The Real Mitt Romney
Since I live in San Diego, this is something that caught my ear.
In 2007 we had a SECOND round of bad wildfires sweep through the (mostly) eastern part of the county. Hundreds of homes were lost, as the fire was pushed by strong, hot winds off the desert (what we call "Santa Anna" winds), which blew at up to 60 mph. Several people were killed, and many pets and farm animals lost, as well.
The fire followed the winds, the fuel, and the canyons. Eventually, we had fires in the North, East, and West, and another large one in the Southern part of the county. Major highways like I-15 were seared by the flying, burning, embers. Some had to be closed.
Romney has a home in San Diego county, and he knew someone had been caught up in the fire area. Romney's son, called him up and asked what they could do to help.
Fortunately, the man's home had lost it's fence and a large tree, but escaped most other damage. There was a large stump still left in the yard from the burnt tree, however.
Next day, the Romney "group", including Mitt, were out digging a huge hole in the guy's yard, so the stump could be removed. Mitt, working a shovel, down in the hole. No press, no camera's, no blog about it, that I'm aware of.
That's Mitt, and the values he's passed onto his family.
The Real Obama? His half-brother lives in dire poverty, in Kenya, and has received no help whatsoever.
Romney has done a lot of these personal gestures to help others, far from the spotlight.
the real Mitt Romney, at a
private fundraiser for big donors:
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax. [...]
[M]y job is not to worry about those people."
Describing his family background, he quipped about his father, "Had he been born of Mexican parents, I'd have a better shot of winning this." Contending that he is a self-made millionaire who earned his own fortune, Romney insisted, "I have inherited nothing."
"These are problems—these are very hard to solve, all right? And I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes, committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel, and these thorny issues, and I say, "There's just no way." And so what you do is you say, "You move things along the best way you can." You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize that this is going to remain an unsolved problem. We live with that in China and Taiwan. All right, we have a potentially volatile situation but we sort of live with it, and we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it."
"If I were Iran, if I were Iran—a crazed fanatic, I'd say let's get a little fissile material to Hezbollah, have them carry it to Chicago or some other place, and then if anything goes wrong, or America starts acting up, we'll just say, "Guess what? Unless you stand down, why, we're going to let off a dirty bomb." I mean this is where we have—where America could be held up and blackmailed by Iran, by the mullahs, by crazy people. So we really don't have any option but to keep Iran from having a nuclear weapon."
Romney didn't appear to understand that a dirty bomb—an explosive device that spreads radioactive substances—does not require fissile material from a nuclear weapons program. Such a bomb can be produced with, say, radioactive medical waste. If Iran's nuclear program poses a threat, it is not because this project will yield a dirty bomb.
While Romney is certainly reprehensible, I'm much more worried about Ryan.
Why?
Because he's worrisome. I'm going to bed now. I'll have a better answer shortly.
Romney helps out rich neighbours.
Obama refuses to give handouts to foreigners.
Neither are new headlines, shurely.
Ryan is a loose canon AND he has that devilish hair-do.
And he's got those ice-blue eyes. There's some furor in there somewhere...
I believe form says a lot about someone even though I'm not SUPPOSED to believe it.
Look at Palin: she looked like an idiot and lo and behold, she was an idiot.
I know it' shallow of me. But I just get these intuitions.
Carry on.
And he's got those ice-blue eyes. There's some furor in there somewhere...
He certainly seems intense. And seems willing to put his faith forward while forgetting the half about compassion. He might just be the most dynamic Catholic politician since Adolph Hitler.
Adolph never read Ayn Rand, but if he had he would have joined her book club.
The Real Obama? His half-brother lives in dire poverty, in Kenya, and has received no help whatsoever.
And you know that why? Because Rush Limbaugh said it?
Sound like Romney should be running for Vicar of a Methodist Church. Not for president.
So Mitt's the kind of guy who helps a friend in a little bit of need, but not a stranger in great need.
I hate assholes like that.
So Mitt's the kind of guy who helps a friend in a little bit of need, but not a stranger in great need.
I hate assholes like that.
Hahahahahaa!
Seriously. Giving handouts to his neighbors. Enabling his neighbors to be lazy. He ought to be ashamed.
@Happy Monkey:
Yes, some of Romney's good deeds have come out, now that he's a possible President. Not all of them, but most.
@Tw:
Because a reporter was interested enough to go see Obama's relative, and was surprised to find him a very poor street vendor.
Nobody denies it, btw.
@Sundae:
The rich neighbors weren't affected by the fire. In San Diego, the rich people live along the coast. The fires always start in the eastern mountains - typically from lightning strikes, which are common there in the Summer.
This is SD however. We have a lot of homes that are three hundred thousand dollars. That's not rich, here. Just an average price of a home in San Diego Co.
@Ibby:
These "47 percent" comments were made at a fund raiser last May. Romney is saying that 47 percent of the voter, are unlikely to vote for him. As a practical matter, people who pay no federal income taxes aren't that interested in voting for a politician who is trying to cut federal income taxes, and to shrink the size/cost of our federal bureaucracy.
He is hoping to get just over 50 percent of the votes. As of yesterday, some surveys have put Obama at 47 percent support, among voters. Romney's percentage projection was correct.
In their surveys and focus groups, a candidate with a Hispanic surname, was popular. The Latino vote is an important group, that any politician will try to win.
Re: Insolvable problems, like the Israel/Palestinian problem.
You can't make intractable people, sit down and negotiate, in good faith. Every President since Kennedy has tried to solve this problem, either directly, or indirectly, through the State Department, special envoys or other back channels.
What do the Palestinians want? Their property (land) back, which is currently inside Israel, and death to Israel.
What do the Israeli's want? Security from the terrorist attacks of the Palestinians, and wars from it's neighboring countries.
Israeli's know perfectly well that they would be attacked inside their country, if they allowed the Palestinians to return.
You can make their leaders smile and shake hands (ala President Carter's negotiations), but you can't make them live up to their promises. If the respective leaders try hard enough, they know they will be assassinated by their own people.
You know this from history.
The Muslims have a religion AND a strong ideology. As long as they spread the ideology of hatred for the Jews (which they have had since [I believe it was before the Battle of The Trench, but not certain]. Anyway, the Jews betrayed them at a critical battle), there will be no peace. The ideology is reinforced in their school text books, and etc., almost without let up. In their value system, the Jew ranks in the lowest parts, along with the pig (which they will not eat and generally despise).
Until these ideologies change, there will be no peace in the Middle East.
Yes, "fissile" could be simple radioactive material, for a dirty bomb. A dirty bomb would kill a lot of Israeli's, if it went off in a city, but not nearly as many as a nuclear bomb (with the required fissile material, of course). The latter is the real worry.
Romney is not perfect, but he's a great deal more knowledgeable about business, and his team is a great deal more knowledgeable about the economy, than Obama and Biden.
If you want to see us go another five TRILLION dollars into debt, you should vote for Obama/Biden. Understand that programs like medicare and social security WILL be put into serious jeopardy by a massive federal debt like that.
When things start to pick up, we'll be hit by serious inflation, as well. We saw that in Carter's administration -- devastating.
So Mitt's the kind of guy who helps a friend in a little bit of need, but not a stranger in great need.
I hate assholes like that.
Yeah, I hate him also - he keeps giving millions to charity, and making me look bad. :eek:
This is SD however. We have a lot of homes that are three hundred thousand dollars. That's not rich, here. Just an average price of a home in San Diego Co.
:rolleyes:
“Every year, I’ve paid at least 13 percent, and if you add, in addition, the amount that goes to charity, why the number gets well above 20 percent,”
That is sort of annoying. Not only is tithing tax-deductible, but you can claim that it's charity.
So his tithing helps him manage to get his tax rate below even the capital gains rate, and he then equates them, and touts "the number".
When I was in San Diego I was browsing a real estate magazine, for funsies.
I found a "lovely little starter home" for 660,000 dollars. So the $300,00 houses are either doghouses, or made up. I don't think there are ghettos in SD but I could be wrong.
The Muslims have a religion AND a strong ideology.The ideology is reinforced in their school text books, and etc., almost without let up. In their value system, the Jew ranks in the lowest parts, along with the pig (which they will not eat and generally despise).
Whose school books?
Not the Muslims I teach in my school. Probably not Rhianne's family. Not my friends in Leicester. No, not all Muslims are peaceable, decent people. But neither are all Americans. And they can be as far apart in action and ideology.
Whose school books?
Not the Muslims I teach in my school. Probably not Rhianne's family. Not my friends in Leicester. No, not all Muslims are peaceable, decent people. But neither are all Americans. And they can be as far apart in action and ideology.
These were school books for elementary kids, in Saudi Arabia. Laid out the value's of: pigs, other animals, Christians, non-believers, Jews, former Muslim's who had left Islam, and of course, Muslims.
It isn't the religion of Islam that is the problem. It is the ideology and common practices and idea's that have fastened onto Islam, like a barnacle to a ship. Some of those practices are good, some are indifferent, but some are just a parasite, and totally damaging to the religion of Islam.
Look back, into the actual history of Islam's leaders, and see just How many of those leaders were killed by their own followers? Even by their own followers within their branch or sect. It's a very high percentage, compared to other major world religions.
Even today, the Shia and the Suni, and the Sufi's, are regularly killed in sectarian attacks, from other Muslims.
When the Christians, with the blessings of the Pope and the King of France, were slaughtering the French Rosicrucians, it was dogma that by killing off the wayward sect, they were acting to "save" all their potential progeny from hell. Nipping it in the bud, as it were.
That would never be accepted in Christianity today, likewise "honor killings" for Muslims who leave the faith.
But that seems to be where Islam is left today. I know many Muslims are not violent, and not Jew-haters, but that is not enough. Overall, the Muslims have done next to nothing to protest the violent excesses and racial hatred incidents, within their faith.
Was it Edmund Burke who said: "For evil to prevail, all that's needed is for good men to do nothing."?
After the 9/11/2001, which was CLEARLY the largest and most publicized attack by violent and radicalized Muslims, did you see any large protests of that, from Muslims? Any Jihad groups trying to arrest or capture Osama Bin Laden, or other 9/11 leaders?
Anywhere?
Crickets.
That's all you heard from most of the Muslim followers - after the cheering and dancing in the streets scenes were done, of course.
I believe Mohammad got Islam off to a great start, but in the ensuing violence over who should be the leader after he was gone - and all the subsequent battles, the religion of Islam, didn't move forward, as it should have.
Unfortunately, as any group becomes more radical and/or violent, they attract more members who want to be more radical and/or violent. If they're not careful, the group will be taken over by them.
When I was in San Diego I was browsing a real estate magazine, for funsies.
I found a "lovely little starter home" for 660,000 dollars. So the $300,00 houses are either doghouses, or made up. I don't think there are ghettos in SD but I could be wrong.
Housing prices here have dropped dramatically since 2009. The average has climbed up a bit from about $320k, at it's lowest. There are area's of SD that you would not want to live in. One of the most notorious gangs in North America was HQ'd in SD, but finally killed a Catholic Cardinal while doing an assassination for the cartel. You guessed it, they killed the wrong guy, although he was wearing a Cardinal's traveling outfit, at the time.
There are still gang area's in SD. Lots of immigrants - we're a "sanctuary city". We're also broke because the politicians caved in to so many demands from the unions. (The unions fund the politicians that sell us out, you see).
They don't call us "Enron by the Sea", for nothing. Probably should be "Detroit by the Sea", however. :(
That is sort of annoying. Not only is tithing tax-deductible, but you can claim that it's charity.
So his tithing helps him manage to get his tax rate below even the capital gains rate, and he then equates them, and touts "the number".
Yes, the politicians have played the "we will favor THIS kind of person, this week, and favor THAT kind of person, next week". "Wouldn't you like to donate to my reelection campaign?" :rolleyes:
Romney's tithing is no different from tithing done by religions around the world: the old Biblical 10%. Taxes calculations are not any different for Romney, than for anyone else. It's our politicians who keep messing with the tax code, who have caused one hell of a problem, and made lots of winners and losers, while doing it.
Both parties have done it, and done it a LOT.
We are still giving subsidies for farmers growing wool, because we thought it might be needed for wool socks and uniforms, back in World War I! :mad: And they wonder WHY I don't want the gov't managing more of my money and governing more of my life. ;)
I don't know that "both sides do it" applies to "if you include my tithing, my tax rate is higher"! That's more of a Romney thing.
Romney's tithing goes to his church. His church financially supports bills that black equal marriage laws. That makes both of them scum as far as I'm concerned.
When he starts feeding the homeless and poor, regardless of faith, etc. let me know.
And IMO, anyone who would vote for a man who hides his income in other countries, runs on his record as governor but has all his records sealed, brags about what a great job he did saving the Olympics but has all of those records destroyed, that voter REALLY needs to ask themselves, "Why?".
Obama's cousin is not some poor guy living in the ghetto, he's apparently a poor, alcoholic, con man living in the ghetto. How exactly would Obama help this guy, if he were so inclined?
Obama's cousin is not some poor guy living in the ghetto, he's apparently a poor, alcoholic, con man living in the ghetto. How exactly would Obama help this guy, if he were so inclined?
...maybe... a government program that helps you, with government aid to pay for food-related costs, not from family members or wealthy friends or based on your connections... but instead based on whether or not you meet a very specific set of criteria (requiring you to be doing "your best", regulatorily speaking, to TRY to provide) but if you still fail to make ends meet... to provide a pittance as wiggle-room to help you meet the medical minimum of caloric intake.
No wait... that's the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program. That's "food stamps". That's the evil evil Welfare. nevermind, that's damn dirty socialism. his cousin, if he lives as a criminal wouldn't qualify. damn.
Romney's tithing goes to his church. His church financially supports bills that black equal marriage laws. That makes both of them scum as far as I'm concerned.
When he starts feeding the homeless and poor, regardless of faith, etc. let me know.
And IMO, anyone who would vote for a man who hides his income in other countries, runs on his record as governor but has all his records sealed, brags about what a great job he did saving the Olympics but has all of those records destroyed, that voter REALLY needs to ask themselves, "Why?".
Romney's tithing goes to his church, just like any church members tithing goes to their church. No difference in the Mormons, compared to say, any other church, Protestant or Catholic, if they are tithing members (committed).
Romney has also contributed hugely to other charities, besides his church. His tithing has been just a start of his charitable giving.
What do you mean by "black equal marriage laws"?
If you mean "block", marriages being equal - in most religions, all marriages are equal.
If you mean gay marriage, that is because gays can't traditionally, make a marriage. Gays can make civil unions which can have the same rights as a marriage, by law, but they can't procreate (as a married couple might), and the ability to procreate has always been somewhat protected by the Bible, and by the Book of Mormon.
It's the lesson of Sparta. Sparta was a powerhouse for years in Greece, but their style of warfare did not evolve, while others did (notably Athens and Thebes). Sparta began losing more warriors, and because their birth rate was so low, they were subjugated before they could adjust to the new and more efficient style of warfare.
To provide a wide variety of specialists and soldiers/sailors, you need a lot of citizens - and that was a major concern to the writers of the Bible. They gave a strong preference to the marriage, because it was viewed as essential for the continuation of the nation.
Yes, the Thebans had the famous "Band of Brothers" who were most feared in their day, and consisted of all gay partners. But they also died out as a unit, because they had insufficient children to take the place of those who had fallen.
Mormons ALWAYS feed the hungry, etc. They're way more active than your average church. Not as active as the Mennonites, and a rare few active Evangelical christian churches, but definitely ahead of the normal church. They are fine people. Their kids are spoiled many times, until they reach their older teens. Then the light comes on for them.
Romney doesn't HIDE his income. Rubbish! If you want to invest in ANYTHING overseas, or many brokerages that are based overseas, then you will want to keep funds available, overseas, AND in the currency that they require.
Nobody but an idiot would repeatedly pay the transfer fee for changing money from say, dollars, to euro's, over and over, for every transaction.
The tax laws also practically require it - and BOTH parties wrote those tax bills, and Romney had nothing to do with any of them.
Romney's finances are cleaner than a baby's bottom after a bath, and everyone knows it - he's released his entire tax returns. In addition, like several of our most honest politicians, he has his funds put into a "blind" trust, and managed independently, by a financial firm.
He can't "lobby" for any law that might help him out, because he doesn't manage his funds, and only finds out what's going on, after the report period has ended.
I want to see you match that level of honesty, in your life - I don't give a damn, WHO you are.
His "records" as governor, are public documents - laws and such. Anything private, is not public, and they are not "records", for public scrutiny.
BTW, Obama has hidden more of his personal life before entering the Senate, than any other president, in history.
We do know that the person who helped Obama buy his Chicago home, and the lot next door to it so it could be "larger", was the same person responsible for killing a few people, as a member of the Weather Underground.
In the Olympics, there was federal money, state and city monies, and international funds, as well. All of it had to be accounted for, of course. This is business, not the military. :D
The Salt Lake City Winter Olympics that Romney rescued, was, and is still, the only Winter Olympics that has showed a profit.
To get a full picture of the books for this Olympics, you'd have to have the books opened from City, State, several National sporting organizations, and of course, the IOCC, itself.
Since a few IOCC directors have been convicted of blackmail, graft, and such, since then, I can assure THAT access, they will not allow.
Has nothing to do with Romney. Romney saved the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, when they were already over-budget for their progress so far, and behind on their completion rate.
You ask ANYONE connected in any way with that Olympics, who saved those games? Who made them the most successful Winter Olympic games, ever?
Mitt Romney. Not bragging, just fact.
When Obama called Bush "unpatriotic" for running the national debt up to 9 Trillion Dollars, leaving every person in America with a huge debt (about 32,000 dollars), Obama was quite right.
Now that Obama has run up the national debt to over 16 Trillion dollars, it's supposed to be OK.
Oh Sure! :mad:
That's economic nonsense. The interest rates WILL be rising, and when it does, the amount of debt we will have to pay every year, on our debt, will cost more than the wars in Afghanistan AND Iraq, combined.
The above is not from my analysis, but from a professor of economics at Duquesne University. (also spelled Ducane Uni).
If you'd like to hear his full interview about it, let me know, it's on the net.
In November, we have a clear choice:
* Re-elect Obama - a guy who is strongly for socialism and doing things "fairly". Who's also never run a lemonade stand.
* and his V.P., an idiot named Joe Biden. Who, as a President, would scare the shit out of anyone.
or
* Elect Romney - who has been saving businesses, most of his life, and is a strong believer in the capitalism our country was founded on.
* and his V.P. candidate, a former head of the finance and budget committee in the Senate.
Which of those two choices would you prefer?
How does this "fair" idea work?
Here's an easy to understand idea, for students:
You work very hard, get a 3.8 point grade average. Your next door neighbor (also a student), hardly does much more than party, and gets a 1.8 grade point average.
You both graduate, but you aren't in the honor roll anymore. You wonder why the hell not, and then you see your GPA -- it's been lowered to a 2.8 GPA.
But that was only fair, because we needed to bring up your neighbor by a full 1.0, so he could have a 2.8 GPA, as well.
And that's socialism, in a nutshell. Isn't that fun?
Even China had the good sense to finally ditch most of it.
No. I officially bow out of this thread. Too much for me to address.
yes, yes; the poor people "party" and toke it up and get a 1.8.
Yes, the poor deserve to be poor. The rich, well, they've been ordained by God to be rich and thus deserve it by "working hard" (by which you mean running rum during prohibition, playing dirty politics and all those other nasty things our american dynasties did to get to where they are)
So. Somebody needs to watch HBO's documentary HARD TIMES: Lost on Long Island.
Plus, you're an idiot if you think Romney knows how to run a business. He knows how to MAKE MONEY FOR HIMSELF; those are two different things.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]Romney's tithing goes to his church, just like any church members tithing goes to their church. No difference in the Mormons, compared to say, any other church, Protestant or Catholic, if they are tithing members (committed).
Romney has also contributed hugely to other charities, besides his church. His tithing has been just a start of his charitable giving.
[/COLOR]
What do you mean by "black equal marriage laws"?
If you mean "block", marriages being equal - in most religions, all marriages are equal.
If you mean gay marriage, that is because gays can't traditionally, make a marriage. Gays can make civil unions which can have the same rights as a marriage, by law, but they can't procreate (as a married couple might), and the ability to procreate has always been somewhat protected by the Bible, and by the Book of Mormon.
It's the lesson of Sparta. Sparta was a powerhouse for years in Greece, but their style of warfare did not evolve, while others did (notably Athens and Thebes). Sparta began losing more warriors, and because their birth rate was so low, they were subjugated before they could adjust to the new and more efficient style of warfare.
To provide a wide variety of specialists and soldiers/sailors, you need a lot of citizens - and that was a major concern to the writers of the Bible. They gave a strong preference to the marriage, because it was viewed as essential for the continuation of the nation.
Yes, the Thebans had the famous "Band of Brothers" who were most feared in their day, and consisted of all gay partners. But they also died out as a unit, because they had insufficient children to take the place of those who had fallen.
Mormons ALWAYS feed the hungry, etc. They're way more active than your average church. Not as active as the Mennonites, and a rare few active Evangelical christian churches, but definitely ahead of the normal church. They are fine people. Their kids are spoiled many times, until they reach their older teens. Then the light comes on for them.
[COLOR="Green"]Romney doesn't HIDE his income. Rubbish! If you want to invest in ANYTHING overseas, or many brokerages that are based overseas, then you will want to keep funds available, overseas, AND in the currency that they require.
Nobody but an idiot would repeatedly pay the transfer fee for changing money from say, dollars, to euro's, over and over, for every transaction.
The tax laws also practically require it - and BOTH parties wrote those tax bills, and Romney had nothing to do with any of them.
Romney's finances are cleaner than a baby's bottom after a bath, and everyone knows it - he's released his entire tax returns. In addition, like several of our most honest politicians, he has his funds put into a "blind" trust, and managed independently, by a financial firm.[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Yellow"]He can't "lobby" for any law that might help him out, because he doesn't manage his funds, and only finds out what's going on, after the report period has ended.
I want to see you match that level of honesty, in your life - I don't give a damn, WHO you are.
His "records" as governor, are public documents - laws and such. Anything private, is not public, and they are not "records", for public scrutiny.[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Purple"]BTW, Obama has hidden more of his personal life before entering the Senate, than any other president, in history.
We do know that the person who helped Obama buy his Chicago home, and the lot next door to it so it could be "larger", was the same person responsible for killing a few people, as a member of the Weather Underground.
[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Blue"]In the Olympics, there was federal money, state and city monies, and international funds, as well. All of it had to be accounted for, of course. This is business, not the military. :D
The Salt Lake City Winter Olympics that Romney rescued, was, and is still, the only Winter Olympics that has showed a profit.
To get a full picture of the books for this Olympics, you'd have to have the books opened from City, State, several National sporting organizations, and of course, the IOCC, itself.
Since a few IOCC directors have been convicted of blackmail, graft, and such, since then, I can assure THAT access, they will not allow.
Has nothing to do with Romney. Romney saved the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, when they were already over-budget for their progress so far, and behind on their completion rate.
You ask ANYONE connected in any way with that Olympics, who saved those games? Who made them the most successful Winter Olympic games, ever?
Mitt Romney. Not bragging, just fact.[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Purple"]When Obama called Bush "unpatriotic" for running the national debt up to 9 Trillion Dollars, leaving every person in America with a huge debt (about 32,000 dollars), Obama was quite right.
Now that Obama has run up the national debt to over 16 Trillion dollars, it's supposed to be OK.
Oh Sure! :mad:
That's economic nonsense. The interest rates WILL be rising, and when it does, the amount of debt we will have to pay every year, on our debt, will cost more than the wars in Afghanistan AND Iraq, combined.
The above is not from my analysis, but from a professor of economics at Duquesne University. (also spelled Ducane Uni).[/COLOR]
If you'd like to hear his full interview about it, let me know, it's on the internet.
Here
[ATTACH]40753[/ATTACH]
His giving out were of an infinite distance from his true-meant design.
The Real Mitt Romney?
A conservative's view of Romney's 47% line.
By tagging 47 percent of America as irresponsible, Obama-supporting government dependents, Romney showed again that his politics are grounded in false liberal premises.
Romney's statement at a closed-door fundraiser reflected the mistaken liberal view that the growth of government mostly redistributes wealth downward -- it doesn't. He also implicitly bought into the Left's narrow view that both tax cuts and welfare programs mostly benefit the immediate recipients. Finally, Romney conflated tax cuts with government aid, reflecting the perverse mindset that all wealth originally belongs to the state.
Romney was correct that a portion of America backs President Obama because they "are dependent upon government" and "believe that they are entitled." We even know these dependents' names: Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers, General Electric boss Jeff Immelt, Pfizer lobbying chief Sally Sussman, Solyndra investor George Kaiser and millionaire lobbyist Tony Podesta, to list a few.
In the last few years of bailouts, stimulus, Obamacare and government expansion in general, we have seen median income fall and corporate profits soar. Industries are consolidating as the big get bigger while the little guys shut down.
When government controls more money, those with the best lobbyists pocket most of it. The five largest banks hold a share of U.S. assets 30 percent larger today than in 2006. Also, as Obama has expanded export subsidies, 75 percent of the Export-Import Bank's loan-guarantee dollars in the past three years have subsidized Boeing sales.
Romney, however, wasn't talking about corporate welfare queens. He was talking about the 47 percent of the population that pays no federal income tax.
Think about Romney's perverse logic here: He disparaged people as "dependent" for not owing income taxes. Many of these people are retired and living off the life savings they earned. A family of four earning $40,000 could owe zero federal income tax even without tax credits.
Keeping your own money isn't being "dependent on government." Sure, Obama speaks as if it were, lambasting the GOP for "giving" tax cuts to the wrong people. But Republicans are supposed to distinguish between government giving you something and government leaving you alone.
But even if Romney were talking about recipients of actual government aid, he shouldn't assume, along with the Left, that they are willing wards of the state.
Many recipients of government aid don't like it. Even if they don't turn down free money, they don't like it being offered. The Tea Partier taking federal payments is like Warren Buffett calling for a tax hike -- call them hypocrites if you like, but also consider they that they might just hold a view of what's right that isn't directly tied to their short-term financial interests.
Also, the very government program "helping" Americans is often the one that creates their "need" in the first place. Farm subsidies can drive down crop prices, housing subsidies drive up home prices. Government makes it harder to get by on your own, and then offers to help you out -- and you're supposed to feel grateful?
If we "didn't build that," it might be because government wouldn't let us.
The safety net is supposed keep you from hitting rock bottom. As entitlements and handouts are expanded to the middle class and above, the net becomes more of a web, ensnaring those who would otherwise be self-sufficient.
Many conservatives understand this. As the editorial in Wednesday's Washington Examiner pointed out, vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan gets it. Through the growth of the welfare state, Ryan wrote in his 2010 Roadmap for America's Future, "government increasingly dictates how Americans live their lives; they are not only wards of the state, but also its subjects."
Rick Santorum also gets it. The January night he tied Romney in Iowa, Santorum spoke of the working class, warning that Obama "wants to make them dependent rather than valuing their work."
But Romney has never gotten it. That same night in Iowa, Romney inveighed against the "entitlement society." Just as many liberals think all people receiving government aid need it and can't make it on their own, Romney thinks they all have abdicated responsibility.
Finally, does Romney also believe tax cuts benefit only those whose taxes are being cut? Does he not really think lower tax rates help the whole economy? Does a rising tide no longer lift all boats? Or maybe Romney just thinks he can't convince people that it does.
The cause of economic liberty deserves a better apostle than Mitt Romney -- ideally one who actually believes it.
Both parties have participated in the over-spending by the gov't. No doubt about that. The Republicans have done it usually slower, but Bill Clinton did a fine job on this, when he was in office. Bush II did not limit spending, but he did have the extra problem of the 9/11 attack and the wars, to deal with.
We went to #2 in the world wide survey of "countries with free business practices", during the Clinton years. (Below only Hong Kong). Now we are ranked out of the top 15.
The truth is, socialism only works well, when you have a large source of income to "feed" it. Norway for instance, has a large oil field in the North Sea, that they have been drilling into, for years. Germany has a very smart set of export laws for their businesses, and a gov't that is required by the constitution, to be pro-business (they must provide jobs).
We have a President who refuses most efforts to increase our jobs:
* No keystone pipeline. Obama doesn't want Canadian oil. Let it go to China, instead. :mad: Good, high-paying jobs - who needs them?
* No frakking for oil, on federal lands. Thankfully, Obama can't stop it on private lands, but he's tried.
* Very limited drilling on federal lands, even after permits have been secured, environmental studies done and approved, etc.
* Coal (which we have a huge amount of), burning power plants are being run out of business - just as Obama promised he would before he was elected.
Clean burning coal is of no interest - here is where you run around your neighborhood flapping your arms like a kid - we'll use wind power, instead. Wind power. Solar power - because we know that the wind always blows more than 15 miles per hour, and the sun always shines. Yeah, right. :rolleyes:
If you want to dream, go socialist. It's an unmotivating dream, but it can work, until the money runs out. Even a huge number of religious monasteries have found a way to bring some major aspect of capitalism into their lives: they sell cheeses, wine, fine brandy, even transcribe documents into computer records! Without that injection of capitalism, they would have to close.
When your governments power increases, your freedoms decrease, and your take-home pay, it decreases too. Because government lives off of the money it takes from it's citizens. EVERY penny they spend, comes from the tax payers - absolutely.
I always laugh when I hear people (usually young people), bad-mouthing capitalism.
Just what do they think has kept this country strong for the last 200+ years?
[COLOR="Red"]Capitalism == Opportunity == People willing to take risks == more jobs, more products, more inventions, [/COLOR]
[COLOR="Navy"]Who invented the iPhone, the Personal Computer, the Radio, even the car in your driveway, etc.? It was CAPITALISM, (private companies), not the government.
[/COLOR]
Your statement is not factual. You need to re-read Romney's recorded statement, or listen to it more carefully.
By tagging 47 percent of America as irresponsible, Obama-supporting government dependents, Romney showed again that his politics are grounded in false liberal premises.
Romney's statement at a closed-door fundraiser reflected the mistaken liberal view that the growth of government mostly redistributes wealth downward -- it doesn't. He also implicitly bought into the Left's narrow view that both tax cuts and welfare programs mostly benefit the immediate recipients. Finally, Romney conflated tax cuts with government aid, reflecting the perverse mindset that all wealth originally belongs to the state.
Mitt was talking about political estimates of his supporters, and estimates of Obama's supporters, for the upcoming Fall election.
He wasn't discussing economic, welfare, or monetary theories.
You're implying a great deal about his talk at the fundraiser last May, that simply was not included.
Listen to his talk again, keeping in mind the setting - a political fundraiser, and this was back in May. It's not a talk about theories. It's a talk about political realities that he expected to see, in the Fall.
Germany has a very smart set of export laws for their businesses, and a gov't that is required by the constitution, to be pro-business (they must provide jobs).
Are you touting Germany as socialist, or non-socialist here?
Because they are far more socialist than the US, and are heavily invested in solar and wind power - about 20% of their total generation.
Or are you saying that their capitalistic success lets them tax their "job creators" enough to fund their socialism?
Mitt was talking about political estimates of his supporters, and estimates of Obama's supporters, for the upcoming Fall election.
...
Listen to his talk again, keeping in mind the setting - a political fundraiser, and this was back in May. It's not a talk about theories. It's a talk about political realities that he expected to see, in the Fall.
