until he truely goes Socialist on us. I wouldn't put it past any of them.
What makes you think he'll go socialist? So far, he's just more Bush, with better speaking talent.
pssssstttt......
We always have and always will have a permanent lower class.
Some people just refuse to rise above it.
Of course. That's why the mode income is $20k/year, and that's why you're a billionaire with 3 lear jets, that still somehow can't find anything better to do than post on the internet.
Am I right, Horatio Alger? Tell me when I lose the plot. You're one of those successful self-employed, self-made men that started off so poor you lived in a sanitary landfill, but hard work has made you the rich man you are today? Like every other laissez faire proponent on the internet?
No.
I am the motherfucker that risked my life to earn your freedom to sit on your sorry ass and attempt to agitate others on the internet.
every other laissez faire proponent on the internet?
Take a look at yourself, asswipe.
And meanwhile....... Fuck off!
No.
I am the motherfucker that risked my life to earn your freedom to sit on your sorry ass and attempt to agitate others on the internet.
Take a look at yourself, asswipe.
And meanwhile....... Fuck off!
Yes, because you're the only person that ever served. Quit your fucking sniveling. There's nothing more pathetic than someone who thinks their service = an argument. Drink water and drive on...or more likely, get back behind that typewriter.
TGRR,
Served when you were a naughty thought, kid.
Serve what?
Big Macs and fries?
I usually avoid this thread because most of the people who post here have so much more knowledge about this topic than I.
Maybe you should consider this option. But you won't because the internet is the only place you can argue without someone like me kicking your ass.
Face it, man these guys are eating your ass for breakfast at regular intervals and it pisses you off. It won't get better. These guys just keep getting smarter. This is obvious to everyone in the Cellar. Except you. Pussy.
Serve what?
Big Macs and fries?
I usually avoid this thread because most of the people who post here have so much more knowledge about this topic than I.
Maybe you should consider this option. But you won't because the internet is the only place you can argue without someone like me kicking your ass.
Face it, man these guys are eating your ass for breakfast at regular intervals and it pisses you off. It won't get better. These guys just keep getting smarter. This is obvious to everyone in the Cellar. Except you. Pussy.
:lol:
You should do something about that rage problem of yours, junior.
Damn. We agree on something.
Now, the poor just deal with low wages. With a flat tax, the percentage tax required to run the country would have to be high enough to run the middle class into the working class, the working class into the lower class, and the lower class right under the nearest bridge.
A flat tax benefits only the rich, and they have enough benefits already.
I would disagree with that.
I would disagree with that.
Okay.
My reasoning is that spending will never go down (if you can show me a time in our history where the actual amount of real spending dropped, I'd be interested in seeing it). If you set the rate so everyone pays the same percentage, the rich pay less taxes, and everyone else gets raped to death.
Well my reasoning is that if you eliminate the loop holes and deductions for everyone, regardless of how much you make or how little you make, the rich pay the same percentage of their income as the middle class, and the poor. Everyone benefits. The rich pay more taxes now and they will pay more taxes under a flat tax than anyone who makes less than them.
Also, taxes would be collected from drug dealers, prostitutes, scam artists, cash only 'contractors', etc.
Usually, the more you make the more you spend. With the flat tax, if you want to decrease your taxes, slow down on your spending.
The reason the crack /drug dealers can afford their Escalades w/22's is all their income is tax free. The flat tax is the only way to ensure that everyone pays their share.
Almost anyone can find loopholes in todays tax system to hide their income, But we should all be smart enough to know that an unemployed person can't afford the things I see lots of the 'system bums' have.
Also, this would banish the need for the IRS. It's a win/win situation.... unless of course you are an undesirable as mentioned above. IMO, these taxes should be omitted for food and utilities and other 'necessary' living expenses. Call it socialist if you want, but capnhowdy is tired of supporting derelicts. If you can spend it, obviously you've got it.
Pours another scotch and contemplates buying my fourth leer. Nah.....
With all the talk of decreasing the deductions for charitables we are going to probably put more of our income in pre-tax retirement. We gave over $8k last year to charity. That will have to stop.
Well my reasoning is that if you eliminate the loop holes and deductions for everyone, regardless of how much you make or how little you make, the rich pay the same percentage of their income as the middle class, and the poor. Everyone benefits. The rich pay more taxes now and they will pay more taxes under a flat tax than anyone who makes less than them.
Okay. What percentage are we talking about, here?
Sadly correct. But maybe with all the added tax dollars created by forcing the skaters to pay their share the guvmitt could afford to bump the charities to offset the decline... just a thought.
And by not having to fund the IRS, a good leader could divert these funds to support "worthy' causes. The reason it will prolly never fly is because the people who make the laws are some of the biggest spenders/cheaters, and they won't build their own gallows.
I don't have a clear figure, but something around 15-18% sounds reasonable. More would be to punishing on those at the low end of income earners. And 15% of a gross income of a million would be more than those at the top end pay now.
There would have to something different set up for the business side. I have looked at the "Fair Tax" plan and there is a lot of really good ideas in there. Only it will never happen. So I will have to go back to finding ways to make my money work for me.
And 15% of a gross income of a million would be more than those at the top end pay now.
Really? That's kind of surprising. Can you back that up?
Can you post anything but a goddam request for data? WTF are you trying to "back up"? C'mon man... don't be a dick.
And why should anyone need to "back up" their opinion?
We do know one fact. Tax cuts without spending reductions only create short term economic improvement followed by worse economic downturns. Eliminting those destructive tax cuts are necessary to restore actual productivity (and responsiblity) to the economy.
We'll know by second quarter next year.
Any recovery that does not create further recession will appear typically many years later. Once we eliminate the salesmen, honest statements based in study of other recessions define economic recover in more like four years.
Salesman (ie stock brokers) are promoting a turn around in a year or less. They are promoting sales - not honesty. The economy has been harmed so badly for almost a decade. Time for everyone to pay for a decade of welfare to the rich. This is how economics takes revenge for wealth created by money games.
Also, taxes would be collected from drug dealers, prostitutes, scam artists, cash only 'contractors', etc.
How would you propose to accomplish that? Voluntary disclosure?
Can you post anything but a goddam request for data? WTF are you trying to "back up"? C'mon man... don't be a dick.
I found his statement to be a bit of a stretch. However, I do not KNOW this, so I asked him to back his argument. Since he posted the claim, the burden of proof is on him. Debate 101.
Now, hush. Adults are talking.
And why should anyone need to "back up" their opinion?
He didn't express it as an opinion. He offered a statement of fact.
How would you propose to accomplish that? Voluntary disclosure?
Every time you buy something, you pay a flat rate sales tax. No disclosure. You got it, you spend it, you pay the tax. You don't have it, you can't spend it, you don't pay the tax. There's nowhere to hide. This is my opinion, Bruce. Like I said in the posts you must have skipped, It will prolly never fly but I think it would be fair.
Oh, got ya. You're not talking about a flat tax, you're talking about a sales tax. Sorry, I misunderstood you.
No prob. I need to stay outa this thread anyway.
And tggr ... you can have it asshole. You're trolling and you know it. You attack me and everybody else on this thread. I refuse to lower myself to your level. If you wanna troll, I'm not gonna feed you.
No prob. I need to stay outa this thread anyway.
And tggr ... you can have it asshole. You're trolling and you know it. You attack me and everybody else on this thread. I refuse to lower myself to your level. If you wanna troll, I'm not gonna feed you.
Um, yes. Your outburst at me for disagreeing with you, alongside your "I served. Your argument is invalid.", and then followed with your hollering at me about how I post with others constitutes trolling on MY part.
:eyebrow:
Do you honestly think that individual contractors and small business owners report all of their income? I know three people who are good friends who make well over $70 a year and report only $30. In this economy it is even easier to report a loss and get further tax breaks. If all the people who ran a cash business reported their income and let it be taxed we wouldn't need to raise taxes. You have a hang up with socio-economic classes.
Duh. That goes without saying. Of course people don't report all their income. If people making only 70k/year are doing it, imagine how much people are doing it who make a lot more.
And I am not the one with the hangup. I just want people who make a lot of money to pay what they should be paying. They don't. You just admitted that people you know don't report all their income. You said you don't care about taxes being raised because you will hide most of your money. So how is it I'm the one with the hangup? If you're really doing that, how is that fair? It isn't.
pssssstttt......
We always have and always will have a permanent lower class.
Some people just refuse to rise above it.
Jesus Christ. yea, blame poor people for being poor. Read some Jonathan Kozol, please.
But I can't hide my money. It goes through a bank, which along with my employers report my income on W-2's and 1099's. I can only shield my income from further taxation by maximizing my legal pre-tax deductions and taking every other deduction I can legally take. What is not fair is that I pay for people who don't pay taxes, while 42% of my income goes to the government. Where is the incentive? The incentive under these taxation programs is to be poor and let the government pay for your needs.
The whole point is that billions are lost to people who do not report income. I cannot do that.
And why should anyone need to "back up" their opinion?
You won't last long here with that opinion. Everyone here wants you to back up what you say. Sometimes it can be a little annoying, but I understand why people do it.
Duh. That goes without saying. Of course people don't report all their income. If people making only 70k/year are doing it, imagine how much people are doing it who make a lot more.
And I am not the one with the hangup. I just want people who make a lot of money to pay what they should be paying. They don't. You just admitted that people you know don't report all their income. You said you don't care about taxes being raised because you will hide most of your money. So how is it I'm the one with the hangup? If you're really doing that, how is that fair? It isn't.
Name one, ONE waitress who claims all her tips, or pizza delivery guy... or the furniture delivery guy or the postman who gets $10 or $20 bucks for Christmas. How bout the Deli that takes cash only? The guy you buy your christmas tree from.... C'mon are you serious? :right:
Wrong is wrong.
Kthxbai
You won't last long here with that opinion. Everyone here wants you to back up what you say. Sometimes it can be a little annoying, but I understand why people do it.
lol - Don't be speakin' for me there, snap crackle sugarpop.
Hey Cap'n - Happy 5th YEAR anniversary?
Name one, ONE waitress who claims all her tips, or pizza delivery guy... or the furniture delivery guy or the postman who gets $10 or $20 bucks for Christmas. How bout the Deli that takes cash only? The guy you buy your christmas tree from.... C'mon are you serious? :right:
Wrong is wrong.
Kthxbai
Our nation is broke because waitresses don't declare their tips?
Our nation is broke because waitresses don't declare their tips?
http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=539882&postcount=264Our nation is broke because waitresses don't declare their tips.
fixed that for ya.
http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=539882&postcount=264
20.3 Billion? That's not even 5% of a bailout. Chicken feed.
[Quote:]Originally Posted by capnhowdy
Also, taxes would be collected from drug dealers, prostitutes, scam artists, cash only 'contractors', etc.[/quote]
How would you propose to accomplish that? Voluntary disclosure?
Gee, maybe if we just repealed the stupid laws on prostitution and drugs, those people would be taxed. It would also get rid of a lot of the violence associated with those crimes. And we should seriously prosecute contractors who pay that way (because they are usually hiring illegal workers). That sounds better to me than a flat tax, which I don't agree with. Unless it started very low for necessities and lower priced items, and graduated it for higher priced, luxury items. That is the only way it could work. People would paying that tax, on top of sales tax. So in a state where the sales tax is 8%, tack on another 22% and that is 30% tax on everything you buy. Can you imagine?
We are taxed to death in this country, because there are so many hidden taxes on stuff, like phones, and cell phones. WTF? Personally, if we're going to eliminate taxes, I say we eliminate taxes on
actual working income. In other words, tax the money that people make on investments, because that's how most rich people make money. But don't tax them on their salaries, up to, say, $100,000. Then start gradually taxing incomes. Start at, say, 10%, and go up 2% every $25,000 until you get up to 35%. NO loopholes. Sounds fair enough to me.