Part of it was about political realities:
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, ...
And they will vote for this president no matter what…
[M]y job is not to worry about those people.
And part is about his political theories on why he can't get them:
...who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it.
...
These are people who pay no income tax.
Neither the theories nor the "realities" are patricularly laudable, or accurate.
I expect that Romney's right that at least 47% won't vote for him, but it's not particularly correlated with the set of people who don't pay Federal income tax.
Your statement is not factual. You need to re-read Romney's recorded statement, or listen to it more carefully.
Mitt was talking about political estimates of his supporters, and estimates of Obama's supporters, for the upcoming Fall election.
He wasn't discussing economic, welfare, or monetary theories.
You're implying a great deal about his talk at the fundraiser last May, that simply was not included.
Listen to his talk again, keeping in mind the setting - a political fundraiser, and this was back in May. It's not a talk about theories. It's a talk about political realities that he expected to see, in the Fall.
You didn't mention whom this is directed to, but since you quoted my post, I'll assume it's me.
In case you didn't notice, those were not my statements. I had directly quoted and linked conservative editor Timothy Carney out of the Washington Examiner. Maybe you should talk to him about listening (and reading) more closely.
Here's an easy to understand idea, for students:
You work very hard, get a 3.8 point grade average. Your next door neighbor (also a student), hardly does much more than party, and gets a 1.8 grade point average.
You both graduate, but you aren't in the honor roll anymore. You wonder why the hell not, and then you see your GPA -- it's been lowered to a 2.8 GPA.
But that was only fair, because we needed to bring up your neighbor by a full 1.0, so he could have a 2.8 GPA, as well.
And that's socialism, in a nutshell. Isn't that fun?
Yes!!!!!!!!!
I love this example! I use it at bars when I'm trolling liberals (I troll to people's faces, not anonymously). Its a perfect example because it is an extremely flawed example, but its flaw isn't completely obvious, so its extremely amusing watching people try to figure it out when you are pressuring them to 'disprove' it.
Can anyone guess the flaw?!?
The very fact that Romney believes that ANY American is NOT entitled to not starve to death - the fact that he DOESN'T believe that we are all entitled to food, in one of the richest countries on the planet - is alone enough to damn him, in my view.
It's a talk about political realities that he expected to see, in the Fall.
No it isn't. There is so much wrong with what Romney said that it is difficult to even start. I don't have time or motivation to go into detail so here the basic points.
1) The income tax only accounts for 30% (I think...) of all government revenue. In fact, around 67% of this 47% do pay payroll tax. The people who are not are largely made up of the elderly, students, soldiers, and people making under 20 grand a year. While many of these people will vote democrat, the income tax has nothing to do with it.
2) The vast majority of this 47% lives in states that vote conservative. So that means some of these 47%ers are actually voting Republican or their votes don't actually mean much since their state is going Republican anyways.
3) Receiving benefits does not automatically equal dependency.
4) Only someone who makes decisions based on data points would ever believe that 47% of the US population is automatically against him. This was the year that Obama was supposed to lose. If you want a reason why people are supporting Obama, listen to the Republican primary debates. Republicans fell off the deep end a while ago and they are still falling.
Can anyone guess the flaw?!?
Would it be the curve math being off kilter? Or the concept of a graduating class of two students? Or the idea of a school that determines a student's final GPA by how well other students do?
Or is it something a bit less obvious?
It's that socialism would actually be adjusting the way the class is taught in such a way as to give the failing student a better chance at being able to learn the material and to pass.
President Obama is not a socialist. Never has been, except on Fox.
If you want to talk about the profit the Utah Olympics made, good luck backing it up with proof since Romney had all his records destroyed.
If you want to talk about what a great job he did as Governor, good luck backing that up with proof. He had those records sealed.
If you want to talk about how much he gives to charities, good luck backing that up with proof. He hasn't even released ONE full year of his tax records.
If you want to talk about his support of gay rights, there's plenty of proof on video from when he was Governor.
If you want to talk about his opposition to gay rights, including gay marriage (and yes, it IS a marriage - GOD never created that word. It was invented by humans. Gays are human and can use the word as well. Don't like it, tough shit!) There's plenty of proof on video since he officially started running for President.
If you want to talk about his support for Universal health care, there's plenty of proof on video from when he was governor.
If you want to talk about his opposition to universal health care, there's plenty of proof on video since he started running for President.
If you want to vote for Romney for President, that's your right.
And it is my right to believe, with all my heart, that you are a fucking moron.
Would it be the curve math being off kilter? Or the concept of a graduating class of two students? Or the idea of a school that determines a student's final GPA by how well other students do?
Or is it something a bit less obvious?
Not less obvious but similar.
It's that socialism would actually be adjusting the way the class is taught in such a way as to give the failing student a better chance at being able to learn the material and to pass.
True, but not what I'm going after.
Socialism, in the most fundamental sense, is basically a reaction to the inequalities associated with capitalism. Welfare, progressive tax systems, etc., is merely a way of limiting the negative consequences of those inequalities.
In our educational system (college is the best example), it is standardized so no matter what class you take, if you work hard enough, ideally you should be to get an A (4.0 GPA). That means a student in economics, chemical engineering, geology, art, etc. have the same potential to get a 4.0 GPA.
If we applied this to the working world, it would be if everyone who worked 60 hours a week, no matter the job, gets paid $40,000 a year, everyone who works 40 hours a week gets paid $30,000 a year, etc. Now, it seems that most Republicans have forgotten what the definition of socialism means but I'm sure this system fits the socialist definition. Therefore, it is not logical to apply welfare to an already existing socialist system.
A good response to anyone who mentions this is to agree with the GPA redistribution program under one condition. The grade you recieve be weighted by the salary in the field of the class you are taking. For example, if you are in a field where the average salary is $50 grand. Receiving a B (that is average nowadays) give you a 5.0. If you receive an A, then you get the 95% salary, lets say $80,000, or an 8.0. Also, in order to graduate, a 4.5 GPA has to be maintained so if you are taking classes in a field where the average salary is only $30,000 (3.0), you are fucked.
It would also work better as an analogy if the teacher changed the relationship of the students to the teaching and setting of the test (the means of production).
Socialism isn't about making everything and everybody even :P
Socialism isn't about making everything and everybody even :P
But the target audience are people that do believe that! They don't care what socialism actually is (that would involve facts and critical thinking), they just care about what they believe socialism is. You know, their gut feeling.
Romney says no to "Net Neutrality".
Romney thinks the FCC’s rules promoting “net neutrality” are the fulfillment of a campaign promise that was made to “special interests.” Obama reiterates his support for an open internet, while listing all the issues that compete for regulatory attention–from protection of intellectual property to cybersecurity to privacy.
Romney Cites Energy Report That Advocates Carbon Price.
In his answer to the question on “Research and the Future” Romney writes:
I am a strong supporter of federally funded research… [yet] President Obama spent $90 billion in stimulus dollars in a failed attempt to promote his green energy agenda. That same spending could have funded the nation’s energy research programs at the level recommended in a recent Harvard University study for nearly twenty years.
Yet I was curious about this Harvard study. How would a President Romney focus energy research funding if not on clean energy?
A little Googling later, I discovered “Transforming U.S. Energy Innovation,” a 338-page report published in November 2011 by the Energy Technology Innovation Policy research group at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. (Romney’s domestic policy advisor Oren Cass confirms that the candidate was referring to this study.) Its recommendations are at once completely anodyne—they echo, to varying extent, the opinions of the great majority of policy experts who think seriously about technology, energy security, economics and climate change—and totally surprising, in that they resemble very little of what Romney has been saying on the campaign trail.
Perhaps the most glaring difference is that the report calls for the U.S. federal government to put a “substantial price” on carbon emissions, either through a cap-and-trade system or a carbon tax. The experts argue that a price on carbon will prod private business into developing new energy technologies. Private-sector innovation is a policy theme that the Romney camp extols, but in another question Romney states that he would “oppose steps like a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system that would handicap the American economy and drive manufacturing jobs away.”
Are you touting Germany as socialist, or non-socialist here?
Because they are far more socialist than the US, and are heavily invested in solar and wind power - about 20% of their total generation.
Or are you saying that their capitalistic success lets them tax their "job creators" enough to fund their socialism?
I'm saying that Germany is more socialist, but they have a fundamentally different government, and relationship of their people, to that government. For instance, they have little or no tax on their companies, who sell their products overseas, and bring that money back into Germany. In the US, we tax any funds like that, with the second highest corporate income tax, in the world.
That's why German products like BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and many other products, sell so well, around the world, BUT the jobs are kept in Germany to a large extent. American corporations can't do that, and it's a huge mistake. To even start to compete, we have to go offshore, and the money has to stay there, or be ridiculously taxed. (double taxed). Also, the gov't has a fundamental obligation to create jobs for it's citizens. I believe (but not sure), that it is in their constitution.
Their opinions of their gov't, are substantially different than ours. And I must say, we have had a HUGE number of absolute assholes in our legislature, over the years. Their cronyism and crass ability to exploit their position for huge monetary gain, just stinks to high heaven. If you or I did what they do, we'd be sent to prison (insider trading, just for one way they do it).
If the people want to go socialism, I have no problem with it. I don't believe it works well, but I KNOW you can't just grab some highly socialistic laws, and start shoving them down our throat, the way Obama has. You want to change to a national health care system, fine. I'm for it!
First, study what other countries have done, and let's get the best parts into our own, and leave out the parts that didn't work well. Second, do a pilot study in a state or region, and prove that it works. THEN, write up the federal laws, and enact it. Don't shove a 2,000+ page law at us, with no time to study it - or even READ it through, and say "we'll pass it now, and read it later".
That's bullshit!
We have lobbyists, unions, race baiters, bald face liars, and class haters, all well expressed in our gov't. What we don't have are statesmen, making wise decisions, in large numbers. The idea that the federal gov't would turn down something like the Keystone pipeline project, at a time when jobs are so badly needed, and fuel is up to $4++ a gallon (in CA), just drives me around the bend.
And is anybody talking about cutting our corporate tax rate so $$$ from overseas operations can come back to the US? Let us compete with other countries, more evenly, instead of having the $$$ taxed twice (once in the other country, and again when it returns to the US).
All you hear is:
Crickets.
And about how well Obama sounds when he's imitating Al Green, and all the other "your candidate is a jerk because...".
I want some good government out of our legislative branch, and we just haven't been getting it. And yeah, I believe socialism is demotivating for the people who have it, if it's overused, or set up in a stupid fashion.
I mean, every year we find out "Oops!, we have another 10,000 people who received some welfare benefit, who have been dead for at least a year", kind of stuff. And we will sue every state that wants to require a photo ID, when you vote. Because BY GOD!, we want those Zombies, to be represented by our fraudulent party! :(
And I want to get our medical drug costs down! No reason in hell why we should have to spend 2-10 times as much for drugs, than other countries, like Canada. And tax loopholes - oh don't get me started on tax loopholes. That's the most asinine example of lobby and political favoritism, that you'll ever live to see.
All these big corporations that all lined up to support Obama care -- and then immediately after it was passed, 98% of them lined up to get in their own exemption from it, which was built into the law, of course!
:rolleyes:
Actually, Canada is not a bad model to look at. They went progressive/liberal for many years, until it damn near bankrupted the country. Then they swung back and went largely conservative with a political party, and look at how well they're doing! Their dollar is worth more now, than ours are - and THAT is just for starters.
Unfortunately, our political party is also home to lots of less than desirable types, that give the whole conservative philosophy, a bad taste. That's a shame, because conservatism is not what you learned from Bush (one or two), or what the liberals try to frame it as.
As far as business went, Clinton ranks highest among recent Presidents, as a conservative (not counting Reagan, of course).
If the people want to go socialism, I have no problem with it. I don't believe it works well, but I KNOW you can't just grab some highly socialistic laws, and start shoving them down our throat, the way Obama has. You want to change to a national health care system, fine. I'm for it!
First, study what other countries have done, and let's get the best parts into our own, and leave out the parts that didn't work well. Second, do a pilot study in a state or region, and prove that it works. THEN, write up the federal laws, and enact it. Don't shove a 2,000+ page law at us, with no time to study it - or even READ it through, and say "we'll pass it now, and read it later".
I think that's quite a fair point actually.
Sure, it's logical and practical. It's also impossible in a society where the Drug, Insurance, and Medical Device industries, own so many politicians.
The ONLY way it can happen is the way it did, making huge concessions to those industries, then slowly chipping away at those concessions until the plan is the best it can be. In the mean time, although not the best, millions more have at least some coverage.
And even this plan, a grab bag of Republican proposals, is deemed "highly socialistic".
Sure, it's logical and practical. It's also impossible in a society where the Drug, Insurance, and Medical Device industries, own so many politicians.
The ONLY way it can happen is the way it did, making huge concessions to those industries, then slowly chipping away at those concessions until the plan is the best it can be. In the mean time, although not the best, millions more have at least some coverage.
The problem is, with our current stupidity of paying 2-10X what Canada pays for the very same drugs, you run the whole program into the red, and convince even more people, that the whole idea is a terrible one.
It doesn't have to be that way. There may be more expedient idea's for getting the cart of a National Health Plan moving, but when you're relying on horsepower, it's important to remember to put the horse BEFORE the cart, and not after it.
It isn't just WHAT you do, it's the order you do them in that's important, as well.
I think that's quite a fair point actually.
You don't have to sound SO surprised. :D
...I mean, every year we find out "Oops!, we have another 10,000 people who received some welfare benefit, who have been dead for at least a year", kind of stuff. And we will sue every state that wants to require a photo ID, when you vote. Because BY GOD!, we want those Zombies, to be represented by our fraudulent party! :(
....
Yup, that would be bad. Luckily, as EVERY investigation has shown, it hasn't.
One of the 47% Romney isn't concerned about...
http://news.yahoo.com/slammed-using-food-stamps-ga-woman-seeks-apology-121005811--abc-news-savings-and-investment.html;_ylt=AqaJupJDya7NnxEgKq9jKExBq594;_ylu=X3oDMTUwNTE3aTc5BGNjb2RlA2N0LmMEbWl0A0FydGljbGUgTW9zdCBQb3B1bGFyBHBrZwNjMjZmZGU5Ni1hMTg1LTMyMWYtOGIyOC1kZjc2OTE2MjI1YzQEcG9zAzIEc2VjA01lZGlhQkxpc3RNaXhlZE1vc3RQb3B1bGFyQ0FUZW1wBHZlcgM4ZGQzYTNmMS0wN2VjLTExZTItYmYzZi0yYTc2MDE0MjU1ZWQ-;_ylg=X3oDMTM0bDBydGpxBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDNWUyOTkyMzgtOWU0Ny0zZjY2LWJlNjktNGMwYjVjMWQwNTZmBHBzdGNhdANibG9nc3x0b2RheWludGVjaARwdANzdG9yeXBhZ2U-;_ylv=3
Nerger said the reason she and her family - she is married with a daughter - must rely on food stamps is because her husband's carpentry business isn't profitable enough to support the family.
Meanwhile, Nerger must devote 12 hours every night to a dialysis treatment to combat her kidney disease, which she's struggled with since the age of 11. She's been on a kidney transplant list for five years and hopes that someday, after a successful transplant, she can become a working member of society. She would like to attend college to major in child psychology.
"There's just so much stigmatism put on people on food stamps. They're just some losers who don't want to work. That isn't the case in every situation," she said.
The stigmatizing comes from Reagan's myths of the welfare queen in the Caddy and furs, and the lazy Black Buck with the food stamps buying the best steaks in the market. It's been carped by the right ever since, even though it's been disproven repeatedly. Before then, reasonable people understood that giving a helping hand to needy people was a good thing.
Personal story.. In 1970 I got in a squeeze between sudden divorce and being forced out of work for five months by a strike of the shop union at Westinghouse. I was salaried but we honored their picket line for two weeks and when we went back were laid off for the duration. Westinghouse fought our collecting unemployment during the layoff.
To make a long story longer, I collected welfare and food stamps for three months until the unemployment finally kicked in. I even got double food stamps one month through a clerical error. At that time you got a voucher in the mail and took it to the bank where they would give you the actual stamps. When I tried to return the stamps to the welfare office they had no mechanism to retrieve them, so told me to keep them.
It was tough getting by on unemployment (paying two lawyers and all) but when I went back to work the state sent me a letter asking me to repay the welfare. I did that over a couple months and became square with the state, meaning I would be eligible to collect again should the need arise, but didn't have to repay the food stamps. I feel it's a good program, working the way it did.
Now I realize welfare's been a tool for several generations, to keep them ghetto niggers in line so they won't be raping the white women with their free time they have, since we won't give them jobs. This was planned by some, but mostly unintended consequences to most of the population. It's a bad situation and very very difficult to remedy now. It's also, with the help of Reagan's myths, easy lose sight of the fact that most people on welfare are not black, and not in northern cities, but in the south.
So part of the problem is racism, partly misinformation, and partly cussedness.
Yup, that would be bad. Luckily, as EVERY investigation has shown, it hasn't.
List your "investigations", because it's common in So. CA, and infamous in Nevada and Illinois.
Bottom line is, nearly EVERYONE has a valid photo ID. You need it to get a checking account, driver a car, travel out of the country, I need it when I withdraw cash from my bank, get a library or video store card, sometimes, even to cash a check.
And all those who don't have a valid photo ID, can get one from the state, for free.
So WHAT'S the *BIG PROBLEM* in showing it, when we vote?
Name another country where you vote, without showing an ID (either a card or a thumb/finger print, or both).
Not Mexico, not Canada! Here's the requirements for Canada:
Option 1
Show one original piece of identification with your photo, name and address. It must be issued by a government agency.
Example: driver's licence.
Option 2
Show two original pieces of authorized identification. Both pieces must have your name and one must also have your address.
Example: health card and hydro bill.
or
Option 3
Take an oath and have an elector who knows you vouch for you. This person must have authorized identification and be from the same polling division as you. This person can only vouch for one person.
Examples: a neighbour, your roommate.
WHY do we need NOTHING in order to vote?
What possible reason could there be for that?
Voter [COLOR="Red"]F-R-A-U-D[/COLOR].Name another country where you vote, without showing an ID (either a card or a thumb/finger print, or both).
England (can't talk for any other part of the UK).
You show your voting card. But that just has my name, address and voting number on it. I could easily use my sister's or my sister-in-law's or even my mother's voting card for all the interest which is shown in it. In fact I do know people who have voted for friends/ relatives/ housemates etc. It's illegal, but only in the same way it's fraud for me to use Mum's debit card - I've only ever done it when asked and with permission for a specific purpose.
I think the assumption of evil intent by each side in the voter ID argument is interesting. It is most likely true on both sides. Republicans do want to disenfranchise the poor who won't have photo ID. They think they can absorb the collateral damage of old timers whose drivers licenses are expired, because they will be known at their polling station and not challenged. My Dad, a GOP voter, was in that position, it took an entire Saturday and a trip to Dunmore to get him an ID because my county in PA does picture ID's for limited hours once a week on Thursdays. Not exactly helpful to someone who needs a ride. Two evil parties, we have them. This time Obama is closer to the center and less evil so I may vote for him. The big issue coming is attacking Iran, unfortunately Obama has been seduced by power so either way we're bombing.
What's with all the racism, Bruce? You must be a Democrat! :D
Where did Reagan describe this "welfare" belief? I just ask, because you're full of shit.
When Reagan was running for re-election, he had a commercial with the theme of:
"Morning in America"
And in it, his accomplishments over the last four years were listed:
lower unemployment, lower interest rates, more jobs, etc.
Like Obama, Reagan took over when the economy was in a serious recession. Still, after less than four years, he had a very substantial recovery underway, and a stronger country, overall -- by any measure.
Now we see Obama, in a similar situation. Except he has NOTHING but cherry picked numbers to talk about, and almost NOTHING substantial in a recovery - despite spending Trillions of dollars on his plans. By his OWN statements, earlier in his term, his economic plans have been a failure, in every way possible.
1) Our unemployment rate is a failure, according to Obama.
2) Our job creation number (a negative net number, btw), is an obvious failure, according to Obama.
3) Our national debt and balance of trade, is a failure and "unpatriotic" according to Obama.
What ARE his successes?
1) Gays allowed to serve in the military -- long overdue, but Bush wouldn't have done it, so well done, Obama.
2) Michelle's better eating campaign - although I note that HER child goes to a private school - and serves Pizza (cheese or pepperoni), in the school cafeteria. :eek: (true, but just a bit of humor)
[code]
[COLOR="Red"]Reagan:[/COLOR] [COLOR="Navy"] Obama:[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Red"]"Morning in America"[/COLOR] [COLOR="Navy"] "Mourning in America"[/COLOR]
[/code]
All I hear from Obama is cherry picked numbers, and platitudes about what he WILL do! But I've already SEEN what he will do -- and it's just more of the same crap that hasn't worked for the last 3 1/2 years!
[SIZE="4"][COLOR="Red"]Do you REALLY want four more years of these failures?[/COLOR][/SIZE]
Where do you live that you need photo id to get a library card, adak? Here you fill out your info, get a card. Of course, a 'public' library reeks of socialism...the idea that any bum off the street can read a book? Hmmmph.
But it was a lovely little speech, cherry picking aside.
Everything old is new again. In the 60's they used money, guns, and lawyers (Zevon) for intimidation. In the 2010's it's just money and lawyers.
[YOUTUBE]t_ah1RkWB9k[/YOUTUBE]
Where did Reagan describe this "welfare" belief? I just ask, because you're full of shit.
Is that so, well I'm old enough to remember it well, but that's not good enough so;
CNN
Anita
Womenslawproject
Junkland
Theroot
Friedman
Blackyouthproject
ionproject
And when you're done with those I've got a whole lot more.
When Reagan was running for re-election, he had a commercial with the theme of:
"Morning in America"
And in it, his accomplishments over the last four years were listed:
lower unemployment, lower interest rates, more jobs, etc.
Last four? What about the first four if you're going to compare Reagan with Obama... Mr cherry picker.
Like Obama, Reagan took over when the economy was in a serious recession. Still, after less than four years, he had a very substantial recovery underway, and a stronger country, overall -- by any measure.
Yes he did, raising taxes in 1982, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987.
Sure makes it a lot easier when you can raise taxes 5 times AND the loyal opposition actually cared about America instead of their rich Patróns.
Now we see Obama, in a similar situation. Except he has NOTHING but cherry picked numbers to talk about, and almost NOTHING substantial in a recovery - despite spending Trillions of dollars on his plans. By his OWN statements, earlier in his term, his economic plans have been a failure, in every way possible.
Thank you for the view of the uninformed.
1) Our unemployment rate is a failure, according to Obama.
2) Our job creation number (a negative net number, btw), is an obvious failure, according to Obama.
3) Our national debt and balance of trade, is a failure and "unpatriotic" according to Obama.
I'm sure you're shaken to the roots hearing a politician speak honestly, candidly, about the progress of recovery. You certainly don't from Romney, Boehner, or Ryan.
You seem to have trouble distinguishing between Obama's plans and what Congress actually enacted. Like mom making a balanced meal and the spoiled brats only eating dessert.
What ARE his successes?
1) Gays allowed to serve in the military -- long overdue, but Bush wouldn't have done it, so well done, Obama.
2) Michelle's better eating campaign - although I note that HER child goes to a private school - and serves Pizza (cheese or pepperoni), in the school cafeteria. :eek: (true, but just a bit of humor)
For starters, we could add;
Getting out of Iraq.
Improving America's image abroad.
Passing health-care reform.
Getting Osama bin Laden.
Preventing a depression.
Won the Nobel Peace Prize. (true, but just a bit of humor)
And here's a list of a couple hundred more.
All I hear from Obama is cherry picked numbers, and platitudes about what he WILL do! But I've already SEEN what he will do -- and it's just more of the same crap that hasn't worked for the last 3 1/2 years!
Liar, liar, pants on fire! I've never, ever, heard Obama say HE was going to do any of those things. I've heard him say His/Democrats, plans/goals are such and such, but since you were sleeping in high school civics, the president really can't do much because congress makes laws and controls the purse strings.
Do you REALLY want four more years of these failures?
HELL NO, BOEHNER MUST GO! :p:
Honestly, I've been disappointed in Obama's first term. I did know he was more center-left than most of his supporters believed. I'm glad he didn't go crazy trying to jam a whole lot of change at once, which would never fly.
My gut feeling, and it's just that, is after the last campaign whipped the public into such a frenzy almost 62% :rolleyes: bothered to vote, he felt he would get more help from the public pressuring Congress to support his plans. Like I said, it's just my gut feeling, but if that's true, he hadn't seen the mid-season TV schedule. I mean who cares about government when Superstars of Dance or American Idol is on.
From the depression to Reagan, the tri-lateral commission ;)(government, labor, and the 1%) kept everything in balance, not letting power swing too far in any direction. But since 1980 I've seen labor decimated causing real wages to decline, Congress bought by K Street, lock, stock, and barrel, and the 1% play the "Global Economy" card to put themselves back in power.
I honestly believe this election is the last stand against a power grab that we peons may never recover from. Mainly because unlike the Robber Barons of old, the current 1% don't give a shit about the country.
And it's not Romney so much, he's just a hey-look-over-here, the Congressional elections is where karl Rove & Co is directing their efforts. Well that and electronic voting machines. haven't heard much about them but I doubt they are any more secure than they have been.
So that's why Moi, a lifelong independent who even voted for Nixon and Bush (first terms only), is strongly supporting Obama...
and maybe Hillary in '16. :p:
Damn. Great post, Bruce.
You need your own talk show. You would have a million fans.
Probably get death threats and my peonies trampled. ;) But thank you.
Adak's a problem because instead of the crazy right wing zealots you see on the web, his posts sound rational. It's only when you get into the facts that they fall apart.
A friend of mine has a couple girlfriends she shops and walks with, who are tea partiers. They send her a constant flow of right wing emails, which she passes along. Half of them are lunatic scary, a quarter make sense if you just accept the facts as they state them, and a quarter you have to do some semi-serious research to find the flaws.
Those are the ones with links that back up the statements, but from dubious web sites. Then they'll say "Snopes says it's true" with a link to Snopes where it says it's false. :lol: They're counting on people being to lazy to click the link (maybe at work seeing the dozens of addresses attached), and just forward.
I got one yesterday that complained soldiers only get half pay when they retire after 20 years. I accepted that without checking, and believe it's a possibly legitimate complaint. Even full after 20, at 40 to 45, I don't want the job.
But the next statement was congressmen get full pay for life after one term. What? I know that's complete bullshit, but I've seen it written many times before, and probably these clowns believe it.
Next, to reinforce sympathy for the first statement, is a picture of a Marine that was really fucked up, blown up and burned, but alive. The kind of picture that puts a lump in the most dispassionate throat.
Obviously this Marine has nothing to do with retirement pay plea, he's a 100% disability case right now. Maybe disability just moves the same pay from 20 years to now? But if that's the case, say so, because it makes the whole thing sleazy otherwise.
...
Adak's a problem because instead of the crazy right wing zealots you see on the web, his posts sound rational. It's only when you get into the facts that they fall apart....
I believe this is part of the job description for most of the "reporters" on Fox.
Thanks for this post Bruce. Facts are nice to see. :-)
Bottom line is, nearly EVERYONE has a valid photo ID.
Not true. I'm guessing you don't live in an large urban area?
From the depression to Reagan, the tri-lateral commission (government, labor, and the 1%) kept everything in balance, not letting power swing too far in any direction. But since 1980 I've seen labor decimated causing real wages to decline, Congress bought by K Street, lock, stock, and barrel, and the 1% play the "Global Economy" card to put themselves back in power.
I honestly believe this election is the last stand against a power grab that we peons may never recover from. Mainly because unlike the Robber Barons of old, the current 1% don't give a shit about the country.
Bruce can be grouchy at times, but he sees things very clearly, and if we all saw what was going on this clearly, we'd all be grouchy too. Bloody angry, in fact.
The present global situation is similar to the middle stages of the Roman empire, as the plutocrats eroded the republic and gained total control. Social demoralisation followed, and the Roman world became so brittle that a handful of barbarians was enough to destroy it. That is the future I fear.
Adak, although I disagree with 80% of what you say, please, keep it coming. Really. I like the cellar because it gives me a window into the way US folks are thinking, and with Merc on Hiatus, you're the chief republican spokesman here right now.
HELL NO, BOEHNER MUST GO!
Boehner is not the problem. He saw the problem early. How often he made deals with Obama to only have it yanked out from under him by extremists - especially Cantor. How many times have so many Democrats and Republicans complained that Cantor should not even be in that room? How many long time most conservative Republicans (Simpson, Dole, Lugar, Gramm, Grassley, etc) complain about the extremism in their own party that is so destructive? Again, point to its best example - Cantor. Whose political objectives are quite clear - to make America fail.
How many times has Boehner made a deal to make American great? And then have Cantor yank it out from under him? Routinely. Cantor believes America will restore George Jr extremists if he makes America fail. Boehner is but another victim.
For Boehner to go, the Republicans would have to loose control of the house.:smack:
I think Adak IS merc.
disguised.
same vitriol, same personal attacks, same yelling-sort of painting everyone with the same brush.
It all seems so very familiar.
But Adak was registered way before Merc left.
I don't think of Merc as that sneaky - he had a more bull-at-a-gate style to life.
I'd thought of that, but Adak seems somewhat more mild-mannered than Merc. I'm pretty sure they're different.
And I'm pretty sure there is more than one devoted Republican supporter willing to relay Party talking points onto the internet. :)
I think the assumption of evil intent by each side in the voter ID argument is interesting. It is most likely true on both sides. Republicans do want to disenfranchise the poor who won't have photo ID. They think they can absorb the collateral damage of old timers whose drivers licenses are expired, because they will be known at their polling station and not challenged. My Dad, a GOP voter, was in that position, it took an entire Saturday and a trip to Dunmore to get him an ID because my county in PA does picture ID's for limited hours once a week on Thursdays. Not exactly helpful to someone who needs a ride. Two evil parties, we have them. This time Obama is closer to the center and less evil so I may vote for him. The big issue coming is attacking Iran, unfortunately Obama has been seduced by power so either way we're bombing.
Jump up into the Iran nuclear thread I started, please.
You're quite wrong about the Republicans not wanting everyone to vote, though. Voting is the right of every citizen, and the more who exercise that right, the more that right is likely to produce a better democracy. It would be a great shame if somehow, our voting percentage fell way off. Terrible precedent for a democracy, imo.
I don't know where Bruce lives, but in So CA, you need a photo ID for just about anything that involves a monetary transaction, without cash. You want to buy something with a DEBIT card (no less) at Fry's Electronics - you show your driver's license. You want a Blockbuster card, you show your driver's license, etc. You want to cash a check at a store, you show your driver's license. If the purchase amount is small, it may be waived, but most times, it's required.
Bought some tools awhile back in Sears. They wanted to see my driver's license, of course. Then they requested my SS number! I told them they could get it, but only if they were going to contribute to my SS account. ;) The clerk had to call over her supervisor.
As far as welfare goes, I've seen both sides of it. No doubt it's useful and a good thing, but it's also massively abused. Free school lunch programs are just one example. In CA, it started out with just the needy getting free lunches. Over the years, the people running it have let it be known that they aren't going to check your income requirements. I don't know if they ever did that check, but if so, they have stopped doing it.
Now the percentage of kids getting a free lunch every day has soared to over 90% of the kids, in some schools. These aren't all poor kids - these are mostly kids who were encouraged to get enrolled with their parents, in the free school lunch program. And I've never seen a single student who was ON the free school lunch program, who was EVER taken off - for any reason.
My favorite however, was a spinster we worked with for many years. Our business made her a millionaire, (and then some), over a period of about 18 years.
After she reached "senior" age, she would ask me to drive her down to the community center, every two weeks or so, to pick up her bags of free food, for low income seniors. By then, she was a millionaire a few times over, with substantial income every month. How do I know? We did her tax returns. :D
Which is one of the big problems with most welfare programs. They have (typically, in the past), had *NO* incentive for progress to get the person back into the work force, and off the public dole. Quite the contrary. Welfare recipients are viewed as "job security", by those working for the program itself. It's a lot of "nod nod, wink wink, and once a worker, now a welfare recipient, by the power of my pen".
They're getting a bit better about the incentive to get them off welfare, but that's only for some programs - not most. Once you're on it, you stay on it.
That's why we can't get a national healthcare system that works, and that we can afford. WAY too much fraud and abuse from both doctors (medical workers), and patients abusing ("working") the system, to make it affordable.
I haven't seen Bruce's welfare links yet, but I look forward to seeing them. Thank you Bruce.
I have only one handle, for the forum, btw.
Adak is much more reasonable and eloquent than merc.
But he also shares that trait: you just said a lot so I'm going to repeat everything I said before but leave out my gaffes that were pointed out to me.
Really have a hard time believing he was asked for his ssn at a hardware store. ;)
Everything I do at work ties into a person's ssn, and we are still very discreet about asking for it. Its a big no-no in the era of identity theft.
I think adak lives in 1957. But he has a time machine. ;)
I was somewhat taken aback by the use of the word 'spinster'... but posting from 1957 would probaby explain this.
I have a few problems with Adak's statements.
First, a community food program does not usually ask for financial information to prove you "need" their services. If you are there, you usually
need it. Often, they require that you help them or the community in some way as "payment" for the food package. Been there, done that, in my poverty days. I'd much rather do something to earn that food than be given it, outright.
Secondly, asking for a SS# in order to make a purchase these days is a BIG no-no. If anyone (other than insurance or creditors) ask me that, they don't get my business.
Thirdly, as a parent with two children attending public schools, I can testify that it is absolutely not true that 90% of the kids get free lunch. In order to get reduced or free lunch, you have to fill out and sign a financial need application form. According to the FDOE data report, the actual number is 41%.(
FLDOE free lunch). That actually
ties right in with the number of children living in low-income families - 44% (
Child Poverty). In my poverty days, my kids got free lunch. Now that I'm no longer unemployed and poor, they do not.
Additionally, as a former poor person, I can absolutely state that asking for and receiving "aid" is the most humiliating and degrading thing I've ever done. The very moment I could manage to make ends meet without it, I dropped it like a hot potato. There was absolutely none of that *wink wink nudge nudge* that you are referring to...more like,[FONT="Courier New"]
you lazy, stupid, dumb person who is getting a free ride while I, the person who signs off on your aid, is working hard and earning mere peanuts. Let me see how many ways I can make you feel subhuman to compensate for my disdain!![/FONT]
I don't know where Bruce lives, but in So CA, you need a photo ID for just about anything that involves a monetary transaction, without cash. You want to buy something with a DEBIT card (no less) at Fry's Electronics - you show your driver's license. You want a Blockbuster card, you show your driver's license, etc. You want to cash a check at a store, you show your driver's license. If the purchase amount is small, it may be waived, but most times, it's required.
PA, the civilized rednecks.
Perhaps they require a license (photo ID) in your neighborhood because you're hard on the Mexican border, and of course they would have to make it a uniform policy.
I haven't seen Bruce's welfare links yet, but I look forward to seeing them. Thank you Bruce.
Say what? Who was your lackey last year?
I, unlike you, provided plenty of links for my claims about Reagan's welfare myths. If you have more questions you can damn well do your own research... or just keep spouting Karl Rove's bullshit.
I have no delusions about trying to sway you, your soul is lost. I'm posting to protect our gentle readers from your misinformation campaign.
I'm posting to protect our gentle readers from your misinformation campaign.
:)
I, unlike you, provided plenty of links for my claims about Reagan's welfare myths.
I'm in California, and Reagan was our Governor before he ran for President, so I don't have to rely on hearsay, from others.
Also, I've worked with welfare housing and school policies, for many years. I've seen how it works, and how it frequently leads to co-dependency:
The recipient has welfare benefits suitable to live with:
*If they get a job, they lose those benefits.
*the job would probably be a labor intensive type of work, and they
would earn low wages.
*If they subsequently lost their job, they would get some welfare benefits quickly, but have to wait a long time to get back their full welfare benefits, again.
So why should they work? They're risking a lot, just to maybe work at low wages. Maybe not full time.
The people who administer and provide support for these programs, will lose their jobs if the program stops. So it's in their best interest to enroll more people in their welfare program.
If you have more questions you can damn well do your own research... or just keep spouting Karl Rove's bullshit.
I have no delusions about trying to sway you, your soul is lost. I'm posting to protect our gentle readers from your misinformation campaign.
Why all the anger?
If Obama had any reasonable successes with his policies, I'd support him. As the first black President, I'd love to see him succeed. I was living in the Deep South during segregation. Yes, it was UGLY.
Problem is, Obama hung out with radicals in college (according to him), studied their ideology, and he's picked up a lot of their socialist ideas.
Some socialist ideas I'd like to see (National health care), but his policy to implement it, is absolutely a complete mindless farce. :mad:
His other economic policies are likewise, a disaster. You do know that this is the worst economic recovery in our history?
You can choose to believe Obama's rhetoric, or you can look around, read the stats from the non-partisan budget office, and choose to believe you own "lying" eyes.
There IS a reason, why Obama's budget has never been voted for, by ANYONE, in EITHER PARTY. That's how far out his economic policies are.
You can have your emotional tirade any way you want it, but the above is a FACT, and it won't go away, because you don't like it.
We've had a LOT of political polarization going on in recent years. That's something we MUST get past.
A good plan, is a good plan, no matter who came up with it. And vice-versa, as well.
All of these ad hominem attacks against our leaders, are leading us down the wrong road, to an unhappy destination.
If Obama had good policies and plans during his time in office, I'd be supporting him, but he did not, and does not. He may look smart and cool, and charming - but the President doesn't need to be cool, or charming, or even appear particularly smart. I don't give a rat's patootie whether he appears on The Tonight Show, or not.
He needs to lead us into wise policies and practices, across a broad spectrum of economic, social, and as Commander in Chief, military, matters.
And I don't need the damn EPA telling me I can't use plywood to build with, thank you very much! :cool:
"Spinster" ?
[said in best Kensington Jewelers Elocution]
Oh, Adak, you're simply a caution!
DO try to come to BridlepathWoods for Christmas this year, darling. It simply won't be the same without you!
"Spinster" ?
[said in best Kensington Jewelers Elocution]
Oh, Adak, you're simply a caution!
DO try to come to BridlepathWoods for Christmas this year, darling. It simply won't be the same without you!
Don't make me pull out my full collection of 1950's vocabulary on ya! :D
I'm in California, and Reagan was our Governor before he ran for President, so I don't have to rely on hearsay, from others.
I'm well aware of Ronny Raygun's history.
Also, I've worked with welfare housing and school policies, for many years. I've seen how it works, and how it frequently leads to co-dependency:
The recipient has welfare benefits suitable to live with:
*If they get a job, they lose those benefits.
*the job would probably be a labor intensive type of work, and they
would earn low wages.
*If they subsequently lost their job, they would get some welfare benefits quickly, but have to wait a long time to get back their full welfare benefits, again.
So why should they work? They're risking a lot, just to maybe work at low wages. Maybe not full time.
The people who administer and provide support for these programs, will lose their jobs if the program stops. So it's in their best interest to enroll more people in their welfare program.:
Yes this is a problem. In the beginning it was to help the destitute and to keep the ones that were deliberately made destitute by racism, from lashing out. As each subsequent generation passes, trapped in the welfare system, the greater the despair of escaping and less the stigma/embarrassment of being in the system. But I'd still bet most would rather have a job making a decent living wage. There's no quick way out of this mess, and the only slow way is education, as far as I can see.
Why all the anger?
Moi? I don't play well with others, and don't take orders from anyone. Yes, I
will cut off my nose to spite my face.:p:
If Obama had any reasonable successes with his policies, I'd support him. As the first black President, I'd love to see him succeed. I was living in the Deep South during segregation. Yes, it was UGLY.
Point of order... Mulatto.
Successes, we covered that.
Problem is, Obama hung out with radicals in college (according to him), studied their ideology, and he's picked up a lot of their socialist ideas.
I have it on good authority that he shit his diaper as a lad, I bet the White House staff has to do a lot of chair cleaning. :rolleyes:
Some socialist ideas I'd like to see (National health care), but his policy to implement it, is absolutely a complete mindless farce. :mad:
Oh yes, he needed radical socialists to point out one of our biggest domestic problems is we are getting raped of health care. Not by doctors, but Drug, appliance, and insurance companies, along with for profit hospital conglomerates. No way he could have know that without those radicals.:rolleyes:
His other economic policies are likewise, a disaster. You do know that this is the worst economic recovery in our history?
Not implemented policies are to blame. OK :nuts:
You can choose to believe Obama's rhetoric, or you can look around, read the stats from the non-partisan budget office, and choose to believe you own "lying" eyes.
Civics 101, congress controls the money.
There IS a reason, why Obama's budget has never been voted for, by ANYONE, in EITHER PARTY. That's how far out his economic policies are.
Parties don't vote, the house votes or doesn't... Boehner's house.
You can have your emotional tirade any way you want it, but the above is a FACT, and it won't go away, because you don't like it.
Statements like that cause...
We've had a LOT of political polarization going on in recent years. That's something we MUST get past.
A good plan, is a good plan, no matter who came up with it. And vice-versa, as well.
Yes, I know, and the Romney/Ryan plan is outrageous.
All of these ad hominem attacks against our leaders, are leading us down the wrong road, to an unhappy destination.
Tell O’Reilly, Hannity, Cavuto, Beck, Limbaugh, FOX, ad infinitum.
If Obama had good policies and plans during his time in office, I'd be supporting him, but he did not, and does not. He may look smart and cool, and charming - but the President doesn't need to be cool, or charming, or even appear particularly smart. I don't give a rat's patootie whether he appears on The Tonight Show, or not.
He needs to lead us into wise policies and practices, across a broad spectrum of economic, social, and as Commander in Chief, military, matters.
You are entitled to your opinion, but the fact that you are willing to buy into the Romney/Ryan plan for the domination of America by the 1% tells me you're sadly misguided.
And I don't need the damn EPA telling me I can't use plywood to build with, thank you very much! :cool:
They have? Cite please.
I'd thought of that, but Adak seems somewhat more mild-mannered than Merc. I'm pretty sure they're different.
And I'm pretty sure there is more than one devoted Republican supporter willing to relay Party talking points onto the internet. :)
Don't make me pull out my full collection of 1950's vocabulary on ya! :D
... but come to think of it, where is UG these days? :eyebrow: :lol:
In southern California....
:eek:
Ahhh, southern California... that hot bed, birthplace of liberal radicals like
Sam Yorty.
Back when the oil industry had starting to drill wells in LA harbor,
Mayor Yorty pushed through a zoning change over a weekend,
and the harbor was restricted to residential housing
... it stopped the drilling overnight !
Hang out with radicals In college? No. By the time you're in Columbia or Harvard law, you should know better.
The EPA had to back down on the plywood/oriented strand board issue, because they got a lot of flack about it, and there is no real substitute for these building materials.
Yes, they give off some volatile gases, but so do tires. We still need them both.
Tell O’Reilly, Hannity, Cavuto, Beck, Limbaugh, FOX, ad infinitum.
I guess ad hominem attacks have become the political scene mainstay, and general entertainment, as well. That stinks. I can't see one good thing coming out of that practice.
The House was controlled by the Democrats for the first two years of Obama's term. Nobody would vote for Obama's budget then, either.
Somehow, we have to learn to live within our means - or at least close to it. Obama's policies are so fixated on over-spending, it just boggles the mind. You may believe that a monetary crises could not hit this country, but it can, and it has happened before. If we keep spending a Trillion! dollars more than we earn, we will definitely experience a bigger crises than any we have known before.
Socialism works fine, until the money runs out. I doubt our chowder heads in Washington could make it work right, but it is possible, if you are well set up for it.
We are not well set up for it, however. Quite the contrary - and our politicians are nowhere near smart enough to lead us to that ephemeral goal.
Hang out with radicals In college? No. By the time you're in Columbia or Harvard law, you should know better.
Yeah. Allen Ginsberg, Jack Kerouac, Lucien Carr and Hal Chase were all pretty non-radical types. :rolleyes:
Adak--
I'm in California, and Reagan was our Governor before he ran for President, so I don't have to rely on hearsay, from others.
A brief point of order--you may not have to rely on hearsay because of your personal experiences, but when you offer such experiences as evidence in support of your argument, to all of us and everyone else reading your argument, such "evidence" *IS* hearsay. You dismiss xoB's links as hearsay, but they're examples of corroboration of his argument, and good ones too. If you wish to be taken seriously, I respectfully suggest that you provide similar citations to document your personal experiences to better support your arguments.
Boehner is my congressman, so I guess I have enough inside knowledge that I'm about ready to run for president.
Plus I've waited on him at parties. I'm gonna be queen of the world!
Plus I've waited on him at parties. I'm gonna be queen of the world!
I too have often thought Boehner comes late to the party... can I be king ?
Certainly! I dub you King Don!
Adak--
A brief point of order--you may not have to rely on hearsay because of your personal experiences, but when you offer such experiences as evidence in support of your argument, to all of us and everyone else reading your argument, such "evidence" *IS* hearsay. You dismiss xoB's links as hearsay, but they're examples of corroboration of his argument, and good ones too. If you wish to be taken seriously, I respectfully suggest that you provide similar citations to document your personal experiences to better support your arguments.
Reagan was a true conservative - everyone knows THAT. Conservatives believe that welfare - any program giving welfare - should be aimed at giving those in need a hand UP, not just a hand OUT.
Is that harsh? Yes, sometimes. Is it fair? No. Life isn't fair, people are not born with equal skills, and aptitudes, and we don't get equal parenting and education, etc.
I've been working on a program (computer), and just haven't gone through his links yet - but I'm going to view them before the debate today.
Politicians say a lot of things - Obama saying we have the wrong number of states, for instance, or Sarah Palin saying she can see Russia, from Alaska.
But look at their actions, while they're in office. Did Reagan cut Social Security? Did he increase our take-home pay by cutting our taxes? Did we in fact, have a significant recovery AND get our Iranian Embassy hostages returned, AND see the destruction of the Soviet Union's hold over several countries, during his terms in office?
Was everything perfect? Oh hell no! But our nation as a whole, was stronger economically, AND stronger militarily. Also, several countries were finally freed from the grip of the communists in Russia, for the first time since the end of WWII. This was all done (with the exception of throwing out the Cubans from Granada), with hardly a shot being fired.
If it didn't work, over and over again in our history, I wouldn't support Conservatism, as our political philosophy. I can think of a political philosophy that is much nicer - but it just doesn't work nearly as well. I believe we have to be pragmatic about what we do, as well as idealistic.
I have a few problems with Adak's statements.
First, a community food program does not usually ask for financial information to prove you "need" their services. If you are there, you usually need it.
Thanks for backing me up on this. They don't check your income level, and people DO take advantage of it. You did not - but others DO. That's the point.
Secondly, asking for a SS# in order to make a purchase these days is a BIG no-no. If anyone (other than insurance or creditors) ask me that, they don't get my business.
Tell that to Sears in El Cajon, CA. Tool department check out clerks. (I like most Craftsman Tools). They did it twice in a row, on separate days. Since my complaint, (and I assume the complaints of others), they have changed their policy.
Thirdly, as a parent with two children attending public schools, I can testify that it is absolutely not true that 90% of the kids get free lunch. In order to get reduced or free lunch, you have to fill out and sign a financial need application form. According to the FDOE data report, the actual number is 41%.( FLDOE free lunch). That actually ties right in with the number of children living in low-income families - 44% (Child Poverty). In my poverty days, my kids got free lunch. Now that I'm no longer unemployed and poor, they do not.
I didn't say 90% was an average figure. I said the program was being massively abused, and some schools have 90% enrollment in the free lunch program, which is total crap. Low income, doesn't mean the family can't pack a damn lunch for their child!
Additionally, as a former poor person, I can absolutely state that asking for and receiving "aid" is the most humiliating and degrading thing I've ever done. The very moment I could manage to make ends meet without it, I dropped it like a hot potato. There was absolutely none of that *wink wink nudge nudge* that you are referring to...more like,[FONT="Courier New"] you lazy, stupid, dumb person who is getting a free ride while I, the person who signs off on your aid, is working hard and earning mere peanuts. Let me see how many ways I can make you feel subhuman to compensate for my disdain!![/FONT]
Sorry you were treated that way. But again, this wasn't about YOUR experience. It was about the way these programs, as a whole, are being abused, and have no reasonable controls, and are wasting our money. The number of kids enrolled in free or subsidized lunch programs, exceeds the number that actually need it, by several orders of magnitude.
Which do you believe is cheaper and more efficient?
1) A bag lunch from home:
Sandwich, an apple or other fruit, and a small bag of chips
or
2) A selection of hot and cold foods and drinks: pizza, salads, sandwiches, rice, potato, meat, fruit, milk, chocolate milk, soda, fruit juice, and milk shakes, etc. All catered or served up by professional food service companies. Add in the cost of hot and cold serving tables, commercial refrigeration, and at least a basic kitchen, and you have a LOT of money tied up in lunches! (Actual menu will vary from day to day, of course).
There's simply no comparison. No way that "free" lunch costs less than $5 per lunch. More probably, $7.50 - $10.00
The bag lunch from home - probably less than $3, AND the taxpayer doesn't have to pay for it.
The idea that low income families can't afford to give their kids a healthy lunch is CRAP. They've been doing it for decades, and what? Now they're suddenly too strapped for it, even during the Clinton years?
What next? How about giving them the latest Nike sneakers, as well?
Was everything perfect? Oh hell no! But our nation as a whole, was stronger economically
My recollection was that it was up and down under Reagan. There were a couple of small recessions. They seemed significant at the time, but that was before the 2008 free fall, so they seem small in hindsight. And I remember that Reagan cut taxes and increased spending so we went from having small deficits to having huge ones. In fact, I clearly remember an issue of Time magazine showing a black hole sucking dollars in, discussing the Reagan debt and the statistic at the time that in his first term alone, Reagan increased the debt more than all the presidents before him COMBINED.
Reagan broke the seal on deficit spending and taught the country that it was OK to spend more than you had. I clearly remember Mondale in a debate accusing Reagan of writing "bad checks" to fund the government, and Reagan getting really pissed off.
"Reagan taught us deficits don't matter." Go ahead and Google that quote and who said it (besides tw.)
My recollection was that it was up and down under Reagan. There were a couple of small recessions. They seemed significant at the time, but that was before the 2008 free fall, so they seem small in hindsight. And I remember that Reagan cut taxes and increased spending so we went from having small deficits to having huge ones. In fact, I clearly remember an issue of Time magazine showing a black hole sucking dollars in, discussing the Reagan debt and the statistic at the time that in his first term alone, Reagan increased the debt more than all the presidents before him COMBINED.
Reagan broke the seal on deficit spending and taught the country that it was OK to spend more than you had. I clearly remember Mondale in a debate accusing Reagan of writing "bad checks" to fund the government, and Reagan getting really pissed off.
"Reagan taught us deficits don't matter." Go ahead and Google that quote and who said it (besides tw.)
Well, your memory is rather selective. The recession hit us under Carter, just as Reagan was about to be elected. Interest rates for home loans was up over 17%, and inflation was still strong. Carter's advice to us was to turn down the thermostat, and wear a sweater in our houses. :mad:
It was a bad recession, one of our worst ones, but Reagan had a plan - which was to destroy the Soviet Union in an arms race. The Soviets had been spending more $$$ than they could afford for at least 20 years already. They were at the "tipping point", but felt determined to match us in whatever military hardware we came up with. It was a matter of national pride and security for them.
So yeah, Reagan spent a lot of money, BUT he also got a LOT of bang for the buck. He was responsible for freeing more countries from the communists, than any president, ever.
By cutting taxes from over 50% for some categories, to a max of 33% iirc, and cutting it for EVERYONE, not just the rich, and not just the "somebody else" -- EVERYONE, he got the economy going, and we had a ROARING recovery.
Meanwhile, the Iranians wanted NOTHING to do with Reagan, and returned the hostages on his first day in office. They disliked Carter, but also, they recognized that they could pull our tail, as long as Carter was the Commander in Chief. Try that with Reagan, and you would get shredded.
I don't have the facts before me, but I believe our deficit did increase under Reagan, but you don't increase our military, with your piggy bank, and he started out with a large Democratic gov't - not the smaller and leaner one that he would have preferred. He did cut it down, but it takes time.
Without cutting taxes, you don't get the economy running as it should be. There is no motivation for people to expand, and spend on their business, when the vast majority of the money just goes to the gov't, anyway.
That's why Conservatism works so well. It doesn't rely on people being idealists, or on a gov't that will somehow, someway, know how to spend your money, better than you do.
You might think it's great having the gov't pay your way, but I'm saying, it won't be long before the gov't is telling you EXACTLY what way you can choose, in every part of your life. More government, means less freedom for you and me. Never doubt that. Sometimes you need more government, but you have to WATCH out, and be sure to also limit that government, when it's not necessary. Not just let it grow and grow, and control more and more. PULL IT BACK, from time to time.
Otherwise, you can kiss your freedom, good bye.
Here's what I hear:
"next to of course god america i
love you land of the pilgrims' and so forth oh
say can you see by the dawn's early my
country 'tis of centuries come and go
and are no more what of it we should worry
in every language even deafanddumb
thy sons acclaim your glorious name by gorry
by jingo by gee by gosh by gum
why talk of beauty what could be more beaut-
iful than these heroic happy dead
who rushed like lions to the roaring slaughter
they did not stop to think they died instead
then shall the voice of liberty be mute?"
He spoke. And drank rapidly a glass of water
--e.e. cummings
I'm dizzy. That post is all over the place.
But at least I got a good laugh at this line
I don't have the facts before me, but I believe our deficit did increase under Reagan
Let's talk about the Welfare Queen!
So I'm managing some properties, and here comes the section 8 housing applications. Yep, welfare moms.
And every one of them had the exact maximum number of kids, that was most efficient for collecting benefits, according to the size of the unit they applied for. I'm sure it was just a coincidence.
Section 8 housing - √
food stamps - √
free lunch program for the school kids √
money back from the IRS √
food bank √
school supplies donated √
extra nutrition program for young kids √ (I forget the name of it)
low income phone service √
low income gas and electric service √
free medical √
and more that I didn't even know about.
These were healthy women - they could have gone to work, but why should they? They couldn't have a man in the house without upsetting the welfare free bus trip, but they had male "visitors" from time to time.
The best fraud cases I heard about, were the ones that had enrolled for benefits, in three or four states. They lived near the point where the state lines came together, and just "hopped" from state to state, to pick up their monthly benefits.
Two of my friends also convinced SS that they were "disabled", and got a check every month, that way. Neither was disabled at all, but they knew how to act up, so it appeared they had "Asperger's Syndrome".
I hired them for manual labor, from time to time. One of them, was a good friend, and died from leukemia before he was 35, at Stanford Hosital. OK, Mike was so ornery, he maybe did have Aspergers. ;)
RIP Mike.
I'm dizzy. That post is all over the place.
But at least I got a good laugh at this line
Take off what's after the comma and that should be Adak's user title!
Let's talk about the Welfare Queen!
So I'm managing some properties, and here comes the section 8 housing applications. Yep, welfare moms.
And every one of them had the exact maximum number of kids, that was most efficient for collecting benefits, according to the size of the unit they applied for. I'm sure it was just a coincidence.
(Or, perhaps, they applied for that unit BECAUSE they had that many kids)
Section 8 housing - √
food stamps - √
free lunch program for the school kids √
money back from the IRS √
food bank √
school supplies donated √
extra nutrition program for young kids √ (I forget the name of it)
low income phone service √
low income gas and electric service √
free medical √
and more that I didn't even know about.
These were healthy women - they could have gone to work, but why should they? They couldn't have a man in the house without upsetting the welfare free bus trip, but they had male "visitors" from time to time.
(Unless you saw their medical history, all you REALLY can say about them is they APPEARED healthy)
The best fraud cases I heard about, were the ones that had enrolled for benefits, in three or four states. They lived near the point where the state lines came together, and just "hopped" from state to state, to pick up their monthly benefits.
("HEARD ABOUT" as in HEARSAY?)
Two of my friends also convinced SS that they were "disabled", and got a check every month, that way. Neither was disabled at all, but they knew how to act up, so it appeared they had "Asperger's Syndrome".
I hired them for manual labor, from time to time. One of them, was a good friend, and died from leukemia before he was 35, at Stanford Hosital. OK, Mike was so ornery, he maybe did have Aspergers. ;)
(Is it at all POSSIBLE he had the Leukemia BEFORE and WHEN he knew you? That just might qualify as "disabled")
RIP Mike.
If you are going to make a case for your side of an argument, you might want to NOT make the case for the other side at the same time.
Adak, you're like the Conservative Tasmanian Devil! I can't keep up with you, I don't know how you manage to bat back all the challenges to your positions. I have one clue, you are just posting about your feelings and your memories (old and fresh, nothing wrong with that) but it's not a fair analysis of larger groups or systemic traits. You point out that glatt has a selective memory, but of course we all do. That's why citations help clarify what's been selected and what's been discounted. You speak in broad terms, but use very limited specific examples like definitions of big ideas. Now, this is a complaint about your style, not about your positions. I think you unfairly, improperly characterize a few things like "true conservatives", poor people, Islam, American government and civics for example when you talk in stereotypes and buzzwords and cliches.
It's like listening to one of those blind men describe the elephant. Yes, the trunk is like a snake, yes, the tail is like a rope, etc etc. But an elephant isn't like a snake or a rope. You fixate on a narrow example then characterize a whole swath of people based on that stereotype. It is poor critical thinking. Even you yourself retreat from many of these examples, ("I didn't say 90% was an average number", "the EPA telling me what plywood I can buy", etc.) but unchallenged, they stand as if they are Truth. Honestly, nothing of substance is purely one thing only. If it can fit on a bumper sticker, it's probably not so or not important.
I say YOU, because you're writing here, but I see this kind of communication, this kind of thinking all over the place and I find it objectionable. Depending on the motivation I sense from the speaker, that objection ranges from bemusement to frustration to anger toward those who I feel are deliberately and knowingly deceptive. I don't think you are in that category, but the bloviators from Fox News land are a lot of the time.
Like xoB, I value truth highly. To be able to discern truth, I need facts and information, and enough of them to be able to compare them. In my experience, it's rarely the case that one example defines a whole group. I need more facts to find out the truth (like I did in the diy thread about my range installation). Your input is one of many, but it doesn't seem very high quality since little of what you've presented is objectively verifiable.
So. Just a little at a time from me then. Tell me, what makes Reagan a "TRUE conservative"? I don't think you can judge "from his actions" as you correctly advise that all his actions could be described that way.
But look at their actions, while they're in office. Did Reagan cut Social Security? Did he increase our take-home pay by cutting our taxes? Did we in fact, have a significant recovery AND get our Iranian Embassy hostages returned, AND see the destruction of the Soviet Union's hold over several countries, during his terms in office?
Selective reasoning and outright lies are continuous. Each soundbyte claim is missing the many other paragraphs necessary to actually know this stuff.
Reagan increased taxes mostly by raising SS taxes. Then took that money (without leaving an IOU) from the SS Trust Fund to pay for a massive increase in government spending. And still increased government debt massively.
As Cheney so often said, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Or is that reality just forgotten along with Reagan's tax increases?
As a result, Reagan was the only president to be reelected when the economy was still depressed; when unemployment was so high.
What happened to increase employment? Tax increases. Reagan increased taxes. Unemployment went down. Clinton increased taxes. Unemployment decreased. Why does the rhetoric conveniently forget reality? Soundbyte reasoning.
Reagan did not do anything to end the Iranian hostage program - other than get elected. Later he tried to illegally sell arms to the Iranians - Iran Contra. To finance an illegal war in Central America. He even illegally mined the harbors if Nicaragua. This was good? Or just conveniently forgotten to have justify a 'liberal vs conservative' arguments?
Sadly, Tw, lies and liberals, tend to go hand in hand.
You may want to believe them, you may have been told them by the news media, but you just can't QUITE make those liberal lies, into FACTS: Such is the life of the liberal - so sad. :D
First, some good humor from RR, to lighten things up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QK3Eo9cScEQ&feature=related
The problem with Socialism, in a picture:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/Publicly_Held_Federal_Debt_1790-2009.png
The "CBO's Extended Baseline Scenario", is something for your pipe dreams. The "CBO's Alternative Fiscal Scenario", is much more likely.
You can see the rise in the national debt, during Reagan's terms of office, as we went forward with a large amount of military spending, to bring back our military strength, and to break the Soviet economy, as they felt compelled to try and keep pace.
National Debt:
first year's budget is credited to last term's president, since the budget was his.
Reagan, in 8 years: 1.65 Trillion increase
12/31/1981: 1.028 Trillion Dollars
12/31/1988: 2.684 Trillion Dollars
An increase of 0.55 trillion dollars, per year.
Obama, in 3.8 years: 3.7 Trillion increase
12/31/2009: 12.311 Trillion Dollars
10/01/2012: 16.011 Trillion Dollars
And THAT is over one trillion dollars of increased debt, per year. :eek:
http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm
Housing loan rates, Freddie MAC, 30 year fixed:
January 1980: 12.88%, January 1988: 10.38
http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/mortgage_rates/charts.asp
Jobless Rates, Bureau of Labor Statistics:
1980: 7.1% 1988: 5.5%
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU04000000?years_option=all_years&periods_option=specific_periods&periods=Annual+Data
Was the US Military weak before Reagan?
"
Between 1970 and 1980 the total number of ships in the U.S. Navy fell from 847 to 538 and uniformed personnel strength declined from 675,000 to about 525,000. Although the remaining ships were newer and more capable than those retired, the Navy now has substantially fewer ships with which to sustain its peacetime commitments or to conduct wartime operations.
"
What did Reagan do?
"
President Ronald Reagan was elected President partly on his pledge to restore America's military superiority. Caspar W. Weinberger, the nation's 15th secretary of defense, Weinberger served as the point man for President Ronald Reagan's unprecedented peacetime military buildup. Weinberger also championed the so-called "Star Wars" missile defense program, the Air Force's B-1B bomber, and a "600-ship" Navy. Weinberger took office Jan. 21, 1981, and served until Nov. 23, 1987, making him the longest-serving defense secretary to date.