I also think the whole charity writeoff might end up being a mistake. But you know, IF we actually had a living wage in this country, and people were paid fairly for the work they do, and we had a decent healthcare system, then we wouldn't need some charities. And the charities we did still have, well, people would make enough to donate to their causes anyway, IF we had a fair labor market. IMHO, the people who make the most money deserve it the least.
20.3 Billion? Chicken feed.
Oh yea? can you back that up with a citation. :D kidding.
You forgot to add "IMHO".
20.3 billion would go a long way as sorce of tax revenue.
Oh yea? can you back that up with a citation. :D kidding.
You forgot to add "IMHO".
20.3 billion would go a long way as sorce of tax revenue.
AIG got 30 billion today ALONE.
But I can't hide my money. It goes through a bank, which along with my employers report my income on W-2's and 1099's. I can only shield my income from further taxation by maximizing my legal pre-tax deductions and taking every other deduction I can legally take. What is not fair is that I pay for people who don't pay taxes, while 42% of my income goes to the government. Where is the incentive? The incentive under these taxation programs is to be poor and let the government pay for your needs.
The whole point is that billions are lost to people who do not report income. I cannot do that.
I don't believe you should be paying 42%. I don't think anyone should pay that much. Not even Bill Gates or Warren Buffet. Ok, maybe them. :D
I thought you had said somewhere that you didn't care if they raised taxes because you would hide your income. Sorry if I misunderstood. Maybe you were just being facetious.
AIG got 30 billion today ALONE.
And who ok'd that?
And who ok'd that?
The new pack of dumbasses. Why?
TGRR,
Happy to hate on both sides.
Maybe you were just being facetious.
Most likely just in a combative mood at the time over the issue. :p
Name one, ONE waitress who claims all her tips, or pizza delivery guy... or the furniture delivery guy or the postman who gets $10 or $20 bucks for Christmas. How bout the Deli that takes cash only? The guy you buy your christmas tree from.... C'mon are you serious? :right:
Wrong is wrong. Kthxbai
OK, you're right. But you think people who work for tips are getting rich off of them? Personally, I think we do away with the whole tipping system. People expect tips now.
Everyone wants a tip. Even people who don't deserve it. Those people should be paid a salary that they can live on. (btw, what does this mean? -->Kthxbai)
lol - Don't be speakin' for me there, snap crackle sugarpop.
Hey Cap'n - Happy 5th YEAR anniversary?
:D
Most likely just in a combative mood at the time over the issue. :p
You know me. Always ready to argue. :D Or were you talking about you?
You know me. Always ready to argue. :D Or were you talking about you?
Hey ya kettle. :D
OK, you're right. But you think people who work for tips are getting rich off of them? Personally, I think we do away with the whole tipping system. People expect tips now. Everyone wants a tip. Even people who don't deserve it. Those people should be paid a salary that they can live on.
Perhaps we should all just make the same amount?
(btw, what does this mean? -->Kthxbai)
its short for ok thanks goodbye
Perhaps we should all just make the same amount?
Damm socialist.
Any recovery that does not create further recession will appear typically many years later. Once we eliminate the salesmen, honest statements based in study of other recessions define economic recover in more like four years.
Salesman (ie stock brokers) are promoting a turn around in a year or less. They are promoting sales - not honesty. The economy has been harmed so badly for almost a decade. Time for everyone to pay for a decade of welfare to the rich. This is how economics takes revenge for wealth created by money games.
Obama's budget predicts 3.2% growth in 2010, 4% in 2011, 4.6 percent in 2012 and 4.2 percent in 2013.
source sourceObama's budget predicts 3.2% growth in 2010, 4% in 2011, 4.6 percent in 2012 and 4.2 percent in 2013.
source source
:lol:
Perhaps we should all just make the same amount?
I don't think that. But I also think people at the top make way more than they should, at the expense of other employees. Carly Fiorina walked away with, what, 40 million bucks after driving HP into the ground. WTF? Why is she so valuable? Why are CEOs more valuable than cops or soldiers, who put their lives on the line, or teachers, who are supposed to be teaching our future leaders? Why is a janitor less valuable? Let's face it, he has a shitier job... :D
its short for ok thanks goodbye
Kthxbai :p
Obama's budget predicts 3.2% growth in 2010, 4% in 2011, 4.6 percent in 2012 and 4.2 percent in 2013.
source source
And when HE wakes up from that dream and realizes it was just that, then what? Ohhhh we need more money - guess we'll all have to help a little more. That means tax increases on the middle class.
And when HE wakes up from that dream and realizes it was just that, then what? Ohhhh we need more money - guess we'll all have to help a little more. That means tax increases on the middle class.
It really is limited and it will run out right after it is all given out. They only have one shot at this.
Hey Cap'n - Happy 5th YEAR anniversary?
Yuppers... almost slipped by me.
Took me five years to post on this thread and two days to quit.
But I'll still read as you guys butcher the substandards. You know what I mean.
__________________
Hey, it is hard to get under the bar when it was already on the ground. :D
You know, I used to think that society was to blame for some people being stuck in the poor cycle, and to a certain extent I still do, but I've come to believe that some people are just plain stupid. It's not their fault really. They were born that way, and no amount of 'help' from society will ever change the fact that they're stupid.
My biggest challenge is that for those who were born stupid, how far should society be expected to go? Surely it's up to the families of stupid people to take care of them? I feel sorry for stupid people, but not sorry enough to think I should have to support them.
On the other hand, there's a whole bunch of people out there who're pretty damn smart but they insist on using their intelligence for bad instead of good, and get stuck in their cycle, which really just equates to another form of stupidity in my books.
The reason my opinion has changed in this regard is because of my husband. The story of his childhood would curl your toes, and yet he's educated and a leader in his field with a compassionate heart.
If you use your intelligence for good instead of bad, there's nothing you can't do.
You know, I used to think that society was to blame for some people being stuck in the poor cycle, and to a certain extent I still do, but I've come to believe that some people are just plain stupid. It's not their fault really. They were born that way, and no amount of 'help' from society will ever change the fact that they're stupid.
My biggest challenge is that for those who were born stupid, how far should society be expected to go? Surely it's up to the families of stupid people to take care of them? I feel sorry for stupid people, but not sorry enough to think I should have to support them.
On the other hand, there's a whole bunch of people out there who're pretty damn smart but they insist on using their intelligence for bad instead of good, and get stuck in their cycle, which really just equates to another form of stupidity in my books.
The reason my opinion has changed in this regard is because of my husband. The story of his childhood would curl your toes, and yet he's educated and a leader in his field with a compassionate heart.
If you use your intelligence for good instead of bad, there's nothing you can't do.
Stupidity is by no means restricted to the poor.
I never suggested it was.
I never suggested it was.
Well, then, there's a little problem with your original post. You stated an opinion that stupidity is the reason some or many poor people are poor. If that were the case, Ted Kennedy and Paris Hilton would be living under bridges.
If X percentage of poor people are stupid, and the same percentage of rich people are stupid, then you can reasonably discount stupidity as a root cause of poverty.
I think that there are some stupid wealthy people, but in the main, people who create their own wealth have employed some form of intelligence to achieve what they have, even if it's just the intelligence to work hard.
On the other hand, if people don't even have that much intelligence then yep, they'll stay poor.
Kennedy and Hilton didn't create their own wealth. They had nice little hand ups.
I think that there are some stupid wealthy people, but in the main, people who create their own wealth have employed some form of intelligence to achieve what they have, even if it's just the intelligence to work hard.
1. What percentage of truly wealthy people earned it themselves, as opposed to inheriting it?
2. I'd say the vast majority of those who DO make their own fortune don't do so by working hard. Voltaire once said that "behind every great fortune is a crime", and in the many cases, he's correct.
On the other hand, if people don't even have that much intelligence then yep, they'll stay poor.
By that reasoning, stupid rich people should become poor.
Kennedy and Hilton didn't create their own wealth. They had nice little hand ups.
You think the CEO of Halliburton or Exxon came out of the gutter?
If you want to talk about the elite rich who make up a very small percentage of our society, then you can do that by yourself.
I'm talking about why poor people sometimes or often stay poor due to either of my reasons stated above. I'm talking about how some poor people have the opportunity to escape 'poverty'. Not being poor doesn't mean you have to be rich. I means you're not poor. I didn't say that everyone could be mega rich if they worked hard. I suggested that some people could escape poverty if they worked hard as opposed to sitting on their arse smoking crack.
Stop twisting my words to start your own little wagon again.
btw, plenty of people have inherited money and blown the lot, or does that little factoid live outside your sphere of understanding?
If you want to talk about the elite rich who make up a very small percentage of our society, then you can do that by yourself.
I'm talking about why poor people sometimes or often stay poor due to either of my reasons stated above. I'm talking about how some poor people have the opportunity to escape 'poverty'. Not being poor doesn't mean you have to be rich. I means you're not poor. I didn't say that everyone could be mega rich if they worked hard. I suggested that some people could escape poverty if they worked hard as opposed to sitting on their arse smoking crack.
Stop twisting my words to start your own little wagon again.
btw, plenty of people have inherited money and blown the lot, or does that little factoid live outside your sphere of understanding?
1. I thought we were talking about the rich, not the middle class. My bad.
2. There's no reason to be rude.
There's no reason to be stupid either...unless you can't help it.
There's no reason to be stupid either...unless you can't help it.
Sorry, I didn't know you were a troll.
Good day.
lol...get a grip.
You're the one that brought rich people into it. I was only ever talking about poor people and how they could stop being poor in some cases and my reasons for believing that. Not being poor doesn't equal being rich.
If you think it's rude that I ask you why you're failing to consider all the facts, then sorry about that. I guess you need to have a cup of concrete and harden up mate.
lol...get a grip.
You're the one that brought rich people into it. I was only ever talking about poor people and how they could stop being poor in some cases and my reasons for believing that. Not being poor doesn't equal being rich.
If you think it's rude that I ask you why you're failing to consider all the facts, then sorry about that. I guess you need to have a cup of concrete and harden up mate.
???
I'm not the one who got pissed off because someone didn't agree with you.
You should work on that.
It's always amazing to see how people manage to attribute emotions to a post that doesn't even include a smilie.
It's always amazing to see how people manage to attribute emotions to a post that doesn't even include a smilie.
Yeah, I think it was the unwarranted, childish insults that gave me the impression you were angry.
Or just a petulant child. One or the other.
lol...whatever you say. You must be right. Seems you're determined to repeat yourself. Off you go.
Do it again. :D
lol...whatever you say. You must be right. Seems you're determined to repeat yourself. Off you go.
Do it again. :D
Don't mind if I do. :)
:corn:
What I said: Troll. A dime a dozen.
TGRR,
Off to see if this board has an ignore function.
yes it does
Found it.
One less worthless troll to deal with.
So how many of us has he accused of being trolls now? lol
Pretty soon he'll have no one to talk to.
You know, I used to think that society was to blame for some people being stuck in the poor cycle, and to a certain extent I still do, but I've come to believe that some people are just plain stupid. It's not their fault really. They were born that way, and no amount of 'help' from society will ever change the fact that they're stupid.
My biggest challenge is that for those who were born stupid, how far should society be expected to go? Surely it's up to the families of stupid people to take care of them? I feel sorry for stupid people, but not sorry enough to think I should have to support them.
On the other hand, there's a whole bunch of people out there who're pretty damn smart but they insist on using their intelligence for bad instead of good, and get stuck in their cycle, which really just equates to another form of stupidity in my books.