In addition to strengthening the nation's strategic retaliatory arm with advanced B-1B bombers, deploying Pershing II theater missiles to Europe, and producing sophisticated Abrams main battle tanks and Bradley armored fighting vehicles, his administration dramatically increased the size and capability of the U.S. Navy. In 1981 USS Ohio (SSBN-726), the largest submarine ever built and the first of her class, was commissioned. The ship carried 24 Trident I nuclear missiles, each one capable of hitting targets 4,000 miles distant.
Stepped up was construction of the 90,000-ton, nuclear-powered Nimitz-class carriers, Los Angeles-class nuclear attack submarines, and the Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruisers equipped with the revolutionary Aegis antiair warfare system. Also joining the fleet during the 1980s were Tomahawk land attack, Harpoon antiship, and high-speed, anti-radiation (HARM) missiles; improved versions of the F-14 Tomcat fighter, A-6 Intruder attack, and EA-6B Prowler electronic countermeasures aircraft; and the new F/A-18 Hornet strike fighter. The venerable battleships USS Iowa (BB-61), USS New Jersey (BB-62), USS Missouri (BB-63), and USS Wisconsin (BB-64) once again put to sea with their awesome 16-inch guns and new Tomahawk surface-to-surface missile batteries.
"
What's our Naval strength in # of ships, now?
"
Since the end of the Cold War, the size of the U.S. military decreased dramatically. At one time, the Navy envisioned a need for a 600-ship fleet. At the end of fiscal year (FY) 1988, the Navy had a total battle force of 566 ships. By the end of FY 1998, this number had dropped to approximately 330.
"
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/scn-1981-reagan.htm
Federal Tax Rates, actual, Married filing jointly, $50,000:
1980: 43%
1988: 28%
While cutting taxes, he also had the number of tax brackets reduced, simplifying the tax code marginally.
http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/fed_individual_rate_history_nominal%26adjusted-20110909.pdf
Please go spin your fables somewhere else. Facts, refute fables, every time. :cool:
What has that picture to do with socialism?
People are only human, after all.
When you cut taxes, people have more money in their pocket. They buy more STUFF, they update everything from their wardrobe, to their car or home. They also modernize their business, maybe expand it, maybe add another truck to their transport fleet, open a branch office, etc.
Money gets MOVING around the economy, and that's what puts a recovery, into high gear. Don't believe me, ASK ANY ECONOMIST "What makes an economy strong?" He'll tell you, it's money, MOVING fast!
When taxes are increased, just the opposite occurs. People spend less - at home, and at their business. They hold off on making that risky venture of opening or expanding their business. They're worried that people who were flush with cash before, are going to be tight-fisted, and stay at home, instead of going out and spending money.
And they're right to worry.
It's not rocket science, it's just human nature. More money for our gov't, means less money for our economic engine - the private sector.
Who do you think pays for all the new gov't employees that Obama has hired? You and me, of course. ONLY the private sector makes our economy strong, not the gov't!
It amazes me that so many people, forget that. But then again, we're bombarded with liberal lies, day in and day out, and we're only human.
What has that picture to do with socialism?
Maybe a picture of the decayed homes and apartment buildings in Cuba, would have been more instructive. There, the concrete and stucco buildings are falling down because they have not been painted or sealed against the rain, in so many years.
Now the stucco and concrete have been damaged by the water getting in, and they're falling down - literally, on a massive scale.
When you remove the private sector like Castro did, you have sure and certain poverty. Witness North Korea, China (before 1980), Soviet Union, Cuba, Greece, etc.
There is NOT ONE socialist country that has no private sector, that is not dirt poor. Only the private sector gets the real engines of an economy, revved up - you and me, and all our fellow countrymen.
WE are the engines of an economic recovery, NOT THE FLIPPING GOV'T!
As our national debt continues to grow, and our private sector is shrunk by the socialist policies that keep putting pressure on them, we just start to run out of money - yes, as a nation.
"Socialism only works until the money runs out", as Thatcher once famously remarked.
Since SS was going slowly bankrupt, Tw, isn't it just - I don't know, REASONABLE - to increase the SS taxes, to save Social Security?
Not that the poly-ticks won't probably rob it anyway later on, but that's the damn liberals for you.
Because conservatives believe that if you start a program, you FUND the program, and if the program is important, and it's going broke, you make the changes necessary to get it FUNDED properly.
Unfortunately, true conservatives like this, are few and far between, in Washington, or in our state capitals. In either party.
@BigV - am I keeping you busy? ;)
Mmm. There are several other factors that are probably more important to that picture than 'socialism' . Actually you already alluded to them in an earlier post about the soviet block. One of the key factors in communist states becoming stuck in a war communism paradigm was the absolute opposition of the USA to anything seen as a threat to capitism and the democratic economy. Opposition which was interventionist, aggressive and far reaching. Up to and including involving themselves in postwar French elections when it looked possible a communist party win was on the way.
There are lots of reasons communism failed. But being permanently on the defensive and ever actually getting to a stage where the state wasn't under overt and covert attack from a powerful enemy most certainly did not help.
As for Cuba, alongside all the above. I suspect longstanding sanctions, economic isolation and coastal waters full of mines may have affected their economic development.
Reagan, in 8 years: 1.65 Trillion increase
12/31/1981: 1.028 Trillion Dollars
12/31/1988: 2.684 Trillion Dollars
An increase of 0.55 trillion dollars, per year.
Obama, in 3.8 years: 3.7 Trillion increase
12/31/2009: 12.311 Trillion Dollars
10/01/2012: 16.011 Trillion Dollars
Had your information sources been moderates, then you would not be posting half facts. For example, $0.55 trillion per year in 1982 is over $1.3 trillion in 2012 dollars. That is over $4.9 trillion in 3.8 years. Why do they forget to mention that part?
Extremist talk show hosts routinely forget facts to hype an agenda. To invent propaganda. Who spent more? Obama's $3.7 trillion in 3.8 years or Reagan's $4.9 trillion? Those are your numbers when intentionally missing facts are included.
Meanwhile, learn why your extremists talk show hosts have provided erroneous numbers. And that your arithmetic is flawed.
'Big dic' thinking foolishly measures power in terms of military hardware. So we built Ohio class subs to only have most of them scrapped. How often have Los Angles submarines done anything useful? The B-1 bombers was a disaster when started in the late 1970s. It could not perform military functions until about 2000. 20 years to make the B-1 useful and you are proud of it? The B-1 after 2000 only did functions that the B-52 (a 1950s design) was doing. Too much 'big dic' thinking without a grasp of reality.
Nimitz class aircraft carriers did what? Were so ineffective that air tasking orders even had to be manually delivered. Carriers could not even get tasking orders via satellites or radio like all other Air Forces. Most Navy planes had to stay back protecting the carriers. Could not reach targets without land based refueling. Eventually all Navy planes were withdrawn from attack due their inability to hit targets. But somehow you just knew those Nimitz class carriers are better because ... they are so big or because extremists talk show hosts said so? Which is it? Why does so much expensive hardware do so little? And you are so proud? Facts mean that 'big dic' thinking would quickly deflate.
Why do you spend so much time hyping military hardware as if that makes America wealthier, healthier, educated, innovative, and strong? It doesn't despite propaganda hyped by extremist talk show hosts. Worse, all that hardware makes extremists want to use it in more useless wars (ie Mission Accomplished). Too much military hardware and 'big dic' thinking justifies unnecessary wars and creates massive debts.
The US Navy is larger than the next 12 Navies combined. 11 of those 12 are close American allies. But wacko extremist talk show hosts tell the most naive that we have diminished military. You swallowed their lie; hook, line and sinker. Only an extremists can be so easily manipulated by bogus propaganda.
Having wasted $3 trillion in Mission Accomplished, what did that war accomplish? Well it created massive debts that Obama is stuck paying for. Or did extremist talk show hosts forget to mention that Mission Accomplished was intentionally not in any George Jr's budgets? Mission Accomplished was financed by the Chinese. Now we (Obama) must repay the Chinese. Why do extremists talk show hosts forget to mention that? Why do you never ask damning questions? Moderates do. If you are not a moderate, then what are you? Uninformed? Manipulated by propaganda? A victim of half truths?
Education from extremists talk show hosts means you do not know what socialism is. Communism happens when top management subverts socialism. Cuba is a communist country. Why would anything confuse communism with socialism? Extremists talk show hosts. Had they been honest, then you knew Cuba is communist - not socialist.
But then extremists talk show hosts define a world as "liberal verses conservative" to keep their disciples confused and militant. You even confused military hardware with what makes a nation strong. Classic 'big dic' thinking.
Please learn facts so that extremist talk show hosts do not so easily manipulate you. Your many paragraphs demonstrate how easily they manipulate using lies, myths, and half truths. So bogus is your claim of a diminished Navy. Only the least educated would believe all that obvious nonsense.
Meanwhile, despite lies from extremists talk show hosts, Reagan increased (did not decrease) taxes.
More fun facts about socialism in action:
Here's what to expect from your new Socialist President, France:
From the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19814806
It has not been a great week to be French. Unemployment has just hit three million, growth for next year is estimated at barely above zero, and the popularity of (Socialist) President Hollande has plummeted.
...unemployment here just hit the three million mark and is going to keep rising.
Every week sees a new announcement of large-scale lay-offs. Just this week the last blast-furnace in Lorraine - once
the crucible of the French steel industry - has closed.
Taxes are going up, and no matter what the socialist government says, it is not just the rich who will be affected.
Business-creators are furious because the new rules mean that people who build up an enterprise from scratch will lose more than 60% to the government when they try to sell it on. More and more of the brightest and the best are thinking of moving abroad.
London! is now the sixth largest "French" city. :cool:
============== End of BBC Report ================
Why do I dislike Socialism? Because it doesn't work at all well, but liberals keep telling you it will work, and before long, they bring the gov't into EVERY part of your life, and your freedom and rights, go right down the drain.
It's time to Wake Up, about socialism!
Meanwhile, despite lies from extremists talk show hosts, Reagan increased (did not decrease) taxes.
The Congressional Budget Office, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the FHFA, and the IRS are "extremist talk show hosts", now?
You're in deep lying waters, and you have a 40 lb. tool belt of lies strapped around your middle. I suggest you lose a few of them.
So you REALLY believe that a strong military, and a strong economy, somehow combine to make us weak?
[COLOR="Red"]Please... that is THE MOST pathetic argument, I've heard all year. [/COLOR]:rolleyes:
Why don't you prove it to me, that taxes were higher in 1980 , when Reagan took office, than they were in January 1988, (or Dec. 1987), when he left office.
You can adjust for inflation if you like. It's only 8 years here, but the stats including adjustment for inflation, as well as nominal, are available at the url I posted with the data.
I'm sure if you dig around, you can find SOMEBODY whose tax loophole was closed by Reagan, and then had higher tax liability, as a result. But go ahead, it will be fun.
Because the basis of your belief system is a lie. Our country was founded on individual freedoms and opportunity - not gov't hand outs. The gov't will NEVER be nearly as efficient as the private sector. Not even the military is that efficient.
[COLOR="Red"]You should read up on just what our private sector has done for us:[/COLOR]
http://www.economist.com/node/21555532
it's the kind of thing you won't see in ANY Hollywood movie, where the wicked corporation tries to take over the world, unleash biological weapons, destroy the moon, etc.
Again, it's just a fact. You can run away or slander them or whatever, but they're still THOSE DAMN FACTS.
Read it and weep! ;) ;)
You're in deep lying waters, and you have a 40 lb. tool belt of lies strapped around your middle. I suggest you lose a few of them.
So you REALLY believe that a strong military, and a strong economy, somehow combine to make us weak?
So the B-1 Bomber, Nimitz carrier, Ohio and Los Angles submarines, 600 ship Navy, etc all made the American economy stronger? History says just the opposite. Why are you no longer defending those weapon systems once their value was better defined? And why are you imposing extremist talk show myths to misrepresent what I posted? That misrepresentation is a classic debating trick used when the many previous claims were too far from reality.
Since those 'big dic' military claims are bogus, you are now running to blame socialism for economic malise. Nonsense again. Strong economies are not created by "deregulation verses socialism". Or conservative verse liberal. Or "them verses us". Or 'big dic' inspired wars. Strong economics occurs due to innovation found in all free market economies, including France. Political spin does not explain what makes or undermines economies. Closing tax loopholes did not end the economic disaster created by a conservative and wacko president Nixon. A president who is slightly more socialist did not suddenly create a massive recession in France.
Posting mockery does not prove knowledge. It only proves you cannot defend those myths in previous posts.
A country prospers when better educated people do not promote the extremist political agendas that you have posted. Innovation is not defined or promoted in your accusations. Innovation is the reason for America's strength. Innovation is the kind of thing you won't see in ANY Hollywood movie where the evil liberal destroys corporations, unleashes biological weapons, and creates massacres. The real threat is someone who blindly preaches half truth propganda and the resulting hate from those extremist political concepts.
A real threat is one who sees solutions in 'big dic' concepts. As we learned from useless and unnecessary deaths in Vietnam and Iraq. But no. Extremists politic, rather than logic and reality, proves 'them verses us' justifies destruction. "Conservative verse liberal" rhetoric even justified hate of Muslims in Lower Manhattan.
It is sad that your politics rather than well proven historical concepts explain the world. Those politics historically justified waste, stilfled innovation, hate, environmental disasters, fear, and even words such as nigger.
Meanwhile, other terms not found in your politics (ie STEM, R&D, education) explain what makes an economy and nation prosper. 'Big dic' military and conservative agendas did not make America prosper. A tolerant society that even welcomes immigrants does. A society not polarized by rediculous "liberal verse conservative" hate is prosperous. Your extremist politics is a serious threat to what made America great.
Yes, Adak, you continue to outpace me by a wide margin.
I see we've strayed far from "the real mitt romney", fine, fine. But I still have some questions about some buzzphrases you keep using. You've still not helped me understand what constitutes "true conservative". And I've noticed another recurring theme in your posts. You keep decrying "a government hand out", and you contrasted it to "a government hand up" at one point. A couple questions--what is the difference between a hand up and a hand out? And what are these government hand outs you're so bothered about in the first place?
---
Thank you for the inclusion of the links in your previous posts, I appreciate that. I have some suggestions for improvement, but I must first acknowledge this first big step. Nice work!
So, what, France's economic woes are a result of socialism?
As opposed to the near collapse of global finance?
Socialism may or may not be the solution to their ills. But it certainly wasn't the cause. It staggers me that with such a clear demonstration of the dangers and downside of capitalism as we have seen in the last couple of years, still the bogeyman is the red under the bed, rather than the financial wizards and global corporate culture that have crippled whole countries and regional economies.
[COLOR="Red"]You should read up on just what our private sector has done for us:[/COLOR]
http://www.economist.com/node/21555532
it's the kind of thing you won't see in ANY Hollywood movie, where the wicked corporation tries to take over the world, unleash biological weapons, destroy the moon, etc.
Again, it's just a fact. You can run away or slander them or whatever, but they're still THOSE DAMN FACTS.
Read it and weep! ;) ;)
This caught my eye. I won't dispute the details of Herman's study; I don't know nearly enough about that period of history for my own country, let alone anyone else's. But...
Alarm bells always sound for me when I see someone cite a historian's findings as bald fact. That just isn't how history works as a field. His analysis will be replete with individual facts, but taken as a whole no analysis, no piece of research, no academic study (within humanities/arts/ social sciences) should ever be taken as the last word on a given topic.
I'm currently teaching historical skills and historiography to 1st year undergrads, and one of the first things they learn is that, unlike at school and college, the texts they read are not to be treated as unassailable fact. They are not to be approached in the same way as a school text book, where the word on the page is what you learn to be true.
Tw: You keep using the "N" word, and I'll have to ignore your sad and racist posts.
Yes, Adak, you continue to outpace me by a wide margin.
I see we've strayed far from "the real mitt romney", fine, fine. But I still have some questions about some buzzphrases you keep using. You've still not helped me understand what constitutes "true conservative". And I've noticed another recurring theme in your posts. You keep decrying "a government hand out", and you contrasted it to "a government hand up" at one point. A couple questions--what is the difference between a hand up and a hand out? And what are these government hand outs you're so bothered about in the first place?
---
Thank you for the inclusion of the links in your previous posts, I appreciate that. I have some suggestions for improvement, but I must first acknowledge this first big step. Nice work!
I thought you'd get a real idea of Mitt, by watching the debate. He did a very fine job.
A hand up is any program that includes a central core protocol that stresses giving people a lift upward, in their ability to earn a living. Job retraining for disabled vets, is a good example.
A hand out is any program that lacks a central theme of lifting people upward in economic mobility, leading to regular dependency on the part of the recipient. Typically, they aren't even making an effort to get off the dole. Why should they?
Welfare recipients who could work but don't, living off welfare for decades, are a good example.
I'll post up something defining a true conservative, when I have more time to write.
The highly anticipated jobs stats for September came in this morning. Our "phoney" unemployment rate is now down a little bit, to 7.8%. Our real unemployment rate (which includes those who would work, but have now quit looking), is estimated by the WSJ (Wall Street Journal), to be 11.1% in preliminary estimates. (which are frequently revised).
Can you see the Presidential race, as a baseball game? It's the bottom of the ninth inning, and you NEED a double to bring around the winning score. Who will you send up as the designated hitter?
Obama, who has a dismal .190 batting average? Or Romney who has a huge .350 batting average?
Despite everything else, YOU KNOW that Romney runs RINGS around Obama, when it comes to business, and Ryan runs RINGS around Biden, without even trying, (as most of us do, <cough, cough>). You have to choose a batter, which one is your choice?
Mitt Romney is the only real choice for President. As I've said before, I'd like to have seen Obama have a great two terms, but he got hit by this recession, and he just hasn't been able to handle it.
Obama has no plans to handle it, if he is re-elected. Did you hear any new plans from him, during the 90 minute debate? Anything that sounded good to get us out of this economic downturn we've been caught up in for years now? Obama has nothing - nothing new, and he can't repeat the throw money at it solution he tried before, because we can't afford it.
BigV, thanks, and I know that some of those websites I linked to aren't the best for research, but others had the data in Excel spreadsheets and other formats, that I can't handle on this computer.
Tw: You keep using the "N" word, and I'll have to ignore your sad and racist posts.
--snip
What the heck are you talking about?
He saw the word nigger and missed the context entirely.
Mitt 'did a fine job' in the debate. I keep hearing that and I wondered if I saw the same debate. Sure, he was aggressive, maybe 'presidential' but he still didn't actually say anything.
Obama asked him to explain how, if he's going to leave the rich taxes alone, how else can he fix a trillion in deficit without any impact to the middle class taxes. The most I heard was that he plans to cut from other programs. 'Other programs' is Rom-speak for ' programs that affect the poor and middle classes.' Careful, people, what you ask for. And, um, cutting funding to PBS? Yeah, there's a whopping .01 percent of the budget. Ha!
Mitt is so very sorry about his 47% comment, he was completely wrong. How sweet. Two days ago he staunchly supported his statement.
How in the hell are people buying this nonsense? Are we, as a nation, really that dumbed down?
What the heck are you talking about?
Blah blah blah cherry pick cherry pick blah blah blah rhetoric be afraid blah blah, that's what!
Mitt is so very sorry about his 47% comment, he was completely wrong. How sweet. Two days ago he staunchly supported his statement.
How in the hell are people buying this nonsense? Are we, as a nation, really that dumbed down?
Mitt Romney is an asshole conservative
*shakes etch-a-sketch*
Mitt Romney is a rational moderate
Props are probably against the rules, but it would have been great if Obama brought an etch-a-sketch to the debate.
He saw the word nigger and missed the context entirely.
Almost correct. I don't tolerate such offensive language. Like I said, been there (in the Deep South), saw that racist ideology, and it was sickening.
You want to have me reply to your post, you don't use words like that.
What if you are talking about racism? Simply using the word to make a point about racism isn't propogating racist ideology.
If you are so sensitized to the language and mechanisms of racism, then you really should be able to spot the parrallels in the anti-muslim rhetoric and action, in which some people are engaging, and which is tacitly endorsed by much western media and mainstream politics.
Mitt is so very sorry about his 47% comment, he was completely wrong. How sweet. Two days ago he staunchly supported his statement.
How in the hell are people buying this nonsense? Are we, as a nation, really that dumbed down?
You've been "buying" Obama's sweet nothings, for years, what's the problem?
His statement was correct, but ONLY within the context of a political analysis. As a front page 10 second sound byte, with no context, yeah, it's something that should have remained in the room.
Everybody takes short cuts in their speaking which, if taken out of context, sound bad. We just don't have as many little ass-bites running around with hidden recorders, as the Democrats have.
And even if we did, the White House and Air Force One, is tough territory to eavesdrop on the President!
Mitt 'did a fine job' in the debate. I keep hearing that and I wondered if I saw the same debate. Sure, he was aggressive, maybe 'presidential' but he still didn't actually say anything.
Obama asked him to explain how, if he's going to leave the rich taxes alone, how else can he fix a trillion in deficit without any impact to the middle class taxes. The most I heard was that he plans to cut from other programs. 'Other programs' is Rom-speak for ' programs that affect the poor and middle classes.' Careful, people, what you ask for. And, um, cutting funding to PBS? Yeah, there's a whopping .01 percent of the budget. Ha!
Even if you took EVERY PENNY, from the top 10% of our income earners, in taxes, you wouldn't begin to break even on the spending we're doing, versus our income to the gov't.
You MUST start trimming down the size of the federal gov't, or we are headed for a meltdown, and it won't be all that far off, either.
Give me a guess. What do you believe is our national debt, per day, hour, minute or second? Not the amount we spend that's covered, by income, but the amount ABOVE what we have coming into the federal gov't.
You WILL be shocked! :mad:
...I'm currently teaching historical skills and historiography to 1st year undergrads, and one of the first things they learn is that, unlike at school and college, the texts they read are not to be treated as unassailable fact. They are not to be approached in the same way as a school text book, where the word on the page is what you learn to be true.
Does this scare anyone else?
Ha! What about that scares you?
His statement was correct, but ONLY within the context of a political analysis. As a front page 10 second sound byte, with no context, yeah, it's something that should have remained in the room.
No it wasn't. The 47% comment was wrong for so many reasons. It is a typical Republican (note that I do not mean conservative) argument that incites emotion and can be defended only because of how it was framed. Frame it any differently and it is completely wrong. The same goes for foreign policy and the stimulus.
If you actually break down the 47% who do not pay income taxes, it looks a hell a lot different than purely government parasites. If Mitt Romney wants to know why 47% of American will never vote for him, rewatch the Republican primary debates. Republicans (not necessarily conservatives) have gone completely off the deep end. Romney's campaign finally realized that and it explains his very quick switch in positions at the debate.
His statement was correct, but ONLY within the context of a political analysis.
As a front page 10 second sound byte, with no context, yeah,
it's something that should have remained in the room.
It certainly appears Adak has not yet watched the actual video of this event.
Romney's statement was in same context as the media and Dwellars here are stating.
How does Adak justify/rationalize saying it "should have remained in the room" ?
After Romney's statement about "not worried about" the poor,
I can easily believe his 47% statement is a good reflection of his true feelings.
As a public figure, if you don't want something made public by the media,
don't say it... even "in private"... or be prepared to be labelled a hypocrite.
As a public figure, if you don't want something made public by the media, don't say it... even "in private"... or be prepared to be labelled a hypocrite.
Yeah, there's a risk people may come to know The Real Mitt Romney. :lol:
Got to take these one at a time...
BigV, thanks, and I know that some of those websites I linked to aren't the best for research, but others had the data in Excel spreadsheets and other formats, that I can't handle on this computer.
You're welcome. What I had in mind was this link:
The problem with Socialism, in a picture:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._1790-2009.png
The "CBO's Extended Baseline Scenario", is something for your pipe dreams. The "CBO's Alternative Fiscal Scenario", is much more likely.
I offer this constructive criticism of this link. It is just a picture. It has a title, but there's little there to go on, not a link back to the article, no legends on the axes, nothing. I did follow up on this picture's title, "Publicly held federal debt 1790-2009", and read some material though.
You say it is an picture of the problem with Socialism. That's not what I found.
Here's a link that has much more actual information than just that picture. It's a CBO report titled
The 2012 Long-Term Budget Outlook. Here's the money shot:
[ATTACH]41073[/ATTACH]
Let me break that down for you. First of
all, the graph, the report, nothing at all has anything at all to do with Socialism, or its supposed problems. I *suspect* that scare word came from some partisan bloviator who saw a report and then took the six or seven words in it that suited his panicky mood at the time, and mashed up that graph and slapped the label Socialism somewhere in the title of the blog post. I think you cribbed it from something like that.
Now that that is out of the way, let's talk about what the CBO is actually saying. They consider two scenarios, they call them extended baselines because they look at their projections for the budget for the next twenty-five or so years.
What Is the Budget Outlook Under the Extended Baseline Scenario?
Under the extended baseline scenario, which generally adheres closely to current law, federal debt would gradually decline over the next 25 years—from an estimated 73 percent of GDP this year to 61 percent by 2022 and 53 percent by 2037. That outcome would be the result of two key sets of policy assumptions:
Under current law, revenues would rise steadily relative to GDP because of the scheduled expiration of cuts in individual income taxes enacted since 2001 and most recently extended in 2010, the growing reach of the alternative minimum tax (AMT), the tax provisions of the Affordable Care Act, the way in which the tax system interacts with economic growth, demographic trends, and other factors; revenues would reach 24 percent of GDP by 2037—much higher than has typically been seen in recent decades—and would grow to larger percentages thereafter.
At the same time, under this scenario, government spending on everything other than the major health care programs, Social Security, and interest—activities such as national defense and a wide variety of domestic programs—would decline to the lowest percentage of GDP since before World War II.
That significant increase in revenues and decrease in the relative magnitude of other spending would more than offset the rise in spending on health care programs and Social Security.
******
What is the Outlook Under the Extended Alternative Fiscal Scenario?
The budget outlook is much bleaker under the extended alternative fiscal scenario, which maintains what some analysts might consider “current policies,” as opposed to current laws. Federal debt would grow rapidly from its already high level, exceeding 90 percent of GDP in 2022. After that, the growing imbalance between revenues and spending, combined with spiraling interest payments, would swiftly push debt to higher and higher levels. Debt as a share of GDP would exceed its historical peak of 109 percent by 2026, and it would approach 200 percent in 2037.
The changes under this scenario would result in much lower revenues than would occur under the extended baseline scenario because almost all expiring tax provisions are assumed to be extended through 2022 (with the exception of the current reduction in the payroll tax rate for Social Security). After 2022, revenues under this scenario are assumed to remain at their 2022 level of 18.5 percent of GDP, just above the average of the past 40 years.
Outlays would be much higher than under the other scenario. This scenario incorporates assumptions that through 2022, lawmakers will act to prevent Medicare’s payment rates for physicians from declining ***; that after 2022, lawmakers will not allow various restraints on the growth of Medicare costs and health insurance subsidies to exert their full effect; and that the automatic reductions in spending required by the Budget Control Act of 2011 will not occur (although the original caps on discretionary appropriations in that law are assumed to remain in place). Finally, under this scenario, federal spending as a percentage of GDP for activities other than Social Security, the major health care programs, and interest payments is assumed to return to its average level during the past two decades, rather than fall significantly below that level, as it does under the extended baseline scenario.
*** the kind of reductions in payments to providers that comprise the hotly debated $176 billion dollars "stolen" from Medicare, according to Ryan/Romney.
So, you say that the problem with Socialism is ... something, but you point at the "extended
alternative baseline scenario" as the scary bogeyman. It IS scary I agree. But if you read the CBO's own words, that scary prospect is what they project will happen if the tax cuts are permitted to stay in place.
...
Come on, Adak. This is Socialism? If you want to AVOID the "Socialist" outcome, fine--just keep extending the temporary Bush era tax cuts. This is what Comrade Romney has proposed, hasn't he? He won't increase anyone's taxes. "Absolutely." that was his *exact* statement on the issue, right? Socialist bastard. In fact, if you listen to him further, he says he will LOWER THE RATES. REALLY???? That scary graph was scary because the rates only stay the same, imagine how much faster and higher the Taxapolyse will hit if the rates are lowered? Oh, sure, Romney's gonna pay for them by eliminating funding for Big Bird and some other hand waving, but even taking him at his word, he's only aiming to make the changes "revenue neutral". He doesn't want to bring any more revenue to the Federal system. All cuts. No revenue increases.
You read the report. You look at the graphs. You listen to Romney's words. Then you come back and tell me which scenario his plan would take us to. And be prepared to substitute some numbers for his pitiful and unconvincing hand waving. You've shown your willingness and ability to support your statements to a degree far exceeding Romney's. Go on, convince me. I might vote for you.
Here's a link to a MUCH more informative graphic than the one line graph Adak posted.
It's big, you'll have to side scroll.
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43289snip--
A hand up is any program that includes a central core protocol that stresses giving people a lift upward, in their ability to earn a living. Job retraining for disabled vets, is a good example.
A hand out is any program that lacks a central theme of lifting people upward in economic mobility, leading to regular dependency on the part of the recipient. Typically, they aren't even making an effort to get off the dole. Why should they?
Welfare recipients who could work but don't, living off welfare for decades, are a good example.
--snip
A program like this?
TANFEven if you took EVERY PENNY, from the top 10% of our income earners, in taxes, you wouldn't begin to break even on the spending we're doing, versus our income to the gov't.
When Clinton left office, we were on the verge of a surplus. We should restore the same people who ran up the debts this massive? Cheney said, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." So those same people will do something different if we elect Romney?
Extremist conservatives create debt messes. They did it under Nixon and George Jr. Republicans who were more moderate and responsible (Reagan, George Sr) raised taxes so as to not create massive debts.
We now have the "deficit that did not matter".
When Clinton left office, we were on the verge of a surplus. We should restore the same people who ran up the debts this massive? Cheney said, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." So those same people will do something different if we elect Romney?
Extremist conservatives create debt messes. They did it under Nixon and George Jr. Republicans who were more moderate and responsible (Reagan, George Sr) raised taxes so as to not create massive debts.
We now have the "deficit that did not matter".
Clinton did one thing, very well. He freed up business from the bureaucratic nightmare that other administrations revel in. During his terms in office, our position in the scale of freedom to do business, increased significantly. We were in the #5 then. Those days are long gone now, of course. We rank about #20, now.
You're taking one sentence from Cheney, out of context, and pretending it's a Conservative Commandment. That's your argument, really?
Cheney saw, like everyone else, how Reagan used the increase in our spending, to counter the Soviets military build up, and thus compel them into bankruptcy by their need to feel ultra secure, which they are famous for.
Due to their history of invasions from the West (Germany, France, etc.), and their own propaganda, they thought we were going to invade or "conquer" them. Like we "conquered" the Philippines, Japan, West Germany, France, Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Australia, The Solomon Islands, South Korea, and all the other countries we've had our troops land in.
That's not the same thing as saying that deficits don't matter - only that you have to be careful with it. Look at WWII - our national debt climbed to record high levels, but you would have to agree that it was a worthwhile reason to allow it to do so.
To have a Trillion dollar increase in our debt, year after year, is simply an irresponsible act that WILL crash our entire monetary system. Surely you know THAT much.
Let's base our decisions on facts, and not on out of context quotes from out of office politicians.
And you are lying about Reagan increasing taxes, as a whole. You've made that assertion, and have been shown incorrect with regard to individual income tax rates.
Do you want to investigate Corporate tax rates during Reagan's terms in office? Yeah, I thought not! ;)
When you're wrong, you should at least have the decency to admit it.