The reason my opinion has changed in this regard is because of my husband. The story of his childhood would curl your toes, and yet he's educated and a leader in his field with a compassionate heart.
If you use your intelligence for good instead of bad, there's nothing you can't do.
There are plenty of poor people who are smart, but they couldn't escape the trap of poverty (and it is a trap, for many people, no matter how hard they try to get out).
Not all people who succeed do so because they are intelligent. Many of them succeed because they are corrupt, unethical, and immoral, and they prey on people.
As far as, how far should society go to support poor people, I think as long as we keep making rules and laws that only apply to certain segments of society or are applied differently to rich people, then it is our obligation as a society to take care of the people who don't have a chance. Personally, I really believe there is no reason why we can't end poverty. The problem is greed. Some people just think they entitled to more than others. I think it is really obscene that in a so called "civilized" society, one man could have many billions of dollars while there are people starving and living in cars. It's just, wrong.
There. The stupidity has vanished.
So how many of us has he accused of being trolls now? lol
Pretty soon he'll have no one to talk to.
he's one to talk about trolls, right? ;)
There are plenty of poor people who are smart, but they couldn't escape the trap of poverty (and it is a trap, for many people, no matter how hard they try to get out).
Not all people who succeed do so because they are intelligent. Many of them succeed because they are corrupt, unethical, and immoral, and they prey on people.
As far as, how far should society go to support poor people, I think as long as we keep making rules and laws that only apply to certain segments of society or are applied differently to rich people, then it is our obligation as a society to take care of the people who don't have a chance. Personally, I really believe there is no reason why we can't end poverty. The problem is greed. Some people just think they entitled to more than others. I think it is really obscene that in a so called "civilized" society, one man could have many billions of dollars while there are people starving and living in cars. It's just, wrong.
[Edit out serious answer]
Shut up, hippie.
TGRR,
Getting into the swing of things.
he's one to talk about trolls, right? ;)
Yeah, I gave a serious answer to her hilariously callous post.
I am a troll, obviously. I think I have this place figured out. Forget anything resembling an actual answer, ad hominem attack like an airhead when backed into a corner, and then make appeal to ridicule arguments.
I think I'm going to like this place, now that I understand the rules.
There are plenty of poor people who are smart, but they couldn't escape the trap of poverty (and it is a trap, for many people, no matter how hard they try to get out).
Not all people who succeed do so because they are intelligent. Many of them succeed because they are corrupt, unethical, and immoral, and they prey on people.
As far as, how far should society go to support poor people, I think as long as we keep making rules and laws that only apply to certain segments of society or are applied differently to rich people, then it is our obligation as a society to take care of the people who don't have a chance. Personally, I really believe there is no reason why we can't end poverty. The problem is greed. Some people just think they entitled to more than others. I think it is really obscene that in a so called "civilized" society, one man could have many billions of dollars while there are people starving and living in cars. It's just, wrong.
So do you not agree that there is a segment of society who live poorly because they've made bad decision - sometimes by way of stupidity - or simply because they don't try very hard to improve their lot in life?
While I agree that in some ways and from some perspectives, the distribution of wealth is inequitable, I just can't help but open my eyes to the fact that a lot of poor people needn't be poor.
Take Australia for example. There's really no reason why anyone should live below the poverty line considering we have a pretty good welfare system in place, and yet somehow there are people who can't get their shit together enough to use the help that's available to them.* I'm not saying our system is perfect, but it's a pretty good safety net for those who choose to take advantage of it.
*Issues of mental health come into this point, along with alcoholism and other addictive behaviours. Those are social problems which I believe we are all responsible for in some ways, but not all.
Yeah, I gave a serious answer to her hilariously callous post.
I am a troll, obviously. I think I have this place figured out. Forget anything resembling an actual answer, ad hominem attack like an airhead when backed into a corner, and then make appeal to ridicule arguments.
I think I'm going to like this place, now that I understand the rules.
If you think you had me even close to backed into a corner you're deluding yourself.
This message is hidden because Aliantha is on your ignore list.
Assuming you were talking to me, I hope you didn't waste too much time on it.
Also, you have a seriously ugly haircut, so your argument is invalid.
lol...nope, didn't waste much time at all. You're entertaining me and everyone else now.
You'd really do better to pop off to bed instead. ;)
Seriously. Is that a Liza Minelli wig?
Seriously. Is that a Liza Minelli wig?
Seriously. Is that the best you can do? Talk about childish. lol Ever heard of the pot calling the kettle black?
Mumble, mumble. Speak up. I can't hear you over that ignore thingie.
lol...stop answering then. Just fuck off instead. ;)
So do you not agree that there is a segment of society who live poorly because they've made bad decision - sometimes by way of stupidity - or simply because they don't try very hard to improve their lot in life?
While I agree that in some ways and from some perspectives, the distribution of wealth is inequitable, I just can't help but open my eyes to the fact that a lot of poor people needn't be poor.
Take Australia for example. There's really no reason why anyone should live below the poverty line considering we have a pretty good welfare system in place, and yet somehow there are people who can't get their shit together enough to use the help that's available to them.* I'm not saying our system is perfect, but it's a pretty good safety net for those who choose to take advantage of it.
*Issues of mental health come into this point, along with alcoholism and other addictive behaviours. Those are social problems which I believe we are all responsible for in some ways, but not all.
Well see, I would say addictive behaviors are personal responsibilty. yes, addictions are real, it is a real disease. And some people really do have serious problems dealing with their addictions. I know, I was sober for over 15 years. Now I drink wine and beer, but I rarely have more than 1 or 2 at a time. I couldn't have done that years ago when I got sober, but now I can, because I've learned how to curb that impulse.
The mental health system in this country is horrible. Reagan deregulated the system when he was president, and a whole lot of people ended up on the street. It is almost impossible to help someone who doesn't think they need help (and when do they ever?), unless they are an obvious danger. Hell, that guy in VA a few years ago who shot a whole bunch of people at a University had been on the radar for YEARS. People knew he was dangerous, yet he was still out in public and managed to buy a gun and ammunition. He should have been locked away and on medication.
You are lucky because Australia also has a pretty damn good health care system, from what I've heard and read. Here, health insurance has become so friggin' expensive many, many people can't afford it, and while we do have medicaid for poor people, many doctors won't take medicaid. I believe those costs have contributed to the cycle of poverty. Everything is connected.
The education system here sucks for poor people. It really is not equal in any sense. That contributes a LOT to poverty. And violence. There is a lot of violence and crime in poor neighborhoods. That also contributes to the cycle. Can people overcome that? Yes, but it is really unrealistic to think that all or most or even many poor people could overcome poverty in the system we have in place here. There just aren't enough jobs that pay well, and college is getting more expensive. And many skilled labor jobs now go to illegals, not Americans or legal immigrants, because they work for a lot less and don't complain, because they are illegal. In fact, that is happening now in white collar jobs as well. And the pay is getting worse for most people, unless you happen to be at the top.
Some people do work their ass off, and are good workers, but still have to work more than one job just to survive. It's obscene that a corporation can lay people off and cut benefits of other workers while paying lavish salaries and bonuses to the people at the top, even while losing money. That is happening more and more in this country. And in Australia, I have to wonder what the difference is in compensation rates.
"American executive compensation rates are quite different from those of the rest of the developed world. In Japan a typical executive makes eleven times what a typical worker brings home; in Britain, 22 times. In America," it is almost 500 times, probably more now, because the link is from 2006.
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/executivepay.html (click on the icon of facts and figures.)
Do some people make stupid decisions and end up in bad situations? Yes. Look at what happened with the housing market here. Do rich pricks cause more damage than people making stupid mistakes? Yes, look at the world economy.
I would ask you to read Jonathan Kozol to better understand how it really works in this country. Here are links to information about him and his books:
http://www.learntoquestion.com/seevak/groups/2002/sites/kozol/Seevak02/ineedtogoHOMEPAGE/homepage.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-kozol/why-i-am-fasting-an-expl_b_63622.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_KozolI guess it's true that things are very differen't in Aus than in the US. for one thing, our minimum wages are a lot higher here, and from what I can tell, are regulated by governments and unions far more stringently. Some US citizens have accused me of living in a nanny state because of these sorts of (what I see as) benefits.
It's all a matter of perspective. Probably hard to compare Australia and the US in any case.
Truce? ;)
Class warfare, your answers to the worlds ills will not be found here.
Egad! An Antipodean!
Probably an escaped convict living off the land. Hangings too good for 'em I say.
Toodle pip!
So do you not agree that there is a segment of society who live poorly because they've made bad decision - sometimes by way of stupidity - or simply because they don't try very hard to improve their lot in life?
While I agree that in some ways and from some perspectives, the distribution of wealth is inequitable, I just can't help but open my eyes to the fact that a lot of poor people needn't be poor.
Take Australia for example. There's really no reason why anyone should live below the poverty line considering we have a pretty good welfare system in place, and yet somehow there are people who can't get their shit together enough to use the help that's available to them.* I'm not saying our system is perfect, but it's a pretty good safety net for those who choose to take advantage of it.
*Issues of mental health come into this point, along with alcoholism and other addictive behaviours. Those are social problems which I believe we are all responsible for in some ways, but not all.
I think a better description might be that less educated people tend to be poor, rather than just stupid. More educated people tend not to be poor. I have found that often bad decisions that people make often lead to more bad decisions and things spiral down from there. People get stuck in that rut and can't get out. I think you hit the nail on the head with mental health issues, drugs, ETOH, etc.
Doc, you're way off course! No wonder your fellow safari mates are fumbling and bumbling like they're lost. Go here:
http://wmtu.mtu.edu/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6656I think a better description might be that less educated people tend to be poor, rather than just stupid. More educated people tend not to be poor. I have found that often bad decisions that people make often lead to more bad decisions and things spiral down from there. People get stuck in that rut and can't get out. I think you hit the nail on the head with mental health issues, drugs, ETOH, etc.
So with that in mind, do you think that the source of the problem is really in the education of our children? If children have better access to a decent education, they'll make better decisions and get out of the rut their parents are in?
While I think that yes we do need to look closely at education and ways to improve systems across the board both in private and public sectors, I don't think that's the only answer. It needs to be a multi-pronged approach and of course we could discuss those issues all day and come no closer to solving the problem.
I do believe that ultimately, there will always be poor people, and there'll always be rich people, and there'll always be the rest of us who sit somewhere in between. I think this is how societies based on capitalism work and always will work, and even though here in Australia we have more government monitoring, we're still a capitalist society in many ways, so will always be subject to the same problems although perhaps to a lesser degree than in the US in some ways.
Doc, you're way off course! No wonder your fellow safari mates are fumbling and bumbling like they're lost. Go here:
http://wmtu.mtu.edu/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6656
I am not a member of the safari crowd. They fired me after "the incident".
Just so ya know.
Egad! An Antipodean!
Probably an escaped convict living off the land. Hangings too good for 'em I say.
Toodle pip!
I think someone should tell these clowns where to put doctored images of cellar dwellars...if they think they've earned the right to participate in such threads of course.
Monster, maybe you could show them how it should be done? I don't think they're very good.
Class warfare,
Bosh. When it's class warfare, you'll KNOW it. We haven't even started eating those bastards yet.
The upper class has been crapping on our heads for 60 years. Hell, now they're taking your taxes to pay CEOs bonuses. Crapping back is a perfectly acceptable response.
Egad! An Antipodean!
Probably an escaped convict living off the land. Hangings too good for 'em I say.
Toodle pip!
WRAAAAAAAAAATH!
So with that in mind, do you think that the source of the problem is really in the education of our children? If children have better access to a decent education, they'll make better decisions and get out of the rut their parents are in?