Reagan was our last conservative President. If you wanted to look at just the fiscal policy, you'd see that Clinton was the most conservative President, on economic policy, since Reagan.
Bush II was socially conservative, but not fiscally conservative, at all.
Bush I made an agreement with Congressional Leaders from the Democrats, to raise taxes now, and they would agree to support cutting spending, in the next session of Congress.
So he did raise taxes - which immediately branded him a liar to the public because of his famous pledge: "read my lips, no new taxes". Of course, the Democrats would not support cutting spending, as they had promised they would. They increased spending, instead! :eek: And George H. Bush was toast.
We've seen that over and over. We call it the "I'll be glad to pay you next Tuesday, for a hamburger today" promise, after the cartoon character who said it so often.
I get it that you like Obama. If his fiscal policies worked, I'd support him for another term, gladly.
[COLOR="Red"]But they don't work,[/COLOR] and I don't want to see another 4 years of economic slow-down. A lot of people are suffering right now.
What if you are talking about racism? Simply using the word to make a point about racism isn't propogating racist ideology.
If you are so sensitized to the language and mechanisms of racism, then you really should be able to spot the parrallels in the anti-muslim rhetoric and action, in which some people are engaging, and which is tacitly endorsed by much western media and mainstream politics.
You can talk all your want about racism -- there is no need to use racial epithets, in your talk. Are you awake yet, or what?
Yes, using words like "N", incite discrimination, and racial hatred. That's one of the basic tenets of propaganda.
Of course I see the racism aimed at Muslims. Unfortunately, Muslims have famously acted in ways to incite that hatred, by committing hundreds of violent acts (like 9/11 here in the US).
Pretty hard to be seen as a likable religion while we see their incidents of gang rape, murder, and terror, all around the world, against both non Muslims, and other Muslims, don't you think? :rolleyes:
Islam does not teach equality with other religions and ethnic groups. As long as it teaches superiority over others, it is, by definition, a fascist organization.
Mind that Muslims have a GOOD REASON to hate the Jews, going back to a famous battle, where the Jewish army was pledged to fight with the Muslims, against a common enemy.
But the enemy captured the Jewish leader and his family, and the Jewish army, then refused to fight with the Muslims, breaking their pledge, and ensuring the defeat of the Muslims.
But the Muslims did, eventually prevail over the enemy army, in the battle. After that breaking of their pledge, (which could have easily resulted in the genocide of the Muslim people), the Muslims have had great disdain and dislike for the Jews, and never had them for allies, in battle (to my knowledge, but there have been tens of thousands of battles in the ancient Middle East, so it probably happened somewhere, sometime. But it's VERY rare).
Have the Muslims been mistreated? Yes. certainly in the case of the Palestinians.
Have the Muslims shot themselves in the foot too many times to be counted by their unwise actions in the Middle East?
Sadly, also yes.
We should STILL set up a state for the Palestinians, however. We may have to drag them kicking and screaming into their own country, but we should set it up. ( OK, no dragging ;) )
Keeping them in a ghetto like Gaza, is wrong.
Clinton did one thing, very well. He freed up business from the bureaucratic nightmare that other administrations revel in. During his terms in office, our position in the scale of freedom to do business, increased significantly.
So, because government required auto companies to design hybrids, then that was freeing the auto industry from regulation? Because Clinton required all legacy providers to make broadband available (1996 Federal Communication Act), that deregulated the communication industry?
You paint with a broad brush. And ignore where that brush applies. The economy prospered because some industries were identified as unproductive. Then 'inspired' to perform or permit innovation. Other industries needed no regulation because they were innovative. In all your propaganda, you never once mention the only thing that makes good economic times: innovation. Extremists believe solutions are in money games and deregulating an industry that must never be deregulated - finance.
"Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" is why extremist conservatives in George Jr's administration massively increased debt and spending. Strange how they converted a surplus into the worst debt. And then spin myths about free spending Democrats. "Deficits don't matter" is their philosophy. Lying about it is also acceptable. You repeatedly ignore what created the worst recession since 1929. "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" was a major reason.
We are paying today for a $3 trillion Mission Accomplished war. Obama did not create those debts. Obama is now paying for that boondoggle. What political agenda created those debts?
Lying is hate promoted by extremist Republicans in the name of religion. And by completely misrepresenting Islam. You are posting that propaganda. Hate of Muslims. Equating Islam with fascism. Even forgetting a history of Islam - tolerance of other religions. Classic propaganda. You even misrepresented why Clinton was so successful by using a propaganda paint brush. And forget the obvious. Massive debts are created by extremist conservatives who even lied about tax cuts.
George Jr created massive debts that we will be paying even ten year later. He even invented a war against a nation that was never a threat. And then so mismanaged that war (no phase four planning) as to waste 5,000 American lives as well as massively increase the nation's debt. My god. He even surrendered to the Taliban to invent a second war. As a result we are still paying about $1million per soldier per year for that mistake. Did the extremist propaganda machine forget to mention those facts?
You even misrepresented what debts existed during Reagan's time ($0.55 trillion) by comparing 1984 money to 2012 money. But again, that is why propaganda works so well. Tell half truths. Then get snippy about the word 'nigger' to avoid your obvious mistake. $0.55 trillion then is more than $1.3 trillion today. A list of military hardware are more trophies to investments that had little productive return. But then military hardware is good for 'big dic' thinking that extremists so love. 'Big dic' thinking even makes possible 'good' wars against evil Muslims.
It is called propaganda. If thinking like a moderate, then you would have seen all facts. And not confused $0.55 trillion with the real number: $1.3 trillion. You would have seen how the economy prospered because Clinton increased regulations where necessary and decreased them where necessary.
Tax games do not create a recovery. Governments cannot make an economy better - despite the propaganda. Governments can only make problems worse or avert some of the worst problems. We now have maybe ten more years to undo the mess created after 2000.
Another fact extremists forget. Reagan was the only president to ever be reelected when unemployment was high. Many forget that after four years, Reagan's economy was quite bad. A legacy inherited from a president who also believed deficits and money games (fiscal mismanagement) do not matter: Nixon. It took well over ten years to undo his mismanagement. As it will to undo the "deficits don't matter" philosophy of George Jr's administration.
For some reason, many Americans want to bring back the people who created this mess. Because so many actually believe myths and half truths from extremist talk show hosts. So many even believe Reagan reduced taxes. And that Obama is a Muslim. Propaganda works because some are so easily brainwashed by extremist rhetoric. And forget the actual philosophy of extremist conservatives. "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter".
Extremists will even hype big buck military hardware (ie Nimitz class) as if that makes Americans economically stronger. Some still want to bring those problem extremists back into power. So they can invent more wars? So many never learn the lesson of history. Even foolishly equate Islam with fascism. Because hate inspired supporters. We don’t need extremist conservatives. We need moderates who ignore talk show host propaganda. And we need people who actually understand what makes jobs and growing economies - ie innovation. Extremist talk show hosts and their disciples never use that word.
Conservatives believe in the Constitution, as it was written, and support the more limited role it defines, for government. That includes all the Bill of Rights, not just a few of them.
Conservatives believe in a free market economy, rather than an economy tightly controlled and interfered with, by the government. Taxes, should be low, to allow the free market to expand and create jobs, and support a robust economy.
Conservatives believe in citizens supporting themselves, not citizens being dependent on the government for hand outs.
Conservatives believe a smaller government, dedicated to the roles defined for it by the Constitution, is best. Today, our federal government is too large, and spends far too much of the taxpayers money, far too inefficiently.
There are several values that are associated with conservatives:
Pro Life, Pro Family, Pro Business, Pro Strong Military, Con Gay Rights/Marriage, Pro Guns
Some of these are incorrect, and are NOT part of Conservatism, because they are NOT part of our Constitution.
Pro Life - hard to say you're AGAINST life, but it's not a part of the Constitution. I believe the decision to have an abortion is something the parents should discuss, and the woman should decide, in consultation with her doctor. The government should not be involved, PERIOD.**
Pro Family - it's hard to define EXACTLY what this means.
Pro Business - Without business, we lose our free economy, and cripple our country. The Constitution laid down the basics of commerce, but NOTHING like the intrusive governmental and union controls we have for nearly every business, today. Doesn't it just FEEL wrong that in many states, you can't work, unless you join a union first?
I especially loved it when the FAA Air Traffic Controllers all went out on a Union strike -- and Reagan promptly fired every one of them that refused to work.
It's pretty sad when you hear about the firemen on call at a burning house, but just now starting their strike - so they kick back and watch the house burn to the ground, refusing to fight the fire.
Pro Strong Military - Every country needs an adequate military, as we saw during our first war to get free from England. Still, there is no requirement that we have a military that can "bounce the rubble 10 times over". Strong? Yes. Absolutely overwhelming? No. We may get worried, and feel like we should have an overwhelmingly strong military, but that is NOT part of the Constitution, or of conservatism.
Gay Rights/Marriage - Homosexuals are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Therefore, they have the same rights as everyone else. As a practical matter, I believe in Gay Unions with equal rights to Marriages, but saving the term "Marriage" for heterosexual unions. Clearly, a partnership that is sanctioned by law, is a stronger union, and unions of some type, are the preferred state for most people to live and thrive in.
Gun Laws - The right to bear arms has been deemed to include gun ownership by individuals, by the Supreme Court. Conservatives support it, since it's right in the Constitution.
There are a LOT of people in the Republican party, who pose as conservatives. Maybe they're fanatics about one value - something like the abortion issue, or Gun ownership, etc. But one value in common, does not a true conservative, make.
**Let's be clear, Pro-Lifer's have no standing as conservatives, on this value. The Constitution doesn't mention it, AND abortions have been carried out with natural drugs and implements, since before recorded history. Abortions are horrid things, but to take away a woman's right to choose, is even worse.
So, because government required auto companies to design hybrids, then that was freeing the auto industry from regulation? Because Clinton required all legacy providers to make broadband available (1996 Federal Communication Act), that deregulated the communication industry?
Overall, Clinton made good policy, for commerce. Better than most of our Presidents, for sure.
You paint with a broad brush. And ignore where that brush applies. The economy prospered because some industries were identified as unproductive. ... Extremists believe solutions are in money games and deregulating an industry that must never be deregulated - finance.
Finance? Our entire melt down in the economy, was due to government interfering stupidly, with finance!
FHA loan buying FAMOUSLY was loosened up to promote home ownership, loan regulations forced banks into accepting applications for loans that NEVER should have been accepted - but now the gov't made it profitable to accept them, and they got sued if they did not.
Meanwhile, on Wall St., the ridiculous derivatives market, which is more gambling that anything in Las Vegas, was allowed to speculate with Billions of dollars, and subsequently sold, all around the world!
When I saw the loan applications for a home buyer, I was speechless at the obvious misrepresentations being made. But the gov't had a program to buy those loans, just that way, and you were in trouble if you failed to do so - so everyone got in line, and everyone made money.
And like most things that the gov't interferes with, it came crashing back down to earth, in a burning heap of shit. Barney Franks, and those other idiots, know next to NOTHING about how to run a business. How can they possibly make good laws for it?
Obama is in the same boat - never ran so much as a lemonade stand. Out of his entire cabinet, only a few had business experience.
...
Lying about it is also acceptable. You repeatedly ignore what created the worst recession since 1929. "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" was a major reason.
This is the third time that you've beaten this dead horse of a sentence by an ex-politician, that you've taken out of context. Get a clue: Every politician lies. They wouldn't be elected without them.
We are paying today for a $3 trillion Mission Accomplished war. Obama did not create those debts. Obama is now paying for that boondoggle. What political agenda created those debts?
It started with the attack on 9/11/2001. We followed the same "let's rebuild" philosophy that worked in rebuilding Germany & Japan., in WWII. They didn't work nearly as well, since the locals supported attacks against us, but we tried, and nation building is never cheap.
Lying is hate promoted by extremist Republicans in the name of religion. And by completely misrepresenting Islam. You are posting that propaganda. Hate of Muslims. Equating Islam with fascism. Even forgetting a history of Islam - tolerance of other religions. Classic propaganda.
Islam: Read your Koran lately? Read up on Sharia Law?
No, you haven't. If you did, you would know that a Muslim is given privileges which non-Muslims are not allowed - like serving in the Army, for instance. A higher tax bracket (way higher), as well. Access to the courts, etc.
You can call it "Religious Aristocracy" or whatever, but at it's root, it's a form of Fascism. Muslim > Christian > Infidel > pig > Jew is how the Saudi Textbook put it, iirc.
Tax cuts:
True, according to government figures. If you have contrary evidence, I've asked you to post it. Crickets from you on supporting that argument, however.
George Jr created massive debts that we will be paying even ten year later. He even invented a war against a nation that was never a threat.
George Jr. may have impressed you as a conservative. He was not, as his wild spending spree's proved. Yes, he was socially conservative, but I saw no reason to go to war with Iraq, and he lied about the reason we should go to war - and unfortunately, got all his administration to lie about it, as well.
No, George Jr. is not well liked among conservatives, for starting the Iraq war, and his out of control spending in general - but he is well liked for the tax cuts he passed. Those were significant.
You even misrepresented what debts existed during Reagan's time ($0.55 trillion) by comparing 1984 money to 2012 money. But again, that is why propaganda works so well. Tell half truths. Then get snippy about the word 'nigger' to avoid your obvious mistake. $0.55 trillion then is more than $1.3 trillion today.
Those were the actual "nominal" figures, from the gov't. If you want adjusted money values, just scroll up or down the page on the url I gave, to find them - for the income tax figures.
For the national debt figures, you'd have to look at the footer to see what dollar year they were representing.
It is called propaganda. If thinking like a moderate, then you would have seen all facts. And not confused $0.55 trillion with the real number: $1.3 trillion. You would have seen how the economy prospered because Clinton increased regulations where necessary and decreased them where necessary.
Yes, politicians give you propaganda - count on it. It's cherry picked, it's misleading, it's distracting, it's "spun" to give it to you so they look to be Good and Wise. Yawn. And the sun rises in the East, what's new about it?
Yes, Clinton was generally well liked by conservatives, on business policies.
Tax games do not create a recovery. Governments cannot make an economy better - despite the propaganda. Governments can only make problems worse or avert some of the worst problems. We now have maybe ten more years to undo the mess created after 2000.
...
So many even believe Reagan reduced taxes. And that Obama is a Muslim. Propaganda works because some are so easily brainwashed by extremist rhetoric. And forget the actual philosophy of extremist conservatives. "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter".
...
So many never learn the lesson of history. Even foolishly equate Islam with fascism. Because hate inspired supporters. We don’t need extremist conservatives. We need moderates who ignore talk show host propaganda. And we need people who actually understand what makes jobs and growing economies - ie innovation. Extremist talk show hosts and their disciples never use that word.
1) Reagan did cut taxes, and the economy did have a significant recovery during his two terms. No, it wasn't all sweetness and light, and pennies from heaven. There were set backs, especially in his first term. Still, our unemployment rate fell by the end of his first term.
With Reagan though, you knew it was going to work. You had confidence in his plans, because he spoke plainly about his philosophy of conservative government. Even people who didn't like him, knew his policies would work - damnit! :mad2:
I don't care if Obama is a Muslim. (And no, I don't believe he is a Muslim.) I would not support a candidate, because of his religion, or because he was an atheist. He's running for President, not to be a preacher, priest, or Iman.
This year, I'd prefer Obama run for Dog Catcher, however. Just because his policies have failed over the last 3 1/2 years.
It's clear that Obama and his Cabinet, don't know enough about business, to develop policies that will help us recover. That's just the plain truth.
And that's the plain reason, I want him out of the White House!
[SIZE="5"][COLOR="Red"]Yeah!!! << Go Mitt and Paul!! >>[/COLOR][/SIZE]
:cool:
Finance? Our entire melt down in the economy, was due to government interfering stupidly, with finance!
...
Meanwhile, on Wall St., the ridiculous derivatives market, which is more gambling that anything in Las Vegas, was allowed to speculate with Billions of dollars, and subsequently sold, all around the world!
Classic overregulation, huh. Big, bad government going around allowing Wall St. to speculate.
When I saw the loan applications for a home buyer, I was speechless at the obvious misrepresentations being made. But the gov't had a program to buy those loans, just that way, and you were in trouble if you failed to do so - so everyone got in line, and everyone made money.
The government had a program to buy loans "just that way".
Banks lied in order to make their loans look "just that way".
Amazingly, the lies turned out not to be true.
If only there had been
less regulation, maybe they could have lied better.
Finance? Our entire melt down in the economy, was due to government interfering stupidly, with finance!
Your every example are fraud, corruption, fiscal mismanagment, etc all made possible by deregulation or by subverting the regulators. My god. Glass Stegall was created to stop corrupt finance people from gaming the economy. What did America do to make this recession? We even recinded Glass Stegall so that corrupt finance people could enrich themselves at the expense of America. Extremist Republicans threatened to remove all SEC financing if the SEC enforced the laws (ie making possible Bernie Madoff). Why do you not even know these basics?
That reality is only disputed by wacko extremist talk show hosts and their disciples. I will not even try to list the details. Reams of previous posts here have described the corruption created by reducing regulation to enrich finance people. A corrupt admniistration literally permitted corrupt finance people to steal money from most all Americans.
Only a fool sees everything in terms or more regulation or less regulation. In some industries, little regulation makes a stronger America. In other industries (ie finance), we cannot regulate it enough to make a stronger American economy. That contradicts the broad paint brush (deregulation) advocated by extremist rhetoric. Is probably too complex for their extremist disciples (ie Tea Party) who need every answer in a soundbyte or 'liberal verses conservative' rhetoric.
A simple rule. A finance guy should be paid same as an equivalent worker in any utility. A stock broker or investment banker only does what an electric, gas, or water company employee does. Move money, electriciity, gas, or water. Nothing in finance creates jobs. But when we overpay a water company or finance company employee, then productive jobs are subverted or destroyed. Again, posted examples are longer than this entire thread. But that should have been obvious if ignoring extremist talk show hosts.
Did talk shows mention these realities? Of course not. They know where their money comes from. Better is to enrich at the expense of America. How curious. Exactly what happened during George Jr's tenure. Government removed or even subverted regulation to all but print money using CDOs, SIVs, and other derivatives. But again, all this was explained here previously and in great detail.
How uninformed were George Jr people? As the American economy was going over a cliff, where were any of George Jr's extremists? All were silent. Or did the moderates (Paulson, Bernake, etc) tell the wackos to shut up? George Jr had no idea what was happening. In a crisis meeting, he literally lost control and just walked out. His own people even yelling and accusing in panic. George Jr would make public statements saying our economy was sound. When at one point we were hours away from a meltdown that would have created 40% unemployment. Or did extremist talk show hosts forget to discuss this?
So after George Jr walked out and John McCain demonstrated no grasp of the problem, then who took over the meeting? Obama. Only he had been properly informed and understood the ongoing catastrophy on Wall Street. But again, did extremist talk show host forget to discuss that meeting?
The people in government who created this crisis by enriching Wall Street had no idea how bad they were making things even back in 2002. And had no idea what to do. Because they were not moderates.
A wacko extremist without a soundbyte is powerless; is left to confront reality. This recession obviously was created when wacko extremists removed or subverted finance industry regulations.
If your sources were honest, then you knew $0.55 trillion back then is more than $1.3 trillion today. That is the point. You keep posting half truths promoted by extremist talk show hosts. Do not even know who intentionally created this recession using blantant fiscal mismanagement and subverting regulations.
This recession obviously was created when wacko extremists removed or subverted finance industry regulations.
You are exactly correct!
And the wacko extremists were -- drum roll please -- the Dods Franks Bill, and other laws like it, that was signed into law by idiots in Washington, to promote home ownership for people who could NOT afford it, and then promoted derivatives which basically were gambling on whether the homeowner would go into default, or not.
There were BILLIONS of dollars made on these finance instruments, as they were sold for a profit, all around the world, in huge bundles.
Everybody made money at first - the Real Estate Agent, the Appraiser, the Bank or Savings and Loan, the Wall St. firm like Goldman Sachs, that bundled them up into large groups, and sold them world-wide.
The politicians loved it because it induced people to vote for, and support them.
Like Socialism itself, it all looked GLORIOUS - until the reality of the situation caused the money to start drying up, and people started defaulting. Like a house of cards, it all came crashing back down.
I'm in favor of early term abortions, if that is what the mother chooses. But late term abortions are clearly done after the fetus has become a fully aware individual. Really ugly.
Partial birth abortions are the worst of the lot. Here an infant is almost fully born - it's head is out of the birth canal. Then the "doctor" kills the baby by destroying the infant's brain, (usually by sucking out the brain), and finishes delivering the infant. Then tossing it's dead body into the medical waste bin, to be disposed of. :mad::mad::mad:
This is what Barrack has voted in favor of, and of course, it was kept quiet by nearly all the media. His so-called church, by the way, approves of this practice, as a member of the World Council of Churches.
I wonder how many of the regulars here, can support this practice of Partial Birth Abortion? Don't you wonder that Obama supports it?
Not only is it SO close to murder it's ridiculous, but it's the ugliest thing I can imagine. That baby could be adopted if the mother or father didn't want it!
Mitt Romney will NEVER support Partial Birth Abortion. Frankly, I'm shocked that anyone does. You watch a video of it, and you will be SICK SICK SICK.
This is what Barrack has voted in favor of, and of course, it was kept quiet by nearly all the media. His so-called church, by the way, approves of this practice, as a member of the World Council of Churches.
Well that's just dumb. From the
World Council of Churches, in a speech delivered to the UN in 2008:
We do not accept the use of abortion as a family planning method.
But here's what I think: you're a troll in reverse. You spew retarded, obviously misinformed statements out there, but in a well-written form and backed by declarations of having moderate beliefs yourself. This encourages others to do the research and post the appropriate rebuttals, thinking you are not lost, you can be converted. And this whole back-and-forth process is out there on the internet for other moderates to read, and consider, and perhaps be swayed by the facts.
I think you do support Obama.
you give far too much credit Clodfobble. I take him at his contradictory,misinformed word. I think he fits perfectly the description of an ideologue as put forth by Bill Clinton. ideology or evidence--one driven by ideology starts with the CONCLUSION and the finds evidence to support that conclusion. when evidence is more important than ideology, it is the evidence that leads to the CONCLUSION
The "World Council Of Churches", says it doesn't support abortions, but it does not forbid it's member churces, from supporting them.
And Obama did vote to support a bill that allowed Partial Birth Abortions. I'm not one to pillory a politician (there's a nice alliteration, eh?), because they voted for a wacko bill once in a while, but voting for Partial Birth Abortion??
The Infant is half-way born, but they suck it's brain out? I'm speechless trying to describe how wrong that is.
Here's a research topic for you: Google the number of abortions in the US. Now compare the number of abortion done on Black mothers, to White and Chicano/Latino/, and other race mothers. Black mothers are having a *large* number of abortions. :(
And yes, I do support Obama in 2012 - For Dog Catcher! I've had enough of his policies that just don't work worth a damn.
The Infant is half-way born, but they suck it's brain out? I'm speechless trying to describe how wrong that is.
If "born" just means "removed from the womb", then in all abortions, including
IDX, the baby is completely "born" by the end of the procedure.
I don't support any laws that interfere with, control or legislate decisions made between a woman and her doctor about her own body. Period.
Government needs to stay the fuck out of my womb.
If "born" just means "removed from the womb", then in all abortions, including IDX, the baby is completely "born" by the end of the procedure.
Born means that a live infant is out from the womb. A stillborn infant is "delivered", not born.
Partial Birth Abortion means that before the infant's feet are out of the birth canal, it's head is grabbed, and instead of being embraced by caring hands, a tool is used to remove the baby' s brain. This is not being done on a fetus, this is being done to a baby, that is perfectly viable.
IDX is another name for Partial Birth Abortion.
This is SO CLOSE to being murder of an infant, that in fact, it sometimes becomes murder, but it's not charged as such. Babies sometimes come out faster than expected, so the abortion doctor or nurse, has to then either kill the baby, or in some cases, it's just set aside to die from lack of care, by the staff and mother. (The mother may or may not be aware this is happening, since the staff try to shield her from that emotional pain, and their inability to perform the Partial Birth Abortion, correctly.)
I don't support any laws that interfere with, control or legislate decisions made between a woman and her doctor about her own body. Period.
Government needs to stay the fuck out of my womb.
I agree, but late term abortions without good medical cause, are something I'll never support.
And how many late term abortions are conducted 'without good medical cause'?
Oh, not many.
In the United States, intact dilation and extraction was made illegal in most circumstances by the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in 2003, which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart.
that's the real mitt tomney for ya
I don't know if that's a typo or if it means something, but 'mitt tomney' made me giggle. ;)
..Partial birth abortions are the worst of the lot. Here an infant is almost fully born - it's head is out of the birth canal. Then the "doctor" kills the baby by destroying the infant's brain, (usually by sucking out the brain... ...
I agree. The last thing we need is more tea-party members.
I don't know if that's a typo or if it means something, but 'mitt tomney' made me giggle. ;)
Best to get all your giggling done, before the election, IM.
After that, if Obama wins, we'll all be quite a bit gloomier. That's the only "fair" way to endure Socialism. Everybody gets to cry and moan, because the private sector that drives our economy, will be even more crippled that it is now.
For his next term, from his many speeches and the debate, have you heard anything new from Obama? Anything that you thought was good? Because all I'm hearing from Obama is "stay the course" and "let's finish up what we started", etc.
And since what he started obviously failed, why do you support Obama? Do you really want more of the same policies that have failed so miserably to get our economy going again?
This is not being done on a fetus, this is being done to a baby, that is perfectly viable.
Two to four months premature is not viable without heroic medical effort.
Best to get all your giggling done, before the election, IM.
After that, if Obama wins, we'll all be quite a bit gloomier. That's the only "fair" way to endure Socialism. Everybody gets to cry and moan, because the private sector that drives our economy, will be even more crippled that it is now.
For his next term, from his many speeches and the debate, have you heard anything new from Obama? Anything that you thought was good? Because all I'm hearing from Obama is "stay the course" and "let's finish up what we started", etc.
And since what he started obviously failed, why do you support Obama? Do you really want more of the same policies that have failed so miserably to get our economy going again?
Hey, troll. I was laughing at a typo. I don't want to discuss further, with you, my or your political beliefs. Is that not obvious? There, I've spelled it out for you.
Have your little "I'm so smart" discussions with those who are still banging their heads into the wall that is you.
Not only do I think you're trolling, I think you're so misguided as to be dangerous.
Buh-bye!
Do you really want more of the same policies that have failed so miserably to get our economy going again?
Yeah. So let's go back to the policies that got our economy in this shape to begin with. That's intelligent. :rolleyes:
...And since what he started obviously failed, why do you support Obama? Do you really want more of the same policies that have failed so miserably to get our economy going again?
You mean, despite fighting against a congress that would not let President Obama pass a universal cure for cancer if it meant one more person might vote for him, getting the country away from the cliff and having steady job growth for the last 30 months and going from 10% unemployment to 7.8, after the congress above voted against all the jobs bills, including the ones they proposed as well as the VETERANS Jobs bill.
Fuck Romney, Ryan, the right and the tea party. They would kill their own mothers to keep the black guy from getting another term/
Fuck yeah, Shel, say it like it is.
Yeah. So let's go back to the policies that got our economy in this shape to begin with. That's intelligent. :rolleyes:
There were two critical changes that caused this economic crisis:
1) The change in the way the feds, through FAH ("Fanny Mae, and "Freddie Mac"), that loosened the restrictions on the loans that they would buy, from the banks/savings and loans.
What that amounted to was, the realtors, the banks, the appraisers, the investors, hell, even the termite exterminator, made money, as long as the feds would buy the loans. And with the restrictions removed, there was just a signature to say "I made $X about of dollars last year". <wink, wink>
The wink wink, was that the realtor or bank would tell you "that income figure is never verified". <wink, wink> There is your subprime mortgage market debacle. Why subprime? Because they brought in the highest returns.
2) The huge derivative market, and how it was unregulated, (I've marked it with bold font, below). This was a HUGE investment instrument, and affected investors (principally financial companies, world wide.
The Washington Post (not a conservative newspaper), had this to say, focusing mostly on the Wall St. finance angle. A bit long, but a good read.
What caused the crisis? Look:
●Fed Chair Alan Greenspan dropped rates to 1 percent — levels not seen for half a century — and kept them there for an unprecedentedly long period. This caused a spiral in anything priced in dollars (i.e., oil, gold) or credit (i.e., housing) or liquidity driven (i.e., stocks).
●Low rates meant asset managers could no longer get decent yields from municipal bonds or Treasurys. Instead, they turned to high-yield mortgage-backed securities. Nearly all of them failed to do adequate due diligence before buying them, did not understand these instruments or the risk involved. They violated one of the most important rules of investing: Know what you own.
●Fund managers made this error because they relied on the credit ratings agencies — Moody’s, S&P and Fitch. They had placed an AAA rating on these junk securities, claiming they were as safe as U.S. Treasurys.
• Derivatives had become a uniquely unregulated financial instrument. They are exempt from all oversight, counter-party disclosure, exchange listing requirements, state insurance supervision and, most important, reserve requirements. This allowed AIG to write $3 trillion in derivatives while reserving precisely zero dollars against future claims.
• The Securities and Exchange Commission changed the leverage rules for just five Wall Street banks in 2004. The “Bear Stearns exemption” replaced the 1977 net capitalization rule’s 12-to-1 leverage limit. In its place, it allowed unlimited leverage for Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns. These banks ramped leverage to 20-, 30-, even 40-to-1. Extreme leverage leaves very little room for error.
•Wall Street’s compensation system was skewed toward short-term performance. It gives traders lots of upside and none of the downside. This creates incentives to take excessive risks.
• The demand for higher-yielding paper led Wall Street to begin bundling mortgages. The highest yielding were subprime mortgages. This market was dominated by non-bank originators exempt from most regulations. The Fed could have supervised them, but Greenspan did not.
• These mortgage originators’ lend-to-sell-to-securitizers model had them holding mortgages for a very short period. This allowed them to get creative with underwriting standards, abdicating traditional lending metrics such as income, credit rating, debt-service history and loan-to-value.
• “Innovative” mortgage products were developed to reach more subprime borrowers. These include 2/28 adjustable-rate mortgages, interest-only loans, piggy-bank mortgages (simultaneous underlying mortgage and home-equity lines) and the notorious negative amortization loans (borrower’s indebtedness goes up each month). These mortgages defaulted in vastly disproportionate numbers to traditional 30-year fixed mortgages.
●To keep up with these newfangled originators, traditional banks developed automated underwriting systems. The software was gamed by employees paid on loan volume, not quality.
●Glass-Steagall legislation, which kept Wall Street and Main Street banks walled off from each other, was repealed in 1998. This allowed FDIC-insured banks, whose deposits were guaranteed by the government, to engage in highly risky business. It also allowed the banks to bulk up, becoming bigger, more complex and unwieldy.
●Many states had anti-predatory lending laws on their books (along with lower defaults and foreclosure rates). In 2004, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency federally preempted state laws regulating mortgage credit and national banks. Following this change, national lenders sold increasingly risky loan products in those states. Shortly after, their default and foreclosure rates skyrocketed.
Bloomberg was partially correct: Congress did radically deregulate the financial sector, doing away with many of the protections that had worked for decades. Congress allowed Wall Street to self-regulate, and the Fed the turned a blind eye to bank abuses.
Gas was at $1.84 per gallon, when Obama was sworn in. (Nationwide average).
Gas today is at $3.81 per gallon (Nationwide average).
Source:
http://fuelgaugereport.aaa.com/?redirectto=http://fuelgaugereport.opisnet.com/index.asp
Of course, California has Democrats running our State, with no concern for working people, so our current gas price is $4.59 per gallon.
All prices are for regular gas.
How Biden can beat Ryan, in Thursday's big debate:
1) Be different! Have a Biden vs. Biden debate! ;)
2) Slip Ryan a roofie, before the debate!
3) Tell the moderator, his dog ate all his debate notes.
4) Get an earpiece from the secret service, and get coached by a roomful of government and debate experts, live.
5) Pray to St. Jude the Apostle, the patron saint of Lost Causes - REAL hard. :rolleyes:
Because Ryan is going to kick Biden's ass!! :D
Probably by using the Gish Gallop.
I agree. The last thing we need is more tea-party members.
We'd be happy to have some of the unwashed anarchists from Occupy! spend some time around your house instead, what do you say? :eek:
If you actually READ the Declaration of Independence, and other documents our founding fathers wrote, you get a real feel for just how smart they were.
It certainly appears Adak has not yet watched the actual video of this event.
Romney's statement was in same context as the media and Dwellars here are stating.
How does Adak justify/rationalize saying it "should have remained in the room" ?
After Romney's statement about "not worried about" the poor,
I can easily believe his 47% statement is a good reflection of his true feelings.
As a public figure, if you don't want something made public by the media,
don't say it... even "in private"... or be prepared to be labelled a hypocrite.
Conservatives don't focus on the poor, as much as the Liberals do. Our idea is to first, get a rousing economy working, and let the poor help themselves into the middle class, as much as possible. Those that still need help, try and make programs to give them a way OUT of being poor. We don't want to help the poor with a hand out, we want to help them stop being poor, with a hand up, when needed.
Paying healthy, working age people, a stipend every month for the rest of their lives, and dependent on the dole, is not a function of government.
However, Romney was discussing his demographics of likely voters in his speech. He wasn't talking about his policies.
Clearly, those who are on some form of welfare, are not likely to vote for Romney, no matter what he did in the campaign or debate. That's why "he doesn't worry about them" - he knows he can't get their votes.
Political strategy sessions should be kept secret from your political opponent. (of course) You have to say it, because it's a political strategy session fact, being shared with supporters at a fund raiser. Getting that "inside story", is what big supporters, love to hear.
We'd be happy to have some of the unwashed anarchists from Occupy! spend some time around your house instead, what do you say? :eek:
If you actually READ the Declaration of Independence, and other documents our founding fathers wrote, you get a real feel for just how smart they were.
I'd be happy to have the Occupy group over. THEY are at least fighting FOR something, not against someONE.
I have read the Declaration and the constitution several times. The founding fathers were extremely smart FOR THEIR TIME.
Times have changed and things are not the same as back then.
Do you think people from 250 years before the founding fathers would have been ready for the ideas the founding fathers came up with?
I'd be happy to have the Occupy group over. THEY are at least fighting FOR something, not against someONE.
I have read the Declaration and the constitution several times. The founding fathers were extremely smart FOR THEIR TIME.
Times have changed and things are not the same as back then.
Do you think people from 250 years before the founding fathers would have been ready for the ideas the founding fathers came up with?
I'd be happy to have the Occupy group over. THEY are at least fighting FOR something, not against someONE.
I have read the Declaration and the constitution several times. The founding fathers were extremely smart FOR THEIR TIME.
Times have changed and things are not the same as back then.
Do you think people from 250 years before the founding fathers would have been ready for the ideas the founding fathers came up with?
The founding Fathers didn't come up with those idea's for gov't. They had been proposed earlier by men like John Locke, etc. They were smart enough to see the wisdom in them, however.
The Republicans are fighting for something:
1) a smaller, and more efficient gov't:
It may sound wacko to a liberal, but even governments, can't keep spending more and more Trillions of dollars, beyond their means.
That WILL collapse the monetary system, no matter WHO you are.
Also, as the gov't gets larger, and has more and more control over everything, it's obvious that your personal freedoms evaporate faster than the dew on a warm Summer morning. If you want to keep your freedoms, you have to limit the power of the gov't, to usurp them. For instance, if the feds control the health care system, they may say, that you could keep your current doctor. That sounds good. But once they have control of the health care system, they can change it in a flash, so you can't keep your doctor, and there is NOTHING you can do about it.
Because unlike a health care company, you can't take threaten them with a lawsuit, you can't take them to court. They've changed the law, and it's all legal, and you're just OUT OF LUCK. The gov't has what no company can have - sovereign immunity.
That's the big difference - with a company, they usually have an oversight gov't official - like the Insurance commissioner, you can appeal to. If that fails, you can take them to court, and force them to live up to the terms of their contract with you. And EVERY treatment option for you, when you can be seen by what specialist, etc.,
[COLOR="Red"]it's all up to the gov't[/COLOR].
This is the same gov't that took 5 days to get bottled water to the Superdome, during Hurricane Katrina (while 15,000 people or more, waited), and thought it was a good idea to put
[COLOR="Red"]burning[/COLOR] tear gas canisters into the
WOOD frame building where the residents were staying, in Waco, Texas - catching the structure on fire, and burning them all to death.
Is this REALLY who you want to be in charge of setting up your health care system? Senators who tell you they'll "vote for the health care bill, and write it later?"
Really? :eek:
...
It may sound wacko to a liberal, but even governments, can't keep spending more and more Trillions of dollars, beyond their means.
...
Then why did a conservative get us into 2 UNPAID for wars that HAVE cost us trillions of dollars and then cut taxes for the richest among us?
And Romney has said it was a mistake to leave Iraq and Afganistan and also wants us to go to war with Iran.
Is this who you want in charge of ANYTHING? REALLY?!!! :eek:
Quote: "Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched; who ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. Let us follow no such examples, nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable as another of taking care of itself, and of ordering its own affairs. Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before." -- Thomas Jefferson
Then why did a conservative get us into 2 UNPAID for wars that HAVE cost us trillions of dollars and then cut taxes for the richest among us?
And Romney has said it was a mistake to leave Iraq and Afganistan and also wants us to go to war with Iran.
Is this who you want in charge of ANYTHING? REALLY?!!! :eek:
Bush was not a conservative. Socially, he was conservative, but in his foreign policy with Iraq and Afghanistan, and his fiscal irresponsibility, he was anything BUT conservative.
Yes, we were attacked by Al-Qaeda, and yes, they were in Afghanistan, but that doesn't mean we have to go to war with all of Afghanistan. And it doesn't mean we have to build up their country and spend 10 years there, either. In 3 months, we should have been in and out.
We had Al-Qaeda's leaders trapped in Tora Bora you may recall, early on, but we didn't have the US troops needed to make the assault, and the Afghani's we had doing a lot of the fighting with us, didn't have the fighting skills, arms, and mettle, to do the job.
Jefferson was a real case study in never being satisfied. He wasn't satisfied with his wife, he also wasn't satisfied with his farm, his state, the federal gov't, the way the war was being fought, etc. He stated he didn't like slavery, but kept a number of slaves, all his adult life.
So why would he be satisfied with the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence, or much of anything?
You can find opinions against the constitution, all over the place, especially in the liberal and/or progressive followers. The problem is, if you made a Constitution that the liberals and the progressives really liked, your country wouldn't last 50 years.
FDR was a great progressive and liberal, and thought he should be able to "pack" the Supreme Court, to get what he wanted approved.
Was his idea a good one? I don't believe so. Lots of examples like this.
Read
"The Naked Constitution" by Friedman, and you'll get past this "every generation should blah, blah, blah", progressive idiocy.
Romney is trying, for political purposes, to distance himself from Obama, on foreign affairs. And that's hard to do, because Obama has followed the path that Bush begun, very closely.
Romney will not be staying in Afghanistan, and we won't be going to war with Iran. It's not in our best interests to do that, if that makes sense to you. It IS in our best interests, to ACT LIKE we may choose to go to war with Iran.
Why? Because the Mullah's have still not decided on whether to pursue nuclear weapons. We want to "nudge" them away from doing it, with a bit of saber-rattling (something they understand very well).
It is FAR better to threaten them now, than face the alternatives, (either a war, or Iran with nuclear weapons), later. Also, the Iranian "rial" has gone right into the shitter, so they are starting to get civil unrest against their gov't, and they have a LOT less $$$ to spend on things like a nuclear weapons program.
Because Ryan is going to lick Biden's ass!! :D
Fixed it for ya. He's already had a lot of practice with Mitt.
We had Al-Qaeda's leaders trapped in Tora Bora you may recall, early on, but we didn't have the US troops needed to make the assault, and the Afghani's we had doing a lot of the fighting with us, didn't have the fighting skills, arms, and mettle, to do the job.
Nope (from
here)
Crumpton, who headed up the CIA's Afghan campaign, was in constant contact with Franks. Just weeks before bin Laden escaped, he strongly urged the general to move marines to the cave complex in Tora Bora, complaining "the back door was open." But Franks balked.
So Crumpton turned to the commander-in-chief and tried a more direct appeal. "We're going to lose our prey if we're not careful," he told Bush. Cheney also was in the meeting, according to Ron Suskind, author of the One Percent Doctrine.
But they did nothing. In spite of the CIA's repeated advice to move against bin Laden in Tora Bora, the commander-in-chief and his top security advisers did not act. They ignored key intelligence.
...Read "The Naked Constitution" by Friedman, and you'll get past this "every generation should blah, blah, blah", progressive idiocy...
Seriously? Now progress is bad? You CAN'T be THAT stupid.
Seriously? Now progress is bad? You CAN'T be THAT stupid.
Not "progress", the word was "progressive", which is pretty much a synonym for liberal ideology.
Apart from the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence, (like inalienable rights), once you try changing the Constitution, you can quickly run into trouble. Most of the time, those who want to change it (or ask you to believe their new and subtle interpretation of it), do so only to benefit either themselves, or their party, at everyone else's expense.
Well, then, I guess I should vote for Romney and the GOP because they would never dream of changing the constitution. Oh, wait! What's this?
The subject of gay or homosexual marriage, was not mentioned in the Constitution. So any amendment would be an addition, not a change in any existing part of the Constitution. Similar to the 14th amendment, etc.
Again, this is political posturing to get his conservative base more motivated to support him and come on out and vote!
Romney wasn't even in Congress, so the writer is making a huge flight of fancy that Mitt was serious about a Federal Constitutional Amendment.
I thought a good way to go was to have civil unions with full marriage rights, for gay couples. Thus "protecting" the word "marriage", for those more likely to produce the next generation.
That term "marriage" seems to be a huge sticking point, so I'm looking for a compromise here that gives our gay brothers and sisters full marriage rights, but provokes the least angry backlash from our hetero brothers and sisters.
I'm not sure this is the best compromise, but I'm thinking it's one of the better ones and could be done.
Mormons are strongly against abortions except for medical necessity or rape. I don't believe Romney will budge on his anti-abortion stance.
That one is NOT a political posture.
I'm usually very supportive of political compromise (energy, gun rights, etc.) but I completely disagree when it comes to gay marriage. There is no legitimate argument against gay marriage that isn't based on homophobia or blatant hypocrisy.
Civil unions may be a more politically realistic solution currently but I think it will be a bad choice in the long run.
"We had a lot of things in common," Romney said of Doherty, recalling the two had skied at some of the same places, and that when they met Doherty had discussed his care and concern for people he had met working in the Middle East. "You can imagine how I felt when I found out that he was one of the two former Navy SEALs killed in Benghazi on Sept. 11th."
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/09/romney-knew-ex-seal-slain-in-benghazi/
There were others killed in Benghazi, but since Mitt didn't know them, he didn't feel bad about their deaths.
So Mitt's the kind of guy who helps a friend in a little bit of need, but not a stranger in great need.
I hate assholes like that.
...That term "marriage" seems to be a huge sticking point, so I'm looking for a compromise here that gives our gay brothers and sisters full marriage rights, but provokes the least angry backlash from our hetero brothers and sisters...
Because "Separate But Equal" worked so well before.
~snip~
...gives our gay brothers and sisters full marriage rights, but provokes the least angry backlash from our hetero brothers and sisters.
from some of our hetero...
Yeah, please don't posit anti-gay marriage as a 'hetero' position. It is a religious position (usually) and is neither representative of hetero opinion, nor exclusive to heterosexual people.
Because "Separate But Equal" worked so well before.
Point taken, but I'm in Calif., and here, we HAD a gay marriage law passed, but then there was a backlash, and now we have NO gay marriages allowed by law. (A judge has held up it's implementation, but that's what has been passed by the electorate).
So I don't believe (surveys show slightly more than 55% don't want Gay marriage), that the Feds can force it through as a a law, at this time. Whatever party did it would be in for a beating at the next voting cycle. That leaves it up to the states, to sort it out, as best they can.
Do you believe the Feds can pass a Gay marriage law in 2012-2014 time frame? I don't believe that is possible. Change my mind.
@DanaC: "hetero" sounds more descriptive than "religious (usually)". I agree that it's certainly not a strictly hetero position at all.
Mitt Romney is in the pocket of every millionaire and billionaire in this country.
that's all we need to know.
Mitt Romney is in the pocket of every millionaire and billionaire in this country.
that's all we need to know.
Just because you're very successful and become rich, that doesn't mean you're an evil person! Morality doesn't matter whether you're rich or poor. It's what's in your heart.
[COLOR="Navy"]ANY day, I'll put a prominent Mormon up against a Chicago politician!! You have picked an obvious loser in a morality contest. [/COLOR]
In the world of politics, everybody knows a politician gets elected, because he had lots of $support$, and you don't get that kind of support, from the poor. ;)
(Watch "Charlie Wilson's War" DVD for a great look into it. Great video, and based on history.)
I'm not saying the election process we use is ideal, I'm just saying that's how it works, at present. Obama uses it just as much as Romney does. The cost for a Presidential campaign, is now over a Billion dollars - for BOTH Republican and Democrats.
Adak, as a Romney supporter, how do you feel about him walking away from his conservative stances from just a few months ago and becoming moderate now? For example, he clearly said in the most recent debates that we need government regulation of private industry.
Do you think he's just saying what he needs to so that he gets elected, and he's really deep down a conservative? Or do you think he was saying what he needed to during the primaries and he's really deep down a more liberal guy than a conservative guy?
I'm curious how you reconcile in your own head the different things he has said to different people in just the last 6 months.
Tril didn't say he was an evil person. She said he's in the pocket of Millies and Billies. Does that imply evil? No, it implies he's swayed by money. That's all we need to know.
Yeah, I know I said I wasn't going to argue with you...but you're so over the top I can't help it. ;)
Oh, as an aside, I have met, spent some time with, had adult beverages with one of Charlie's Angels...a beautiful tall lady Texas lawyer on Wilson's staff. One of the best friends of ex sissy-law who was on staff for another congressman at that time. She's a cool lady, and she said they pretty much nailed his personality in the movie...and she said it was a great time. She said "think about it...there weren't that many opportunities were there for women in politics at the time." She told me about hanging out with Tom Hanks at the premiere party...great stories.
Your recommended viewing assignment is Wag the Dog. ;)
Just because you're very successful and become rich, that doesn't mean you're an evil person!
And just because you're poor, that doesn't mean you are a lazy, good-for-nothing bum, looking for a handout.
Adak, as a Romney supporter, how do you feel about him walking away from his conservative stances from just a few months ago and becoming moderate now? For example, he clearly said in the most recent debates that we need government regulation of private industry.
Do you think he's just saying what he needs to so that he gets elected, and he's really deep down a conservative? Or do you think he was saying what he needed to during the primaries and he's really deep down a more liberal guy than a conservative guy?
I'm curious how you reconcile in your own head the different things he has said to different people in just the last 6 months.
Completely expected. Romney knows business, and he knows business needs regulations in place. Without regulations, it would be a hell hole, we know that. Wall St. particularly, has moved heavily into financial instruments that are nothing more than gambling with little or no "ante" on the table. That has proven to be a big factor in several of our economic crashes, and should NOT be allowed. You want to gamble, you put your chips on the table FIRST, then and only then, do you have "skin in the game".
Obama has failed to change this - probably because so many of his staff (cabinet, appointee's, etc.), have come straight from Wall St.. I thought SURELY he would fix this mess, but Noooooooo! :mad:
Yes, you benefit by adopting a more conservative tone for the Republican primary.
Romney is a smart guy, he will change tactics, to meet the situation. His deeply held ideals, will always be more conservative than Obama - that's certain. As you may know from his record in Mass. as Governor, Romney WILL entertain and support some liberal bills, when the people earnestly desire it.
And you're OK with liberal bills being passed under the next president, whether they have a (D) by their name or an (R?)
Adak, election's just a moment away
And you're without sense once again
You laughed at me
You said i never knew Romney
I wonder if you know him now
(chorus)
So many ways he didn't care
So many words pulled from the air
Most people poor in a storm
Why do they ho?
Why'd they ho?
We lost all that common ground
You know Romney will let us down
But then most of all
I Do Love You
Shill
--The Commiedores
;)
And just because you're poor, that doesn't mean you are a lazy, good-for-nothing bum, looking for a handout.
Adak will ignore this.
I know how that post feels.
snip--
You read the report. You look at the graphs. You listen to Romney's words. Then you come back and tell me which scenario his plan would take us to. And be prepared to substitute some numbers for his pitiful and unconvincing hand waving. You've shown your willingness and ability to support your statements to a degree far exceeding Romney's. Go on, convince me. I might vote for you.
Adak's conspicuously ignoring this position too.
I know how that position feels.
Adak, or anyone who understands and believes Romney's tax plan, please help me.
He's said that we as a country need to solve our budget problems, and the main way to do that is to reform the tax code. He's said he will cut tax rates by 20% across the board. This is supposed to generate enough increased growth to create millions of jobs and broaden the base. He's claimed that his tax cuts "absolutely" not increase taxes, and that it will be done in a revenue neutral fashion, paying for these cuts with compensating eliminations of deductions. I think I have that right.
So here's my question.
He says he's gonna solve our budget problems by growing the economy.
He says he's gonna grow the economy by cutting tax rates.
He says he's gonna keep the same amount of money coming in by eliminating deductions.
So, business is being held up from expanding because they have too many deductions? Business is afraid of deductions?
What?
Reduce rates, meaning the amount of taxes due on a given amount is LESS.
Eliminate deductions and exemptions equal to the amount of the amount of tax savings from reduced rates--this is what being revenue neutral means--so the net tax due is the same.
What's changed? I pay the same amount in taxes, how does the deficit go down?
Romney's tax plan does not add up. He won't explain it, Adak won't explain it. mercy won't explain it. Urbane Guerrilla won't explain it. Firing Big Bird won't solve it, but that's all he's offered. Oh, that and Planned Parenthood.
He's stupid or he's lying. And I don't think he's stupid.
He's really saying the old joke was right... we just need more wheelbarrels.
I know how that wheelbarrow feels.
Thanks, I'll be here all week. Please try the strychnine (the strychnine is bipartisan, you can all partake.)
*coughs* wheelbarrows *coughs*
I think it's wheelbarrow. I think.
Read up for more information.
Brookings Tax Policy Center article
we showed that a revenue-neutral plan that met five specific goals that Governor Romney had put forth (reducing income tax rates by 20 percent, repealing the estate tax, the alternative minimum tax, and capital income taxes for middle class households, and enhancing saving and investment) would cut taxes for households with income above $200,000, and—as a result of revenue-neutrality—would therefore necessarily have to raise taxes on taxpayers below $200,000.
This was true even when we bent over backwards to make the plan as favorable to Romney as possible
More generally, the basic power of arithmetic is overwhelming in showing that Governor Romney has so far overpromised on the tax side.
Somewhere else I read that the Romney deficit reduction and budget balancing assumptions are based upon "possible" and "potential" economic upturns.
So...if I were to make a million dollars a year, I could get out of debt very quickly. :p: A bank will not give me a loan based on that "assumption", but it's ok for our entire nation's economic well-being?
By the way, more than 95% of all taxpayers fall into the 'below $200,000.00" income level.
KiplingerMitt Romney is, by his own admission, "
completely wrong".
[ATTACH]41121[/ATTACH]
...Romney's tax plan, please help me.
The way I understood him to be explaining it in the debate:
1. Reduce ‘individual’ tax rate
...a. Individuals in households pay less
...b. Individuals who own small businesses pay less
2. Tax revenues decreased at this point
3. Small businesses stimulated at this point
...a. Resulting in tax revenues going back up
4. Also, deductions eliminated for households
...a. Households end up paying the same amount
And you're OK with liberal bills being passed under the next president, whether they have a (D) by their name or an (R?)
I have a different idea most for what is Conservative or Liberal. I'm actually for some liberal goals, if they are implemented in a practical manner. I support Gay Unions for instance, with full legal rights to marriage. Not because it's the ideal, but because it's as close to the ideal, as we can practically get.
D or R doesn't bother me. Lately the D's have mostly been out of their rabid ass minds, however. :D
Our fiscal policies MUST be conservative, however. We just CAN'T keep spending a Trillion dollars we do not have, and have to borrow it from somewhere else, and then pay interest on it.
If that debt interest should ever increase by just a couple percent, we'd be in SERIOUS difficulty!!
If that debt interest should ever increase by just a couple percent, we'd be in SERIOUS difficulty!!
What's the saying? If I owe the bank $1000, that's my problem. If I owe the bank $1,000,000, that's the bank's problem.
Who's problem is it if the US owes China $8 Trillion?
The fiscal details in Romneys Administration, will be undoubtedly written in large part (probably the larger part), by his Vice President, Paul Ryan.
As the head of the House Budget Committee, Ryan has an excellent and detailed knowledge of what changes should be made, and the order they should be made in.
That's one reason I'm so pleased with this pairing, because the President may want to work on the economy and fiscal matters, but no President has the time to dig into all the details. Here, Ryan already KNOWS a lot of the details, and has plenty of time to research the matter.
A perfect choice in a running mate, imo. :D
@@: I thought it was obvious that the poor needed a helping hand. But no, they don't need a monthly check for decades, if they're able-bodied.
Adak, or anyone who understands and believes Romney's tax plan, please help me.
He's said that we as a country need to solve our budget problems, and the main way to do that is to reform the tax code. He's said he will cut tax rates by 20% across the board. This is supposed to generate enough increased growth to create millions of jobs and broaden the base. He's claimed that his tax cuts "absolutely" not increase taxes, and that it will be done in a revenue neutral fashion, paying for these cuts with compensating eliminations of deductions. I think I have that right.
So here's my question.
He says he's gonna solve our budget problems by growing the economy.
He says he's gonna grow the economy by cutting tax rates.
He says he's gonna keep the same amount of money coming in by eliminating deductions.
So, business is being held up from expanding because they have too many deductions? Business is afraid of deductions?
What?
Ha, pretty funny! :D
The Conservative way to a better economy (which is the only way it works, btw), is:
1) Lower taxes: puts more money into everyone's pocket, and that gets money MOVING around the private sector, (and into gov't as well, by various means). We have money now, but it's not moving, because the gov't has WAY too many strings attached to it.
Remember that a GOOD economy is not how much money there is, but how FAST that money is moving through the economy. Stagnation is something you do NOT want in your economy!
2) Excessive deductions in the tax code, are a hindrance, basically picking and choosing which payer (personal or business) is a winner, and which will be the losers, because not everyone can use those deductions.
You don't probably want a perfectly FLAT tax code, but we need a flatter tax code.
Businesses have to forecast ahead, and when deductions and items like health care costs changing, pop up in your forecasts, it puts doubts into your forecasts. Business people do not expand their business when they have serious doubts:
"Will health care expenses increase by 20% this year, because of Obama care? Can we get a waiver?" maybe, and maybe.
"Will we be able to get <D> deduction this year, and if so, how big will it be for us? maybe and who knows the amount.
Not good.
Reduce rates, meaning the amount of taxes due on a given amount is LESS.
Eliminate deductions and exemptions equal to the amount of the amount of tax savings from reduced rates--this is what being revenue neutral means--so the net tax due is the same.
What's changed? I pay the same amount in taxes, how does the deficit go down?
Because as stated, the tax base has increased, and incomes increase as money MOVES faster in the economy. Gov't coffers fill up quicker, also, from many tax sources, not just income tax.
Romney's tax plan does not add up. He won't explain it, Adak won't explain it. mercy won't explain it. Urbane Guerrilla won't explain it. Firing Big Bird won't solve it, but that's all he's offered. Oh, that and Planned Parenthood.
He's stupid or he's lying. And I don't think he's stupid.
You just are not informed yet on how our economy works, in any detail.
Most everyone thinks that more money in the economy will improve our economy - so if the gov't adds 20% more money to it, that should improve our economy by about 20%.
Which is completely wrong. Adding money to the economy gives it a stimulus, but until money is MOVING, it is NOT GOING TO HELP THE ECONOMY.
We've had a LOT of new jobs created, but do they tell you that tens of thousands of those new jobs are GOVERNMENT jobs?
Oh hell no! :mad:
That is NOT growth in the private sector, and THAT is what we need. And you won't get that from Obama - he's never worked in the private sector, and doesn't like it. He wants more government jobs and more government controls.
Look at how quickly he axed the Keystone Pipeline project. He'd have us eat grass, rather than approve a major business enterprise that would have created hundreds of new high paying jobs.
You have to respect Obama for this - the dang guy is consistent. Most smart people will turn away from something that doesn't work, and try something else. Not Obama - he'll stick with it and beat you into poverty with it. He's not "liberal", he's a Socialist or Stateist (if you prefer).
During his campaign in '08, Obama said that "under my cap and trade system", Coal fired electrical plants would be "bankrupted", because of the taxes (fee's and fines), he would make them pay.
NOT ONE DAMN WORD ABOUT HOW WE REPLACE THE POWER HE WANTS TO TAKE AWAY!! And NOT ONE reporter asked him A DAMN QUESTION about that obvious problem!! And of course, nothing about the doomed shareholders of those companies!!
He said he would make make electric rates "skyrocket" - well, that's being honest at least. Frankly, I'd rather he lied, and made the electric rates come down, however.
Just heard a prediction, that under the latest proposed cap and trade system, diesel fuel for my truck, will be in the $25-$27 dollar range PER GALLON! I nearly feinted, and that's no lie.
:mad::mad::mad:
I know how that wheelbarrow feels.
Thanks, I'll be here all week. Please try the strychnine (the strychnine is bipartisan, you can all partake.)
As I just said in
another post a little earlier today... :facepalm:
In a few hours more, Paul Ryan will try and teach Joe Biden, how to count the letters in the word "Jobs".
That is so funny, hearing Biden in a speech, count it out:
"it's all about the three letter word 'Jobs'"
"J-O-B-S, Jobs". <laughter among the crowd>
Just to be fair, we must include the famous Dan Quayle remark:
"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
Why dear God, must we endure these nincompoops as our leaders??
Other DQ funnies:
http://politicalhumor.about.com/cs/quotethis/a/quaylequotes.htm
You can't expect to get a lot of details about Romney's plans just yet, because first the democrats must:
1) call every one of the proposed tax cuts, stupid, in 20 locations, in time for the 6 o'clock news cycle.
Let's see: Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid - sure!
2) find 50 people whose life has imploded, because of a planned reduction in their income tax.
3) trot out 3 crying widows and or orphans, who have lost their husbands or fathers, because of Romney's reduction in their income tax.
4) interview 10 business managers who are now moving their plants to China, because they will pay lower business taxes, under the Romney tax plans.
It's so pathetic you'd cry, but it's so funny at the same time, that you can't. :D
If Joe Biden ever became President, wouldn't that just take the humor out of it, in a heartbeat?
The only thing that gives me hope is Romney said Ryan's plan was not his plan, and he's running for President, not Ryan.
I don't watch much network TV so haven't seen a lot of the campaign ads, but having spent a week on Cape Cod I was amazed at the number of ads. That area would of course have a ton of ads for the Warren/Brown race, and some for New Hampshire and Rhode Island races.
What shocked me is the deluge of Super-PAC ads (almost all negative) on all the federal, and even some of the state races. No shit, they'd break for a commercial and you'd see four or five political ads for every potato chip or Pepsi ad.
I can see the broadcast industry shills and lobbyists trying to shorten the election cycle from 4 to 2 years with that kind of revenue stream. :lol:
You just are not informed yet on how our economy works, in any detail.
If that's what you think, may I reply by way of quoting someone I whose opinion you appear to trust:
Ha, pretty funny! :D
*****
The Conservative way to a better economy (which is the only way it works, btw), is:
First of all, liberal vs conservative *everything* coming from you is just additional noise. I'm subtracting it from what you say. You're elusive and changeable on those terms and frankly, they contribute nothing to the understanding of the economy, or specific plans like the one under discussion here. Moving on...
1) Lower taxes: puts more money into everyone's pocket, and that gets money MOVING around the private sector, (and into gov't as well, by various means). We have money now, but it's not moving, because the gov't has WAY too many strings attached to it.
Remember that a GOOD economy is not how much money there is, but how FAST that money is moving through the economy. Stagnation is something you do NOT want in your economy!
No, you're wrong. Lower tax revenues does *not* mean that more money is put into everyone's pocket. Somebody... his name escapes me at the moment, anyhow, he said that some 47% of people pay no income taxes at all. How can you say that lowering income tax rates will increase the amount of money in these people's pockets??!! It won't. Now, Romney is talking about income tax rates, that's all he's spoken about. Not a word about payroll taxes, gas taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, medicare, etc. Nothing. Only income taxes, he's said he will reduce the rates by 20%. So, by his words and your "logic", only 53% of the people will be getting more money. Not the poorest, just those who pay income taxes.
Now, this half of the population, roughly speaking, let's follow your reasoning for a little bit, let's say they do have more money in their pocket. Money is already moving around our economy, in the private sector and in the public sector. I must also point out that those two sectors connect and overlap. They are interdependent. Money is already moving. How much more money there is in the pockets of half the population is no indicator of how the money's moving. Just the bulk of the money.
I agree that a dollar has to be in motion for it to have any intrinsic value. But nothing I've heard from Romney says anything about increasing that motion. Much of the recovery to date has been on two main fronts: an increase in employment and production and consumption, *and* a reduction in personal debt. There would be more growth, but as a country, we're living somewhat BELOW our means and using the difference to reduce our indebtedness. This makes things look worse if you consider only growth, but we've had growth PLUS less debt. This is good. But, then again, we're talking about how his tax plan does stuff, not about the money supply.
2) Excessive deductions in the tax code, are a hindrance, basically picking and choosing which payer (personal or business) is a winner, and which will be the losers, because not everyone can use those deductions.
You're right, not everyone can use all the deductions. Calling it picking winners and losers is oversimplifying to the point of uselessness. Our tax code is labyrinthine, Byzantine, I doubt no one knows it all. And I believe there are a great many ways it could be simplified. You're also right--someone's ox will be gored and they're likely to be unhappy about it. If those someones are people *coughcorporationsarepeoplecough* of great means, they're *highly* likely to have their ox spared. The millies and billies to whom Romney is beholden.
You don't probably want a perfectly FLAT tax code, but we need a flatter tax code.