While I think that yes we do need to look closely at education and ways to improve systems across the board both in private and public sectors, I don't think that's the only answer. It needs to be a multi-pronged approach and of course we could discuss those issues all day and come no closer to solving the problem.
I do believe that ultimately, there will always be poor people, and there'll always be rich people, and there'll always be the rest of us who sit somewhere in between. I think this is how societies based on capitalism work and always will work, and even though here in Australia we have more government monitoring, we're still a capitalist society in many ways, so will always be subject to the same problems although perhaps to a lesser degree than in the US in some ways.
I think most people have be praying that the solution was to provide better education to the poor kids. So far we can't even do that effectively. It would be a hard thing to measure. We shouldn's stop trying.
I am not a member of the safari crowd. They fired me after "the incident".
Just so ya know.
We knew that from post one.
We knew that from post one.
Outstanding! You get a gold star!
We knew you looked like that too.
Outstanding! You get a gold star!
TGRR you are so cute for a retard! :D
Someone stamp his forehead with a star! :lol2:
TGRR you are so cute for a retard! :D
Someone stamp his forehead with a star! :lol2:
Don't hate me because I'm beautiful
TGRR,
Knows the horrible truth is far, far worse.
At least we know he don't rub shit in his hair.
At least we know he don't rub shit in his hair.
Maybe.
TGRR,
Is only bald on top.
Cant we all jut get along
YonHad President George Bush, or Secretary Rumsfeld said, “The United States of America Does Not Torture,” bets are on that those same people who reflexively attacked when Obama took an anti-torture stand, would have cheered and agreed had Bush or Rumsfeld delivered the same message. Under Obama they seem to see anti-torture as too soft, though under Bush they might have viewed the same position with great national pride. An unequivocal stand against torture might have been viewed as undeniable evidence of moral rectitude and great internal strength. It is fair to ask, Why, if we did not torture prisoners during the first part of the war (which is just getting started), did we not come out and state, “The United States of America Does Not Torture”?
To be sure, I believe there is one circumstance when the United States should reserve the right to torture, which will be explained later.
While Bush was President, millions of people around the world wanted us to lose the Iraq war, apparently because they hated George Bush. It was also obvious to me, during periods between war stints while traveling inside the United States, Europe and Asia, that many people relished the idea of so many Americans being killed in Iraq, and the idea that Iraqis were dying, because they hated George Bush. Most of the American “anti-war” people were not “anti-war” at all. If they were truly anti-war, they would be protesting the deployment of 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan. They were anti-George Bush. And today we have a similar species of thought, only it’s anti-Obama from some of the very people who previously complained about the anti-Bush reflex.
~snip~
It is perhaps just a matter of time before millions of people, many of them Americans, who previously wanted to win the AfPak and Iraq wars, will want to see those places go sour, because they hate President Obama. Schadenfreude is alive and well.
This was part of a longer piece about torture and why he's against it.
Cant we all jut get along
Then we wouldn't have anything to post
You could share the sordid details of your love-life with us. ;)
Odds of that happening are ZERO, but nice try.
Odds of that happening are ZERO, but nice try.
S'ok. We'll just make shit up.
no doubt, but take that to another forum.
no doubt, but take that to another forum.
Aw, he's bashful.
It just doesn't belong in the political forum.
The Gov's definition of torture is a lot different than most folks.
I was surprised when I went
here to check "torture" out.
The Gov's definition of torture is a lot different than most folks.
I was surprised when I went here to check "torture" out.
Yay! We're North Korea!
C'mon. :eyebrow:
Special to CNN.com
Thursday, August 26, 200[COLOR="Red"]4[/COLOR] Posted: 3:11 PM EDT (1911 GMT)
ohhh sorry - totally missed that
That's from capnhowdy's link.
I guess it's true that things are very differen't in Aus than in the US. for one thing, our minimum wages are a lot higher here, and from what I can tell, are regulated by governments and unions far more stringently. Some US citizens have accused me of living in a nanny state because of these sorts of (what I see as) benefits.
It's all a matter of perspective. Probably hard to compare Australia and the US in any case.
Truce? ;)
Oh sweetie, I wasn't really arguing with you. I just come across as bitchy sometimes when I don't mean it that way. Sorry! (of course, there ARE times when I actually mean to be bitchy... :D) I'm just very passionate about a lot of things. I see this as a real injustice in my country. It pisses me off to no end that Congress will vote to give themselves raises every year, but they won't vote to raise the wages of the underclass who voted them into office. Buncha wankers.
Class warfare, your answers to the worlds ills will not be found here.
Class warfare has been going on for years in this country. It's just that the people at the top have been winning. Why is OK when they do it? I just want the rules to be more fair for everyone else.
Yay! We're North Korea!
Except Kim Jong-Il's got better hair.
Class warfare, that's when you bomb a school, right?
Or is it that other one, when you redistribute just enough wealth to maintain social stability and prevent re-runs of the French Revolution?
I think it is where the politicians don't have a damn clue how to actually improve anything except their own finances so they spend all their time trying to convince blue collar workers that the rich are only rich because they've screwed them over. At the same time they tell the rich they're going to take all their money and give it to the poor, causing them to hire even better lawyers to stir up even more resentment. All the while some people stand around asking what is so wrong about taking a bit to help the poor.
I think most people have be praying that the solution was to provide better education to the poor kids. So far we can't even do that effectively. It would be a hard thing to measure. We shouldn's stop trying.
Public education used to be pretty good here. Now, even some of the private schools suck. It's appalling to me how ignorant and uninformed some of the younger people are in this country. We don't even make the top 25 list anymore. It's really sad.
I think it is where the politicians don't have a damn clue how to actually improve anything except their own finances so they spend all their time trying to convince blue collar workers that the rich are only rich because they've screwed them over.
Yes, because Ken Lay and Bernie Madoff are misunderstood heroes.
yeah, those two are the norm for wealthy. I suppose we should find some welfare queen as counterbalance?
Class warfare, that's when you bomb a school, right?