Really? You think we need a flatter tax code? We have what? Six rates? What number do you think is a better, flatter number? Besides Romney's said nothing at all about making the tax code flatter. Just shorter (by 20% in each bracket) and thinner (by eliminating some number of deductions, TBA). It's this TBA that bothers me and every other thinking person, though not you or your fellow magic hand wavers.
Back to what Romney *said*: I'll reduce the rates by 20%, I "absolutely" will not increase taxes, and to avoid increasing our deficit by reducing our revenues I will 'pay' for the tax rate reductions and the corresponding reduction in revenues by eliminating some deductions. WHAT DEDUCTIONS CAN BE ELIMINATED THAT WILL FILL THE HOLE LEFT BY THE RATE REDUCTIONS? You haven't answered this. Romney hasn't answered this. NO ONE has answered this, because there isn't an answer. EVERYONE, except the couple of bloggers who "refute" President Obama's accusation of Romney's lies, says it can't be done. It is YOU who know squat about the economy Adak.
Businesses have to forecast ahead, and when deductions and items like health care costs changing, pop up in your forecasts, it puts doubts into your forecasts. Business people do not expand their business when they have serious doubts:
"Will health care expenses increase by 20% this year, because of Obama care? Can we get a waiver?" maybe, and maybe.
"Will we be able to get <D> deduction this year, and if so, how big will it be for us? maybe and who knows the amount.
Not good.
OMG. Can you hear yourself talk? This bogeyman of "uncertainty" that has its boot on the neck of businesses is bullshit. Furthermore, your guy, Romney, remember him? If you and he are all freaked out about "will we be able to get <D> deduction this year and if so how big will it be and who knows the amount"... then you should NOT vote for Romney, because This. Is. Exactly. What. He. Has. Promised. REPEATEDLY. "There will be eliminations of deductions, but we're not saying *which* ones." You want uncertainty of deductions? Romney's your guy.
Because as stated, the tax base has increased, and incomes increase as money MOVES faster in the economy. Gov't coffers fill up quicker, also, from many tax sources, not just income tax.
Dude. "as stated" is all you have to support your claim that the tax base will be increased. You still haven't said how. Go back up into YOUR own post and show me where you outline how it will be increased. Flint, bless his heart, *did* actually say it when he jumped from point 2) to point 3), though he gave no justification for it (don't worry, I'm gonna give him a chance to 'splain it to me). You haven't even brought it up until now. You ... just... state it, like a virgin birth--TADA! Come on, tell me how the policy described by Romney will increase the tax base. I'm still waiting.
Most everyone thinks that more money in the economy will improve our economy - so if the gov't adds 20% more money to it, that should improve our economy by about 20%.
Which is completely wrong. Adding money to the economy gives it a stimulus, but until money is MOVING, it is NOT GOING TO HELP THE ECONOMY.
We've had a LOT of new jobs created, but do they tell you that tens of thousands of those new jobs are GOVERNMENT jobs?
Cite.
Oh hell no! :mad:
That is NOT growth in the private sector, and THAT is what we need. And you won't get that from Obama - he's never worked in the private sector, and doesn't like it. He wants more government jobs and more government controls.
Look at how quickly he axed the Keystone Pipeline project. He'd have us eat grass, rather than approve a major business enterprise that would have created hundreds of new high paying jobs.
Riiiiight. And you want the people of Nebraska to drink oil.
You have to respect Obama for this - the dang guy is consistent. Most smart people will turn away from something that doesn't work, and try something else. Not Obama - he'll stick with it and beat you into poverty with it. He's not "liberal", he's a Socialist or Stateist (if you prefer).
Look. My bullshit meter just exploded. It is impossible for me to have a reasoned, intelligent dialog with anyone who wastes braincells connecting Obama and Socialism. We have more of a chance to share ideas with each other if you called him a nigger because of his skin color or a Muslim because of his middle name. It would be just as offensive, just as smart, just as useful, but would at least have the intellectual honesty of a racist bigot. Calling him a Socialist is merely offensive, stupid, useless and wrong.
During his campaign in '08, Obama said that "under my cap and trade system", Coal fired electrical plants would be "bankrupted", because of the taxes (fee's and fines), he would make them pay.
NOT ONE DAMN WORD ABOUT HOW WE REPLACE THE POWER HE WANTS TO TAKE AWAY!! And NOT ONE reporter asked him A DAMN QUESTION about that obvious problem!! And of course, nothing about the doomed shareholders of those companies!!
He said he would make make electric rates "skyrocket" - well, that's being honest at least. Frankly, I'd rather he lied, and made the electric rates come down, however.
Just heard a prediction, that under the latest proposed cap and trade system, diesel fuel for my truck, will be in the $25-$27 dollar range PER GALLON! I nearly feinted, and that's no lie.
thought I was done, I was wrong. Show us this prediction. I stand ready to point and laugh. Personally, I am not buying your feint.
:mad::mad::mad:
Mad indeed.
V, I admire your heroic efforts at dialog, but eventually ...
The fiscal details in Romneys Administration, will be undoubtedly written in large part (probably the larger part), by his Vice President, Paul Ryan.
As the head of the House Budget Committee, Ryan has an excellent and detailed knowledge of what changes should be made, and the order they should be made in.
That's one reason I'm so pleased with this pairing, because the President may want to work on the economy and fiscal matters, but no President has the time to dig into all the details. Here, Ryan already KNOWS a lot of the details, and has plenty of time to research the matter.
A perfect choice in a running mate, imo. :D
@@: I thought it was obvious that the poor needed a helping hand. But no, they don't need a monthly check for decades, if they're able-bodied.
Let me get this straight. Your complaint, at least the complaint coming from Romney's campaign and their surrogates about Obama's lack of qualifications to guide the economy is his lack of experience in the private sector--never run as much as a lemonade stand, is how the bumpersticker reads, is it not? I think YOU may have repeated it. Got it.
Ryan is your ace in the hole for the fiscal details for an imagined Romney Administration, right? The guy who'll be at the Executive helm for the economy. He's good because he's been the head of the House Budget Committee. Got it.
So... just curious... what is Ryan's private sector experience? Any lemonade stands? Well, no. He did drive the Weinermobile though.
cite.
Private sector experience:
• Ryan moonlighted on Capitol Hill as a waiter at the Tortilla Coast restaurant & as a fitness trainer at Washington Sport and Health Club.
• One of Ryan’s summer jobs in college was as an Oscar Mayer salesman in Minnesota, peddling turkey bacon and a new line called “Lunchables” to supermarkets – he even drove the “Wienermobile” once.
• Ryan worked as a marketing consultant for his family’s construction business before being elected to Congress. The company — Ryan Incorporated Central — began as an earthmoving business created by his great-grandfather in 1884.
His substantive work: Public service. Government worker to you.
• Currently serving seventh term as a member of Congress.
• Ryan was little known outside Janesville when he ran for Congress in 1998 (age 28) and captured 57 percent of vote.
• Ryan’s first budget plan, which he called “Roadmap for America’s Future,” was released in 2010.
• Early in his career as a representative to Congress, Ryan held office hours in an old truck he converted into an office.
• Ryan was the legislative director for Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, 1995-1997.
Now I have to say, I don't believe this disqualifies him for executive office. I don't think this is a useful measure, it's too incomplete. But you can't say Obama's unqualified because of the dearth of his private sector experience and then tout Ryan who has far less private sector experience and be expected to be taken seriously. Your double standard is unconvincing. You might be happy with him because you like him and be unhappy with Obama because you dislike him--fine. But your reasoning is unsound.
snip--
I support Gay Unions for instance, with full legal rights to marriage. Not because it's the ideal, but because it's as close to the ideal, as we can practically get.
--snip
How would you deal with federal benefits that accrue to spouses? Is it a Union, or is it Marriage?
If that's what you think, may I reply by way of quoting someone I whose opinion you appear to trust:
*****
What is this ^^^^^ ?
First of all, liberal vs conservative *everything* coming from you is just additional noise. I'm subtracting it from what you say. You're elusive and changeable on those terms and frankly, they contribute nothing to the understanding of the economy, or specific plans like the one under discussion here. Moving on...
That a lot of mumbo-jumbo, right there ^^^^. You make no argument or assertion, of fact or opinion, of the subject at hand.
You have to do better than this!
No, you're wrong. Lower tax revenues does *not* mean that more money is put into everyone's pocket. Somebody... his name escapes me at the moment, anyhow, he said that some 47% of people pay no income taxes at all. How can you say that lowering income tax rates will increase the amount of money in these people's pockets??!! It won't.
I thought you would understand that nothing will put more money into the pockets of people who are paying no taxes, when you cut taxes.! For pete's sake here.
Now, Romney is talking about income tax rates, that's all he's spoken about. Not a word about payroll taxes, gas taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, medicare, etc. Nothing. Only income taxes, he's said he will reduce the rates by 20%. So, by his words and your "logic", only 53% of the people will be getting more money. Not the poorest, just those who pay income taxes.
If you want to stimulate business AND personal spending, do you think the poor will do that with a cut in income taxes?
The poor don't own businesses, and they don't pay income taxes, and they do a very small amount of personal spending, BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO MONEY - THEY'RE POOR!
Now, this half of the population, roughly speaking, let's follow your reasoning for a little bit, let's say they do have more money in their pocket. Money is already moving around our economy, in the private sector and in the public sector.
The money is not moving nearly as fast as it needs to, to help restore us to a vibrant economy again.
Much of the recovery to date has been on two main fronts: an increase in employment and production and consumption, *and* a reduction in personal debt. There would be more growth, but as a country, we're living somewhat BELOW our means and using the difference to reduce our indebtedness. This makes things look worse if you consider only growth, but we've had growth PLUS less debt. This is good. But, then again, we're talking about how his tax plan does stuff, not about the money supply.
You're mixing national debt, with personal debt (which has gone down sharply). Romney's message is trying to be clear and plain to people who don't know about the need for the speed of money, and how it adds to our economy. Most people I talk to know NOTHING about that.
You're right, ...
Well, finally! ;)
The millies and billies to whom Romney is beholden.
You need to look at Obama's cabinet and Czars he's appointed. Goldman Sachs is HEAVILY represented, and that is the very heart of the *millies and billies*, you decry.[/quote]
Back to what Romney *said*: I'll reduce the rates by 20%, I "absolutely" will not increase taxes, and to avoid increasing our deficit by reducing our revenues I will 'pay' for the tax rate reductions and the corresponding reduction in revenues by eliminating some deductions. WHAT DEDUCTIONS CAN BE ELIMINATED THAT WILL FILL THE HOLE LEFT BY THE RATE REDUCTIONS? You haven't answered this. Romney hasn't answered this. NO ONE has answered this, because there isn't an answer. EVERYONE, except the couple of bloggers who "refute" President Obama's accusation of Romney's lies, says it can't be done. It is YOU who know squat about the economy Adak.
It can be done, but not in the simpleton manner you're looking at it, and it's very likely it won't be done all in the first 2 years of his term.
OMG. Can you hear yourself talk? This bogeyman of "uncertainty" that has its boot on the neck of businesses is bullshit.
If you ever sit in on a board meeting where long term planning is being discussed, you'll know EXACTLY what I'm talking about.
[/quote]
Yes, there will be added doubts about the future in a Romney administration, throughout the business ranks. It won't all be peaches and cream, but because Romney is undeniably more pro business than Obama ever dreamed of being, there will also be a sigh of relief, since the President knows business, and how to help businesses in trouble, and will help enact policies, and codes, that are better for them.
Dude. "as stated" is all you have to support your claim that the tax base will be increased. You still haven't said how. Go back up into YOUR own post and show me where you outline how it will be increased.
This is the historical trend, since Grover Cleveland. Not just in the country, but in every state, in every city, in every county. If other factors remain the same, when you cut taxes moderately (and cut your gov't spending as well), you increase your tax revenues. Worked for Cleveland, Kennedy, (remember "A rising tide lifts all boats" speech?). Reagan. Didn't work when FDR, Carter, Obama, etc., did NOT cut taxes, during their economic downturns.
Along with the moderate cut in taxes, the taxing authority needs to cut their spending, as well.
It's the Conservative Yellow Brick Road, and it has worked many, many times. When it's not followed, the result will be economic downturn and hardship, unless the most favorable conditions are not present to bolster up this Liberal mistake in fiscal policy.
Flint, bless his heart, *did* actually say it when he jumped from point 2) to point 3), though he gave no justification for it (don't worry, I'm gonna give him a chance to 'splain it to me). You haven't even brought it up until now. You ... just... state it, like a virgin birth--TADA! Come on, tell me how the policy described by Romney will increase the tax base. I'm still waiting.
I need to stop this reply, because it's getting too long. I will answer this, in my next reply.
This is taken from Steven Moore's excellent writing. Moore is a senior economics writer for the Wall Street Journal. Full info is here:
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ir_22.htm
with way more graphs and data than I can fit in here. Also, Moore has a new book out which goes into even more detail.
As J.F.Kennedy said when he cut taxes:
[SIZE="4"]“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today, and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the tax rates…. [A]n economy constrained by high tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance the budget, just as it will never create enough jobs or enough profits.” [/SIZE]—John F. Kennedy, 1963[1]
This is from his "A Rising Tide Lifts All Boats" speech, iirc.
It IS unintuitive that it would work this way, but we know that it DOES work this way, so try to accept it.
Should we tax our rich more?
Fact: What country leans on upper income households, the most?
Some socialist country? Nope. USA does!
[code]
Australia 37%
Belgium 25%
Canada 36%
France 28%
Germany 31%
Italy 42%
Japan 29%
Sweden 27%
Switzerland 21%
United Kingdom 39%
[COLOR="Red"]United States 45%[/COLOR]
All OECD Nations 32%
Source: Tax Foundation, 2011.
[/code]
That's why this "Fairness" crap from Obama, drives me right up the wall. (and no, I'm NOT in the top brackets myself).
The above chart, and much more besides, is all here:
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ir_22.htm
as well as several other places on the web.
Can I guarantee that cutting taxes and trimming federal spending will grow our tax base - no. But it ALWAYS has, in the past. I see no reason to believe it won't do it again.
The article I linked to is excellent, and Moore's book is even better.
.
Nope, cut spending, pay debt, then reduce taxes to match revenues to expenses, otherwise interest will eat you up. Ask anyone that's gotten into the credit card hole.
Paul Ryan is arguing that Joe Biden and the administration, have supported abortions so much, that the Catholic church is having to sue the gov't. That support for abortions is both here, and abroad, including the forced abortions on a massive scale in China.
Ryan further points to Biden's statement of this, when he visited China.
Joe Biden replies:
"I've been a practicing Catholic my whole life and it's the core of my being."
Sure it is, Joe: To Catholics, abortion is a heinous (mortal) sin. Just in case you maybe forgot.
Has Biden had an abortion? I don't think so. Anyone that tries to push their personal view, whether from their religion or not, on other people, has no business in the government.
Sure it is, Joe: To Catholics, abortion is a heinous (mortal) sin. Just in case you maybe forgot.
America was founded on principles that religion is only between you and your god. Any church that enforces a Spanish Inquistion to enforce their beliefs would be Satanic.
Pope ordered Church doctrine be imposed in law upon all Americans. Apparently you agree with his Satanic statement? Or do you believe in fundamental American principles: a person's religion is never imposed on anyone else. Many extremists oppose that fundamental American principle. Do you?
Has Biden had an abortion? I don't think so. Anyone that tries to push their personal view, whether from their religion or not, on other people, has no business in the government.
That's what Obama does in his health care law. That why the Catholic and a few other churches, are suing the feds for forcing them to accept paying for abortions AND for performing abortions, in their hospitals.
Personally, I believe abortions should be 1st trimester only, and the decision is ultimately up to the woman in consultation with her doctor, and the father, if possible.
America was founded on principles that religion is only between you and your god. Any church that enforces a Spanish Inquistion to enforce their beliefs would be Satanic.
Pope ordered Church doctrine be imposed in law upon all Americans. Apparently you agree with his Satanic statement? Or do you believe in fundamental American principles: a person's religion is never imposed on anyone else. Many extremists oppose that fundamental American principle. Do you?
No church is enforcing an Inquisition, Spanish or otherwise! The Pope never ordered Church doctrine be imposed in law on ANY Americans.
You know nothing about the Catholic Church, clearly.
What struck me about the debate was the lack of any plan (still) for the next four years, if the President is given a second term.
I wasn't expecting much, since it is the V.P., not Obama debating, but still. What's your plan for the next four years?
: : : Crickets : : :
You may not like the Romney plan, but at least they have one. ;)
Originally Posted by BigV View Post
If that's what you think, may I reply by way of quoting someone I whose opinion you appear to trust:
*****
What is this ^^^^^ ?
go back and read who I quoted as my reply to your snide remark about how uninformed I am about the economy, in any detail.
[QUOTE=bigv]First of all, liberal vs conservative *everything* coming from you is just additional noise. I'm subtracting it from what you say. You're elusive and changeable on those terms and frankly, they contribute nothing to the understanding of the economy, or specific plans like the one under discussion here. Moving on...
That a lot of mumbo-jumbo, right there ^^^^. You make no argument or assertion, of fact or opinion, of the subject at hand.
You have to do better than this![/QUOTE]
by subtracting your useless stereotyping labels from your posts I clarify our discussion by keeping it on the subject at hand, Romney's proposed policies. What political church you genuflect in is irrelevant.
For example, what deductions will Romney eliminate to pay for his $5 trillion dollar tax cut?
Not what good-for-nothing Congressionally approved deductions will Conservative-in-Chief-in-Waiting Romney eliminate to conservatively save God's Greatest Nation On Earth from the Liberal mess we've been saddled with?
Like that. What's the damn point. Just let's talk about the actual facts. You can cheerlead for "conservative" and boo "liberal", I'm just going to ignore it. Just like I said up there.. That IS doing better.
As J.F.Kennedy said when he cut taxes:
This is from his "A Rising Tide Lifts All Boats" speech, iirc.
It IS unintuitive that it would work this way, but we know that it DOES work this way, so try to accept it.
Those who ignore lessons from history are doomed to repeat it. Predicted was what would happen with George Jr's tax cuts. By even citing well understood economic theory that predicts recessions. Predicted because the same recessionary effects occurred with Kennedy's tax cut. But soundbytes and ideologue rhetoric routinely ignores facts to preach a political agenda - to preach propaganda. The same ideology again ignores what happened with Kennedy's tax cut. Because extremist talk show hosts say so?
Reality posted on 11 April 2001 in
Laffer curve - the real laugh.
The Laffer curve is promoted to youngsters who do not understand those above economic money games.
11 years later. And another, who never learns from history, recites the same lies. Classic ideological politics. Soundbyte replaces knowledge and history. The next tax cut (on 11 April 2001) predicted a recession. It most certainly did. Big time.
George Jr's tax cut is a bad thing - just as history has repeatedly demonstrated. Name a tax cut that did not result in recession.
Back then it "IS" a bad thing. Today is "WAS" a bad thing. But only when one learns lessons from history - and ignores wacko extremist rhetoric.
Only propaganda and ideology 'proves' tax cuts cure economic malise. Especially when that malise is directly traceable to previous tax cuts and other fiscal mismanagement before 2007.
What do we know from history and a basic grasp of economics? Tax increases to pay for deficits result in long term growth - and then more jobs.
That's what Obama does in his health care law. That why the Catholic and a few other churches, are suing the feds for forcing them to accept paying for abortions AND for performing abortions, in their hospitals.
No, it's not Obama's personal view it's the law, written and passed by congress. Sure he pushed it, but if he'd written it according to his personal view you'd be apoplectic.
Forcing them to pay for contraception like a responsible employer isn't forcing anyone to use them. I guess the Catholic church wants to try to at least keep the poor that can't afford them under control. The numbers seem to show that a great many Catholic women that can afford the pill choose to do so.
Can you site a source on this, "for performing abortions, in their hospitals"?
[QUOTE=bigv]No, you're wrong. Lower tax revenues does *not* mean that more money is put into everyone's pocket. Somebody... his name escapes me at the moment, anyhow, he said that some 47% of people pay no income taxes at all. How can you say that lowering income tax rates will increase the amount of money in these people's pockets??!! It won't.
I thought you would understand that nothing will put more money into the pockets of people who are paying no taxes, when you cut taxes.! For pete's sake here.
[/QUOTE]
Just like Romney, say some shit, then walk it back.
You said "everyone's pockets", now you're admitting you really meant just half of everyone's pockets. What are you doing? Rounding up?
I noticed that Romney's in favor of reducing income tax rates by twenty percent, but supports the idea of letting the payroll tax reduction expire. In whose favor is the sum of these two proposals?
The poor don't own businesses, and they don't pay income taxes, and they do a very small amount of personal spending, BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO MONEY - THEY'RE POOR!
The money is not moving nearly as fast as it needs to, to help restore us to a vibrant economy again.
So, you're saying that money that moves fast helps restore a vibrant economy. You're saying it's less about the amount of money than it is about the speed with which it's moving around, am I right?
Then, you denigrate the poor for having no money, "THEY'RE POOR!". Classy.
Let me ask you this. How can you say it's rich people who have a lot of money in the bank and who will have more money in the bank after this massive tax cut Romney's proposing is enacted are contributing to the economy? How are these people "job creators"? Because, poor people? No one spends money faster than poor people. They get it, and boom, it's gone. Sometimes it's gone so fucking fast it leaves before it gets there. Now THAT'S some high-velocity, vibrant-economy-building patriotic American economic action, right there. Those slacker bastards with their static bank balances, not moving, just sitting there getting piled higher and deeper... what are they doing for the economy? More specifically, what are their increased savings doing for the economy?
[QUOTE=bigv]Much of the recovery to date has been on two main fronts: an increase in employment and production and consumption, *and* a reduction in personal debt. There would be more growth, but as a [strike]country[/strike] as individuals across the country, as we make our own individual economic decisions, we create a national picture of improvement that is less vigorous than it could be since, we're living somewhat BELOW our means and using the difference to reduce our indebtedness. This makes things look worse if you consider only growth, but we've had growth PLUS less debt. This is good. But, then again, we're talking about how his tax plan does stuff, not about the money supply.
You're mixing national debt, with personal debt (which has gone down sharply). Romney's message is trying to be clear and plain to people who don't know about the need for the speed of money, and how it adds to our economy. Most people I talk to know NOTHING about that.[/QUOTE]
You're right, I misspoke, I've corrected the text to more accurately reflect my thoughts.
[QUOTE=bigv]Back to what Romney *said*: I'll reduce the rates by 20%, I "absolutely" will not increase taxes, and to avoid increasing our deficit by reducing our revenues I will 'pay' for the tax rate reductions and the corresponding reduction in revenues by eliminating some deductions. WHAT DEDUCTIONS CAN BE ELIMINATED THAT WILL FILL THE HOLE LEFT BY THE RATE REDUCTIONS? You haven't answered this. Romney hasn't answered this. NO ONE has answered this, because there isn't an answer. EVERYONE, except the couple of bloggers who "refute" President Obama's accusation of Romney's lies, says it can't be done. It is YOU who know squat about the economy Adak.
It can be done, but not in the simpleton manner you're looking at it, and it's very likely it won't be done all in the first 2 years of his term.[/QUOTE]
You haven't answered it. You just call me a simpleton. But don't worry. You have good company. I just watched Paul Ryan fail to answer the same direct question. You can't answer it. He can't answer it.
Romney hasn't answered it and won't answer it ("care to wager ten thousand dollars?"). There is no answer that fits his parameters.
I may be a simpleton, but I know my question is being evaded.
[QUOTE]OMG. Can you hear yourself talk? This bogeyman of "uncertainty" that has its boot on the neck of businesses is bullshit.
If you ever sit in on a board meeting where long term planning is being discussed, you'll know EXACTLY what I'm talking about.
Yes,
there will be added doubts about the future in a Romney administration, throughout the business ranks. It won't all be peaches and cream, but because Romney is undeniably more pro business than Obama ever dreamed of being, there will also be a sigh of relief, since the President knows business, and how to help businesses in trouble, and will help enact policies, and codes, that are better for them.[/QUOTE]
Translated:
Obama uncertainties bad.
Romney uncertainties good.
Got it. At least you didn't throw in a few "conservative" labels in there, but it's the thought that counts, right?
:facepalm:
good night Adak, good night all.
let's do this again sometime!
No, it's not Obama's personal view it's the law, written and passed by congress. Sure he pushed it, but if he'd written it according to his personal view you'd be apoplectic.
Forcing them to pay for contraception like a responsible employer isn't forcing anyone to use them. I guess the Catholic church wants to try to at least keep the poor that can't afford them under control. The numbers seem to show that a great many Catholic women that can afford the pill choose to do so.
Can you site a source on this, "for performing abortions, in their hospitals"?
No, I don't have a copy of the 2,000 + page bill. As the suit moves forward, we can get more info from the filed court papers. From what I hear, they are objecting to two things:
1) That they have to pay for what they believe is a sin.
and
2) That their hospitals would have to provide abortion procedures. The doctor and nurses could be non-Catholic, but enabling that procedure is sinful to them, based on their religious beliefs.
The health care bill insists on this because, in some areas, religious hospitals are the only local hospitals.
This is just what I'm hearing on Conservative radio. The talk show host was an attorney and a legal adviser to Ronald Reagan's administration, and Chief of Staff for the Attorney General, Edwin Meese. (Mark Levin)
According to Mark, the Catholic Church is bringing all legal guns to bear on this fight.
Yet they have no problem paying for Viagra.
I will never wrap my head around this logic.
For example, what deductions will Romney eliminate to pay for his $5 trillion dollar tax cut?
...
Like that. What's the damn point. Just let's talk about the actual facts. You can cheerlead for "conservative" and boo "liberal", I'm just going to ignore it. Just like I said up there.. That IS doing better.
I haven't spent a lot of time with the details, because unless Romney/Ryan are actually elected, there is no hope for a cut in spending by the Fed's, and a tax cut for anybody.
Ryan's plan has been out for at least a year now. My understanding is that Romney's plan will be based on Ryan's plan, with a bit of tweaking from both Ryan and Romney, putting their heads together.
Romney's projected savings are just that - a projection, and I wouldn't be surprised if that projection was - like all economic projections - not perfect. The bottom line is, Romney's plan will cut spending in the federal gov't, cut taxes somewhat, and close some tax loopholes. His goal is to make it "neutral", so the income lost in one cut, will be matched by growth in the economy, and by closing a loophole.
I do not expect it will be exactly neutral, of course. He's smart, but he's not a Prophet. ;)
Those are three things that (taken together), you WON'T get from Obama. And those are three good things for our economy, and our country.
Can you site a source on this, "for performing abortions, in their hospitals"?
No
My understanding is that the Catholic owned hospitals consider prescribing and/or paying for so called "abortion pills" to be the same as providing an abortion. I don't equate providing a medication to be the same as "performing abortions, in their hospitals."
Yet they have no problem paying for Viagra.
I will never wrap my head around this logic.
What's not clear?
The Lord commanded Adam to be fruitful and multiply. Viagra helps make that possible.
:facepalm:
Is anyone still listening to this shill?
:lol:
My understanding is that the Catholic owned hospitals consider prescribing and/or paying for so called "abortion pills" to be the same as providing an abortion. I don't equate providing a medication to be the same as "performing abortions, in their hospitals."
Correct. Enabling a sin, makes you a part of it's commission, to the Church, and the same logic is used in law. Enabling a crime, makes you a part of it's commission, usually as an accessory.
Oh, I SO believe the Church lawyers will RIP the feds lawyers to shreds on this case. :cool:
:facepalm:
Is anyone still listening to this shill?
:lol:
You asked the question, and I answered it quite civilly.
I didn't even call you
[SIZE="4"][CENTER][COLOR="Red"]< STUPID! >[/COLOR][/CENTER][/SIZE]
in big bright red letters.
Don't worry. I'll pray for you. :angel:
The bible sayeth: let no man, no matter how old and decrepit, be denied the gift of a boner. Go forth, 85 year old man, and get some 30 year old pregnant. Then Adak thumped it.
Remember men, YOU are in charge of YOUR bodies. The government has no right to tell you you can't swing your stupid dick all over the place.
Correct. Enabling a sin, makes you a part of it's commission, to the Church, and the same logic is used in law. Enabling a crime, makes you a part of it's commission, usually as an accessory.
Oh, I SO believe the Church lawyers will RIP the feds lawyers to shreds on this case. :cool:
So you would support prosecuting gun dealers who sell guns to people who later use them to commit a crime?
So, you're saying that money that moves fast helps restore a vibrant economy. You're saying it's less about the amount of money than it is about the speed with which it's moving around, am I right?
There must be money (value), in the economy, but it can't be just sitting in a bank, or stuck in a mattress somewhere.
Yes, Money has to MOVE, or the economy will stagnant.
Then, you denigrate the poor for having no money, "THEY'RE POOR!". Classy.
No denigration on the poor. Statement of fact in looking at the economy. By definition, the poor have very little money.
Let me ask you this. How can you say it's rich people who have a lot of money in the bank and who will have more money in the bank after this massive tax cut Romney's proposing is enacted are contributing to the economy? How are these people "job creators"? Because, poor people? No one spends money faster than poor people. They get it, and boom, it's gone. Sometimes it's gone so fucking fast it leaves before it gets there. Now THAT'S some high-velocity, vibrant-economy-building patriotic American economic action, right there.
You're right that many poor people spend money quickly, but it's a matter of quantity. The rich will move thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars in a day. The poor won't SEE ONE thousand dollars, in two months.
Those slacker bastards with their static bank balances, not moving, just sitting there getting piled higher and deeper... what are they doing for the economy? More specifically, what are their increased savings doing for the economy?
If the money was just sitting in a bank vault someplace, it would do us no good, but that's not what banks do - they invest a portion of every dollar they get:
*home loans, *commercial loans, *stocks, *commercial bonds, *municipal bonds, *real estate, *oil and gas drilling, and many more financial instruments.
So the money is moving, but as taxes increase (personal and business), that money begins to slow down, and dry up. People with money become more concerned with avoiding taxes, than with investing in the economy.
The rich aren't different from you or I in this regard.
So you would support prosecuting gun dealers who sell guns to people who later use them to commit a crime?
Only if a gun dealer knew the gun he sold, was illegal, or was told the gun was intended for the commission of a crime.
Say he sold the gun to a known felon, and didn't put in the paperwork and get the approval needed. That would be a crime.
Or say the buyer came in after the waiting period was over and all the paperwork was done, and told the seller that the gun would be "great", since he "wanted to kill his ex spouse with it".
There, it's a bit more gray, but if the gun hasn't changed hands yet, I'd say he better refund the buyer his money, keep the gun, and notify the police. Certainly, he should NOT sell him anything else, like bullets! There's no better way to protect yourself from future charges in the matter.
There's no better way to protect yourself from future children than birth control.
Except abstinence. Penises (penii?) don't get women pregnant people get women pregnant.
The Pope never ordered Church doctrine be imposed in law on ANY Americans.
When confronted by honesty, you would lie? That's a mortal sin! The Pope ordered Catholic doctrine to be instilled in American laws. Santorum agreed. So we also got rid of him.
How many wackos said Kennedy's separation of the Catholic Church from American government was wrong? It made him almost vomit? Extremist even advocate religious doctrine be imposed in laws. You cannot change reality by denying it.