Or is it that other one, when you redistribute just enough wealth to maintain social stability and prevent re-runs of the French Revolution?
That made me chuckle. Quite a lot.
... just enough wealth to maintain social stability and prevent re-runs of the French Revolution?
I've been advocating for a French Revolution in this country for a long time.
Though the French
did go a bit bananas with it (esp. at the end) it was, at first, a sound idea. AND it got results. I think that, as Americans, we can embrace and improve upon the spirit of the French Revolution and make it our own.
At least we know he don't rub shit in his hair.
Good point.:D
I think it is where the politicians don't have a damn clue how to actually improve anything except their own finances so they spend all their time trying to convince blue collar workers that the rich are only rich because they've screwed them over.
I don't think you can say it any better than that.
I would add that the politicians are very adept at disguising the extent of their own wealth so as to feign a distinction between themselves and those they castigate in order to win over the blue collar support. In other words, their first act of hypocrisy is comitted before they are even elected. Given that, its hard to imagine that they suddenly cease being hypocrits following their victory.
yeah, those two are the norm for wealthy.
L. Dennis Kozlowski
Mark Swartz
Bernard Ebbers
Rebecca Mark-Jusbasche
Joseph Berardino
Barry Minkow
David Walsh
Calisto Tanzi
Conrad Black
William McGuire
Shall I go on? I can do this all day.
I suppose we should find some welfare queen as counterbalance?
Good luck with that. After Reagan coined the term, claiming they were all driving Cadillacs to pick up their food stamps, he was unable to locate a single one, and basically admitted he made his little anecdote up. Or do you have a new definition for the term?
I've been advocating for a French Revolution in this country for a long time.
Though the French did go a bit bananas with it (esp. at the end) it was, at first, a sound idea. AND it got results. I think that, as Americans, we can embrace and improve upon the spirit of the French Revolution and make it our own.
Off with their heads! :D
I've been wanting a revolution since the early 90s. After Reagan and Bush I became quite disillusioned with politicians and the policies they put forth. I voted for Clinton the 1st time, but not the 2nd, because I found I didn't like him as much as I thought I would. He turned out to be too moderate. I thought he would be more progressive. I hope Obama doen't turn out like that.
I heard something recently, don't remember where, but someone said, in France, the government is afraid of the people, here, the people are afraid of the government. Which is better for the people?
*off topic* (Hey Brianna, you live in Ohio. Is it true that a woman was recently given a ticket for reckless endangerment after she was pulled over for driving while breastfeeding AND talking on a cell phone? bitch should've been thrown in jail if it's true.)
Here's the story:
http://www.whiotv.com/news/18813161/detail.html
Video shows she's not the sharpest tool in the shed, that mom.
Here's the story: http://www.whiotv.com/news/18813161/detail.html
Video shows she's not the sharpest tool in the shed, that mom.
Stupidity is a criminal condition.
If the law doesn't punish you, the universe eventually will.
Ahh, but in this case who ends up losing? The kids? Think of the children. ;)
paraphrase: if an airbag hits my baby how is that any different than an airbag hitting me? It's the same difference. :headshake
I love how Jill Del Greco kind of gives her crap, in a local news kind of way.
Ahh, but in this case who ends up losing? The kids? Think of the children. ;)
I'm thinking of their genes, actually. This is how the gene pool cleans itself.
paraphrase: if an airbag hits my baby how is that any different than an airbag hitting me? It's the same difference. :headshake
HAR! The little bastard would pop out from between the bag and the hag like a grape, and probably take out a pedestrian or two.
So it's not all bad, right?
:lol:
You are not right, dude.
:lol:
You are not right, dude.
Yeah, I'm working on that.
A Dayton mother is facing charges for breast feeding her daughter while driving her other children to school.
Genine Compton was pulled over by Kettering police Thursday at Far Hills and Dorothy Lane while taking her other children to school.
Police say Comptom could have injured her child and others because she was breast feeding and talking on the cell phone while driving the vehicle.
Compton was issued citations for child endangering and violating the child restraint law. Compton told News Center 7 Friday, "If my child's hungry, I'm going to feed it."
Police say it is against the law to drive with a child in your lap. Children under 4 or 40 pounds must be properly restrained in a child safety seat.
In this case, officers said Compton had the child in the lap with the baby's head up against the steering wheel. They say there is not only the risk of a crash, but deployment of the airbag.
Compton said she will take the advice of the officers into consideration, but she may breast feed her baby while driving in the future if she feels that is is necessary.
She could face up to 180 days in jail and fines for the child endangering citation.
WTF? What an idiot.
How attentive was she while operating a car, breastfeeding AND talking on the phone. After all of it to say that she'd do it again just goes to show how incredibly stupid some people are.
And maybe they should create a law about this. I mean really, if the kid is hungry, maybe she ought to get up in time to feed it BEFORE getting in the damn car and driving. What an idiot. I hope gets the book thrown at her, especially since she said she would do it again.
It really is too bad we can't arrest people for being stupid, isn't it?
Maybe they should just take her car and license away, like a DUI or something. I think it should be against the law to talk on a cell phone while driving as well. People's attention spans are too short, and cell phones are WAY too much of a distraction.
How attentive was she while operating a car, breastfeeding AND talking on the phone. After all of it to say that she'd do it again just goes to show how incredibly stupid some people are.
This is 'Murrica. We have to multi-task. To keep up.
Plus, she has a disability. She's stupid. :3eye:
Step One: pull over and stop when kidlet is hungry. Steps Two and Three concurrently: feed kid and phone ahead to tell them you're going to be a little bit delayed but are en route.
Somehow this kind of planning seems to have escaped her mind.
She's just lucky the cops liked their coffee black.
Which reminds me of a long-ago Bill Holbrook breast-pump joke in his defunct strip On The Fasttrack:
"How does your raisin bran taste?"
"Funny. Why?"
![GDP over the Depression.]("http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gdp20-40.jpg"){kind=link}