Meanwhile the Pope has ordered lawmakers to impose Catholic doctine - their religion - on all Americans. Next is to order American laws changed to protect pedophile priests. After all, that is also defacto Catholic doctrine. When you deny it, might you cite at least one source other than Fox News or an extremist talk show host?
When confronted by honesty, you would lie? That's a mortal sin! The Pope ordered Catholic doctrine to be instilled in American laws. Santorum agreed. So we also got rid of him.
How many wackos said Kennedy's separation of the Catholic Church from American government was wrong? It made him almost vomit? Extremist even advocate religious doctrine be imposed in the laws. You cannot change reality by denying it.
Not that it will educate you. Demonstrated is how much Limbaugh, et al have so subverted so many Americans. Brainwashing for some is that easy. Knowledge despite facts defines an ideologue. And why so many foolishly argue a 'liberal vs conservative' myth.
Meanwhile the Pope has ordered lawmakers to impose Catholic doctine - their religion - on all Americans.
:notworthy
What's not clear?
The Lord commanded Adam to be fruitful and multiply. Viagra helps make that possible.
Maybe I believe that God took away that function from certain people for a reason. Why should I pay for them to artificially get it back? No Viagra for YOU!
Or maybe I believe that gluttony is a sin and so obesity treatment and/or diabetes treatments is against my religion and shouldn't be covered? (1 Corr 3:16,17)
Or maybe I believe that rehab should never be covered by insurance since drunkenness is forbidden in the Bible? (Eph 5:18)
And lets not cover infections from accidents/carelessness, or lung cancer from smoking, or skin cancer from sunbathing, or vision care/contacts, or any number of things that could remotely be tied to vanity or mistreatment of your body (temple of God).
And diseases that are hereditary. God said the sins of the father will be visited upon children (Exodus 20:5), so clearly that person's ancestor's did something bad against God and these diseases are his will. Why should I pay for insurance to rectify this?
:rant:
/sarcasm off
Using insurance coverage to force one person's beliefs on someone else is absolute bullcrap. It's insurance. YOU don't have to partake or utilize it or participate if it violates YOUR beliefs. But forcing me to suffer for your religion is asinine. And I, personally, will fight it to the bitter end.
BigV, post #211, did you see? A few pages back...
Did a little digging... wow this was buried quite deeply.
Flint, bless his heart, *did* actually say it when he jumped from point 2) to point 3), though he gave no justification for it (don't worry, I'm gonna give him a chance to 'splain it to me)
For reference, here are the points 2 and 3:
The way I understood him to be explaining it in the debate:
1. Reduce ‘individual’ tax rate
...a. Individuals in households pay less
...b. Individuals who own small businesses pay less
2. Tax revenues decreased at this point
3. Small businesses stimulated at this point
...a. Resulting in tax revenues going back up
4. Also, deductions eliminated for households
...a. Households end up paying the same amount
Firstly did this all make sense to you, with the exception of points 2 and 3; and to be clear, was it a point '2, a.' that you needed--or a new point '3, a.' moving the current point '3, a.' to '3, b.' ??? I don't see a gap, but if you can point it out I will try to do a better job.
Where was it buried? Somewhere in the last 18 pages? Who buried it? What's the context?
I bet it was those damn Republicans and their dirty tricks, burying Flint's post.
Sorry, BigV asked if anyone could explain Romney's tax plan, so I posted a brief summary of "The way I understood him to be explaining it in the debate."
Then there was three or so pages of poo-flinging... (nothing to do with my post)
...and I never saw BigV's reply. Then I went back and did a post search for the terms "flint" and found BigV making a reference to my post (so now I know he read it) ...so I posted again asking BigV for clarification.
Basically, to BigV, "which part did I not explain well?"
threadjack
[YOUTUBE]va71a7pLvy8[/YOUTUBE]
/threadjack
When confronted by honesty, you would lie? That's a mortal sin! The Pope ordered Catholic doctrine to be instilled in American laws. Santorum agreed. So we also got rid of him.
Give me a link to where the Pope ordered Catholic doctrine by instilled in American laws. That's news to me, but I don't follow everything the Pope does.
Not knowledgeable about Santorum. He never interested me as a Presidential candidate.
How many wackos said Kennedy's separation of the Catholic Church from American government was wrong? It made him almost vomit? Extremist even advocate religious doctrine be imposed in laws. You cannot change reality by denying it.
First I can't quite nail down what reality you are in. Kennedy's religious beliefs are not a topic for this thread, in the run up to the 2012 election. I just don't believe it's relevant.
Meanwhile the Pope has ordered lawmakers to impose Catholic doctine - their religion - on all Americans. Next is to order American laws changed to protect pedophile priests. After all, that is also defacto Catholic doctrine. When you deny it, might you cite at least one source other than Fox News or an extremist talk show host?
Do you have some info or links to back up your argument? This is your assertion of truth, not mine.
@Stormieweather: You're free to interpret the Bible any way you like, but it may not be Catholic Doctrine.
He asked the question, I answered it, not with my opinion, but with the answer from the Bible.
My understanding is that the Catholic owned hospitals consider prescribing and/or paying for so called "abortion pills" to be the same as providing an abortion. I don't equate providing a medication to be the same as "performing abortions, in their hospitals."
Could be, because when I ask Google it comes up with both the contraception for employees and having to perform abortions in their hospitals, in the description of the links, but none of the 20 odd links I checked had anything about having to perform abortions.
So it would appear that Adak is just repeating wild claims from right wing talk radio that have no basis.
You haven't answered it. You just call me a simpleton. But don't worry. You have good company. I just watched Paul Ryan fail to answer the same direct question. You can't answer it. He can't answer it. Romney hasn't answered it and won't answer it ("care to wager ten thousand dollars?"). There is no answer that fits his parameters.
I may be a simpleton, but I know my question is being evaded.
BigV, follow the link for the answer.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/10/the-6-studies-paul-ryan-cited-prove-mitt-romneys-tax-plan-is-impossible/263541/
Edit: A second article:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-12/the-final-word-on-mitt-romney-s-tax-plan.html
Basically, you assume unrealistic job growth or you change the definition of the middle class...
You may not like Romney and Ryan's tax plan, but at least it's moving us in the right direction: cut spending, lower taxes a bit, and cut some loopholes in the tax code.
What's NOT to like, here?
You may not like Romney and Ryan's tax plan, but at least it's moving us in the right direction: cut spending, lower taxes a bit, and cut some loopholes in the tax code.
What's NOT to like, here?
Only because so far the only reason it balances is due to promises of closure in unspecified loopholes and promised growth to close a 4.8 trillion dollar gap.
What if this promised surge in growth revenue, like the 'trickle down' money that failed to materialize with the last set of tax cuts, fails to show? What loopholes? The 'loopholes' like the mortgage tax deduction that is used by millions of working and middle class Americans? Or the loopholes that allowed Mr. Romney to pay a %14 effective tax rate? Guess which ones I think will be targeted.....
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice.......
Only because so far the only reason it balances is due to promises of closure in unspecified loopholes and promised growth to close a 4.8 trillion dollar gap.
What if this promised surge in growth revenue, like the 'trickle down' money that failed to materialize with the last set of tax cuts, fails to show? What loopholes? The 'loopholes' like the mortgage tax deduction that is used by millions of working and middle class Americans? Or the loopholes that allowed Mr. Romney to pay a %14 effective tax rate? Guess which ones I think will be targeted.....
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice.......
Oh Please! Poly-ticks will fool us every day of the week, if we don't watch 'em!
Which do you, sight unseen, believe is more trustworthy?
A missionary for two years from the Mormon Church, and WAY successful businessman?
Or
A Chicago Community activist and professional poly-tick?
Where "poly-ticks" (poly = many, and tick = blood sucking organism).
Maybe you've been fooled so many times, you've joined with the Fools? ;)
Have you any idea of the kind of loopholes that our tax code has? We're still giving handouts to farmers for growing wool for soldiers socks, from WWI, for crying out loud!
Romney has a blind trust for his personal funds, to avoid any hint of a conflict of interest. He has no control over what is bought or sold, and doesn't know what's been done, until the end of the quarter.
I LOVE the hypocrisy of those berating Romney for following the legal tax code. Nevermind, that the guy gives millions to charities -- to you, that means nothing. NO! Let's castigate him for following the law!!
Is there no limit to your hypocrisy?
If you believe you can PRY a cut in spending from the Obama administrations MASSIVE federal budget increases, you're completely in the dark about what they have done, and insist on continuing.
Will we get everything we want in a Republican administration? No. But at least we'll get SOME of what we want, and a LOT of what we need, and get headed back in the right direction.
We are spending $58,000 dollars per second, more than we make in income, currently - over a TRILLION dollars a year more than we can afford.
We will RUE the day that we have a true monetary crisis, believe me.
Oh Please! Poly-ticks will fool us every day of the week, if we don't watch 'em!
Which do you, sight unseen, believe is more trustworthy?
A high priest and missionary for two years from the Mormon Church, and WAY successful businessman?
Or
A Chicago Community activist and professional poly-tick?
High priest and missionary are immediately suspect, but discounting that;
I have a choice of a guy who made millions by fucking the working man and the country, or a guy that spent his career helping the little guy.
Damn, that is a tough choice ain't it. :rolleyes:
Have you any idea of the kind of loopholes that our tax code has?
No, I can't give you a number, I doubt anyone can without considerable research. But I do remember reading dozens of times over the years, of bills that were passed to give huge breaks to a very small number of specific companies. Of course the companies weren't named in the bill, but it was written in a way that no one else could qualify. There were a few that it was only one company getting to fuck me.
I certainly wouldn't bet on either party doing a meaningful job of cleaning up the tax code mess, because every one of those special loopholes is for someone with pull in Washington. Nobody is more beholden than Thurston... er, Mitt.
We will RUE the day that we have a true monetary crisis, believe me.
Rue? Rue? That's French, that's socialist talk.:p:
Give me a link to where ...
Everything you posted is without links. Everything you posted is recited from Rush Limbaugh, et al. You want others to do what you never do? Sources were provided. You ignored it because extremist talk show hosts downplayed reality? Santorum said ... (then you stopped listening).
Kennedy's religious beliefs are directly traceable to your ideology. As a result one even said he almost had to vomit. Because religion *should* be imposed on all Americas - according to that ideology. These are the extremists you promote. Why do you ignore what they say when convenient?
Do you also ignore that America has zero growth when Republicans are president? That Reagan raised taxes. That jobs did not recover until well into Reagan's second term. That the US Navy is larger than the next 13 countries combined (exposing a Ryan lie). That economic power is not created by Nimitz class carriers and B-1 bombers. That socialism and communism are different. That jobs are not created by money. That $0.55 trillion back then is over $1.3 trillion today. When Clinton left office, we were on the verge of a surplus. Then people you promote tried to get into a war with China, surrendered to the Taliban, and then wasted 5000 Americans and $3 trillion on a complete lie - Mission Accomplished. Therefore created record debts that will take at least a decade to pay off. Sticking Obama with the bills when Cheney said "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter".
This was a doozy:The July 2010 Dodd-Frank law created George Jr's 2007 recession and stock market crash. Only you posted that. How disconnected are you? Please, find that citation. Oh. You will provide facts and numbers? Instead, reality was invented as necessary. Dodd-Frank created George Jr's recession? How fast did you run away from that fiction?
What happens when the rich pay taxes (when America was then prosperous)? BigV posted the numbers. Tax cuts to the rich - debt
increases 172%. Taxes restored; the rich pay their fair share (ie when Clinton was president) - debt
decreases 27%. So what did you do? Ignore replies and numbers that exposed the Limbaugh lies you posted. BigV demonstrated how wrong you (and Limbaugh) are. As usual, when facts expose your lies, you run off to invent more lies - as any Tea Party extremist would do. No wonder they nominated a witch for the Senate.
You change topics when facts expose your myths. You paint with a broad brush. Invent fiction that only an extremist could believe. Even deny the Pope has called for Church doctrine to be imposed on all Americans. Lie to protect an ideology: a conclusion followed by searching for or inventing facts to justify it.
"Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" is why extremist conservatives in George Jr's administration massively increased debt, spending, wars, and recession. Same people you want back in power. Let's face it. You support those who said "We want America to fail." Or did you also forget that fact?
Perspective: Informed Americans see the world in terms of moderates vs wacko extremists. Wacko extremists see the world in terms of 'liberal vs conservative'. Then invent facts to justify brainwashing. And run away from any citation that shows how misguided they really are.
How funny. You, of all people, want a citation. Please stop with the comedy. Old jokes only get older.
High priest and missionary are immediately suspect, but discounting that;
I have a choice of a guy who made millions by fucking the working man and the country, or a guy that spent his career helping the little guy.
Damn, that is a tough choice ain't it. :rolleyes:
"Fucking the working man"? Are you out of your mind? Romney's company turned around companies, and in the process, saved or created a lot of jobs. Yes, not every company was able to be turned around, because of market conditions that developed - but in business, nothing is guaranteed except change.
No, I can't give you a number, I doubt anyone can without considerable research. But I do remember reading dozens of times over the years, of bills that were passed to give huge breaks to a very small number of specific companies. Of course the companies weren't named in the bill, but it was written in a way that no one else could qualify. There were a few that it was only one company getting to fuck me.
I certainly wouldn't bet on either party doing a meaningful job of cleaning up the tax code mess, because every one of those special loopholes is for someone with pull in Washington. Nobody is more beholden than Thurston... er, Mitt.
Why do you say that? Mitt hasn't served a day in Washington, yet. His time as Governor of Mass., is long over. Obama is the one with supporters than need to be paid back - lots of bundlers and special interest blocks of voters, that put together a LOT of money for him and workers for his campaign.
Romney has some of those same problems, but his platform is a lot more focused, (on economic policy and business), which fits perfectly with what we need, so the effect will be more positive, and less detrimental.
I agree with you that reforming the tax code will be like pulling teeth.
Rue? Rue? That's French, that's socialist talk.:p:
Rue: Define Rue at Dictionary.com
dictionary.reference.com/browse/rue
to feel sorrow over; repent of; regret bitterly: to rue the loss of opportunities. 2. to wish that (something) had never been done, taken place, etc.: I rue the day he ...
Specifically, I don't like the gov't owning a large part of GM, along with the Unions. The shareholders and bondholders were screwed royal, as were the non-union employees, who lost both their jobs and their benefits. In the case of the shareholders and bondholders (especially the latter), that is contrary to law.
Better to have GM go through bankruptcy, and come out the other side, as a new, and stronger company. Having the feds on the board of directors, of a major corp. makes me nervous.
Also, I doubt if the gov't knows how to design and/or build, better cars and trucks.
Everything you posted is without links. Everything you posted is recited from Rush Limbaugh, et al. You want others to do what you never do? Sources were provided. You ignored it because extremist talk show hosts downplayed reality? Santorum said ... (then you stopped listening).
Santorum isn't in the running anymore. I didn't care for him when he was, and I don't care what you think of him, or what he thinks of anything, now.
Kennedy's religious beliefs are directly traceable to your ideology. As a result one even said he almost had to vomit. Because religion *should* be imposed on all Americas - according to that ideology. These are the extremists you promote. Why do you ignore what they say when convenient?
Nobody has said that religion SHOULD be imposed on Americans, that I know of. First, it would be against the Constitution (blatantly). Second, you'd have riots in the streets if that were begun.
Do you also ignore that America has zero growth when Republicans are president? That Reagan raised taxes. That jobs did not recover until well into Reagan's second term. That the US Navy is larger than the next 13 countries combined (exposing a Ryan lie). That economic power is not created by Nimitz class carriers and B-1 bombers. That socialism and communism are different. That jobs are not created by money. That $0.55 trillion back then is over $1.3 trillion today. When Clinton left office, we were on the verge of a surplus. Then people you promote tried to get into a war with China, surrendered to the Taliban, and then wasted 5000 Americans and $3 trillion on a complete lie - Mission Accomplished. Therefore created record debts that will take at least a decade to pay off. Sticking Obama with the bills when Cheney said "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter".
This was a doozy:The July 2010 Dodd-Frank law created George Jr's 2007 recession and stock market crash. Only you posted that. How disconnected are you? Please, find that citation. Oh. You will provide facts and numbers? Instead, reality was invented as necessary. Dodd-Frank created George Jr's recession? How fast did you run away from that fiction?
I don't CARE what Cheney said. Cheney isn't running for office, and won't be part of Romney's administration.
No, that was my error in naming the Dodd-Franks law. I had that law on my mind, at that time, but it's not the one.
What happens when the rich pay taxes (when America was then prosperous)? BigV posted the numbers. Tax cuts to the rich - debt increases 172%. Taxes restored; the rich pay their fair share (ie when Clinton was president) - debt decreases 27%. So what did you do? Ignore replies and numbers that exposed the Limbaugh lies you posted. BigV demonstrated how wrong you (and Limbaugh) are. As usual, when facts expose your lies, you run off to invent more lies - as any Tea Party extremist would do. No wonder they nominated a witch for the Senate.
I'm hardly a Tea party extremist! They are Conservatives, however, AND they pick up their trash after a rally -- try and get the liberals to do THAT. :D
You know you're lying about Reagan and taxes, and I've posted the facts from the gov't to point it out to you. You can't support your lies about that.
You change topics when facts expose your myths. You paint with a broad brush. Invent fiction that only an extremist could believe. Even deny the Pope has called for Church doctrine to be imposed on all Americans. Lie to protect an ideology: a conclusion followed by searching for or inventing facts to justify it.
I'm still waiting for the Pope's encyclical on that - but it isn't there. Another fib, eh? :rolleyes:
"Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" is why extremist conservatives in George Jr's administration massively increased debt, spending, wars, and recession. Same people you want back in power. Let's face it. You support those who said "We want America to fail." Or did you also forget that fact?
Obsessed by Cheney are you? ;) Here's a tip for you - he's been out of office for a few years now, and he won't be back.
I live in America! Why would I want it to fail? Have you lost your mind?
Perspective: Informed Americans see the world in terms of moderates vs wacko extremists. Wacko extremists see the world in terms of 'liberal vs conservative'. Then invent facts to justify brainwashing. And run away from any citation that shows how misguided they really are.
Now you're the expert on how other people see the world? < ROFL! >
How funny. You, of all people, want a citation. Please stop with the comedy. Old jokes only get older.
You can't make an assertion about a major proclamation from the Pope, repeatedly, and then not offer a link to it.
Not the Pope. Everything he proclaims is widely reported around the world. If it existed, I would have found it, easily.
Liberal jokes, make us all weep, when they become laws -- unless of course, it's a case of crony capitalism! But that's a problem for both parties, much to their shame. Bush Jr and Obama are both failures in this regard, and I would have to say Bush Jr. was the bigger failure in using crony capitalism, except for the Salendra scandal with Obama.
Actually, I don't listen to Limbaugh. He has good info and some insights, I know, but he constantly uses ad hominem attacks and smears, and thinks they're "entertaining". Or at least, OK. I won't put up with that.
You can't solve a problem with the country, by calling half of it all kinds of unsavory names, in public media.
A Chicago Community activist and professional poly-tick?
Where "poly-ticks" (poly = many, and tick = blood sucking organism).
When will you guys learn that being 'cutesy' loses you the argument?
'poly-tick', 'Demoncrat'...all just mindless noise. It's like wearing a 'honk if you like stupid' T-shirt to a debate.
I'm also going to shave a few points off of TW for the 'Thurston Howell' comment, but your little verbal tantrums go way beyond. At least TW cites. You're just stuffed with unattributed talking points.
"Fucking the working man"? Are you out of your mind? Romney's company turned around companies, and in the process, saved or created a lot of jobs. Yes, not every company was able to be turned around, because of market conditions that developed - but in business, nothing is guaranteed except change.
And small change at that, after Romney & Company raped them for millions, saddling them with monstrous debt. The companies that survived obviously would have anyway.
What the rapist did was combine companies, so that instead of a few companies competing (you know, capitalism), each employing lots of people and making a modest profit, there was only one or two companies left, employing very few people, and paying enormous debt service on the rapists profits.
The big picture is, Romney put a shitload of people out of work and redirected what they would have been paid and funneled back into the economy, into his pocket and his offshore accounts.
Thurston...er, Mitt, was a missionary all right, a disciple of Michael Milken, honing Milken's sleezeball tactics to a keen edge with which to castrate not only the working man, but small businessmen as well.
Why do you say that? Mitt hasn't served a day in Washington, yet. His time as Governor of Mass., is long over.
C'mon, if you're really that naive you shouldn't be allowed on the street, no less vote. :rolleyes:
Specifically, I don't like the gov't owning a large part of GM, along with the Unions. The shareholders and bondholders were screwed royal, as were the non-union employees, who lost both their jobs and their benefits. In the case of the shareholders and bondholders (especially the latter), that is contrary to law.
Better to have GM go through bankruptcy, and come out the other side, as a new, and stronger company. Having the feds on the board of directors, of a major corp. makes me nervous.
You obviously are parroting shit you hear without understanding what went down, how, why, or what would have happened as a result of Romney's hands off stance. I'll give it to you in a nutshell, a few people would have pocketed a fortune, and millions of people, along with the country, would have gotten fucked.
Also, I doubt if the gov't knows how to design and/or build, better cars and trucks.
If you really think the board and the bigwigs of the car companies know how to, "design and/or build, better cars", you don't know jackshit about business either.
"Fucking the working man"? Are you out of your mind? Romney's company turned around companies, and in the process, saved or created a lot of jobs. Yes, not every company was able to be turned around, because of market conditions that developed - but in business, nothing is guaranteed except change.
Do you even know what Romney's company did (does)? Even a hint of a clue about what a LBO is?
He may have started out the way you describe, keeping companies like Staples alive and helping them flourish, but he veered away from that when he figured out the real money was in taking over companies, loading them up with debt, squeezing exorbitant fees from them and then dumping the broken husk in the end.
Greed and Debt
For those that don't want to dig through that long article, here is a description of how it works:
A private equity firm like Bain typically seeks out floundering businesses with good cash flows. It then puts down a relatively small amount of its own money and runs to a big bank like Goldman Sachs or Citigroup for the rest of the financing. (Most leveraged buyouts are financed with 60 to 90 percent borrowed cash.) The takeover firm then uses that borrowed money to buy a controlling stake in the target company, either with or without its consent. When an LBO is done without the consent of the target, it's called a hostile takeover; such thrilling acts of corporate piracy were made legend in the Eighties, most notably the 1988 attack by notorious corporate raiders Kohlberg Kravis Roberts against RJR Nabisco, a deal memorialized in the book Barbarians at the Gate.
Romney and Bain avoided the hostile approach, preferring to secure the cooperation of their takeover targets by buying off a company's management with lucrative bonuses. Once management is on board, the rest is just math. So if the target company is worth $500 million, Bain might put down $20 million of its own cash, then borrow $350 million from an investment bank to take over a controlling stake.
But here's the catch. When Bain borrows all of that money from the bank, it's the target company that ends up on the hook for all of the debt.
Now your troubled firm – let's say you make tricycles in Alabama – has been taken over by a bunch of slick Wall Street dudes who kicked in as little as five percent as a down payment. So in addition to whatever problems you had before, Tricycle Inc. now owes Goldman or Citigroup $350 million. With all that new debt service to pay, the company's bottom line is suddenly untenable: You almost have to start firing people immediately just to get your costs down to a manageable level.
"That interest," says Lynn Turner, former chief accountant of the Securities and Exchange Commission, "just sucks the profit out of the company."
Fortunately, the geniuses at Bain who now run the place are there to help tell you whom to fire. And for the service it performs cutting your company's costs to help you pay off the massive debt that it, Bain, saddled your company with in the first place, Bain naturally charges a management fee, typically millions of dollars a year. So Tricycle Inc. now has two gigantic new burdens it never had before Bain Capital stepped into the picture: tens of millions in annual debt service, and millions more in "management fees." Since the initial acquisition of Tricycle Inc. was probably greased by promising the company's upper management lucrative bonuses, all that pain inevitably comes out of just one place: the benefits and payroll of the hourly workforce.
Once all that debt is added, one of two things can happen. The company can fire workers and slash benefits to pay off all its new obligations to Goldman Sachs and Bain, leaving it ripe to be resold by Bain at a huge profit. Or it can go bankrupt – this happens after about seven percent of all private equity buyouts – leaving behind one or more shuttered factory towns. Either way, Bain wins. By power-sucking cash value from even the most rapidly dying firms, private equity raiders like Bain almost always get their cash out before a target goes belly up.
"That was not his or Bain's or the industry's primary objective. The objective of the LBO business is maximizing returns for investors." When it comes to private equity, American workers – not to mention their families and communities – simply don't enter into the equation.
So don't try to sell him to ME as a shining white knight, come along to help poor KB's Toys -
KB Toys . Many companies were metaphorically burned to the ground and many individuals lost their jobs so Bain and their investors could get richer.
This is a man whose knowledge lies in making the rich richer, not in helping to create jobs. I have no doubt that, if he should be elected President, he and his wealthy friends will benefit enormously. And it will be on the backs of the poorest and most vulnerable of our citizens.
Why do I think this? Oh maybe because of Global Tech.
Global-Tech:Betting Against American Workers
Profits > everything. A President who believes this will not protect our citizens...the very idea is frightening and chilling.
Oh and Hannity and Limbaugh? They work for Clear Channel, which is owned by Bain Capital. Just FYI... :eyebrow:
"He may have started out the way you describe, keeping companies like Staples alive and helping them flourish, but he veered away from that when he figured out the real money was in taking over companies, loading them up with debt, squeezing exorbitant fees from them and then dumping the broken husk in the end. Greed and Debt" -quote Stormieweather
ya know, that's exactly what Tony Soprano did to a store a buddy of his owned who owed him a gambling debt. Not that I'm comparing Mitt to Tony Soprano.
Tony was a good Catholic.
:)
Adak, you know about Sensata, right?
SensataWhen will you guys learn that being 'cutesy' loses you the argument?
'poly-tick', 'Demoncrat'...all just mindless noise. It's like wearing a 'honk if you like stupid' T-shirt to a debate.
I'm also going to shave a few points off of TW for the 'Thurston Howell' comment, but your little verbal tantrums go way beyond. At least TW cites. You're just stuffed with unattributed talking points.
I've posted several url's for you - especially on the fiscal matters. I can't post about Tw's assertion about the Pope, because such an announcement by the Pope, has not been made.
Are you at all aware of how many politicians have gone to Washington with only moderate means, and because of the insider knowledge they are now privy to, they use that knowledge to become rich? If you or I did that, we would be jailed/fined for "insider trading". Poly-ticks however, have made it legal FOR THEM.
You see this kind of hypocrisy all the time. We will have Obama care by decree, but the Poly-ticks will have none of it - they have their own luxury health care policy, which they are NOT ABOUT to give up.
I don't know of a reference for all our poly-ticks misdeeds, but they have been mentioned, on rare occasions. Rare, because our field of investigative reporters would rather report on Timbuktu's problems, than dig into the political mess we have at home.
That doesn't mean it's not true, and if you are willing to dig a bit, you'll find that out.
Adak, you know about Sensata, right?
Sensata
Yes. And I know Romney left Bain Capital 12 (TWELVE) years before Sensata was moved to China.
But what is the truth?
If Bain Capital's activities are to be scrutinized and linked to Mitt Romney 12 years after he left the company, President Obama's activities within the past four years should surely receive the same attention.
Consider Obama's Job Czar, Jeffrey Immelt. According to a 60 minutes program, the CEO of GE was "unapologetic" about the fact that "half his workforce is overseas". How many jobs have been outsourced by GE? 25,000, according to the Huffington Post. The 170 positions reportedly being outsourced by the Bain-controlled organization pale in comparison.
Consider President Obama's failed "Green Stimulus" investments. When the "green" companies were not laying off thousands of employees and/or going bankrupt, a huge chunk of taxpayer money used to support the ill-advised program went overseas.
As a matter of fact, four Democratic senators actually called on the Obama administration "to halt spending on a renewable energy program in the economic stimulus package until rules are in place to assure that the projects use predominantly American labor and materials." They noted that "more than three-fourths Of $2 billion spent on wind-energy projects supported by the stimulus package had gone to foreign companies."
If Americans are looking to hold anyone accountable for wasteful spending overseas (and in general), they should look to the current president. This story may be significant if the same rules of outrage applied to both parties; and since they clearly do not, this news is just another example of faux outrage and dirty politics.
When will you learn that what you hear from the media, can't be trusted at face value?
CHECK IT OUT FOR YOURSELF.
Romney founded and ran Bain for FIFTEEN years. It does the same thing now that it did then, under his leadership. He was fully aware and approved of outsourcing to Chinese sweatshops. In fact, at a recent fundraiser here in Florida he mentioned his personal tour of one...
Chinese Sweatshop
So I should trust what YOU say at face value? No thanks. I do my own research and decide what to believe.
I never said don't do you own research and decide for yourself. I encourage that, but in this case, you've reached the wrong conclusion.
Did Romney make the stupid laws, tax codes, and treaties, that made it profitable for our companies to move to China?
NO!
You have to work (and live) within the laws that you are given, by those in government. You know that, everybody knows that.
Saying that Romney moved Sensata 12 years after he left Bain, is a terrible argument to make because:
1) Romney didn't make the laws that made it possible and in some cases profitable, to move a company to China.
and
2) Romney had nothing to do with the movement of Sensata, anywhere, since he'd left Bain over a decade before this happened.
So your whole argument is just an attempt to smear Romney with anything you can. You'll have to do better, because this case certainly doesn't work.
Did Romney make the stupid laws, tax codes, and treaties, that made it profitable for our companies to move to China?
NO!
You have to work (and live) within the laws that you are given, by those in government. You know that, everybody knows that.
So if it's not locked down it's free stuff? Laws do not cover everything. As a matter of fact, the more libertarian and tea partiers are arguing for less laws. The assumption is that government protections are unnecessary because the free market and innate human compassion will provide the necessary checks and balances.
Mr. Romney proved this wrong. If there was the least fiscal advantage to destroying companies or moving them overseas, even companies that were stable and profitable before being loaded with leveraged debt, then these companies were torn down.
In the primaries Gingrich pilloried Romeny for this. This was not 'creative destruction', this was destruction by loophole.
The board and bigwigs hire people to conduct consumer studies so they KNOW what customers want, in their car or truck. They learned that pretty well from the Ford Mustang and Lee Iacocca, back in 1961. Iacocca knew what the people wanted.
But that's the company, it's not the gov't. You want a gov't designed car, fine - you buy one. ;)
Since Mitt Romney has never been a Congressman or Senator, no - I don't know what you're talking about when you try to blame him, for the shortcomings of the previous leadership in Washington.
I worked for a corp that went through a capital group like Bain, and yes, it was tough. But before that, it was also tough, as idiots running the company, ran it right into the ground. Every year that was another two or three rounds of lay-offs, and this went on and on. Without the help of the capital group, the corporation I worked for, would have been bankrupt, simply.
The thing is, business markets are always changing. You can't say "we make a good product, so we'll always have a job here". No, you can't be sure of that. Things change, new products are introduced, new technologies are discovered. In my case, SONY came into the field, and just blew us away - HUGE market clout. Plus we had poor managers and management running the company.
When your leaders sign a treaty to permit cheap 3rd world labor, to manufacture our goods and sell it to us, do you really believe it will have NO impact on our jobs, and on companies?
Can you see competing with a labor force working for $2-$5 dollars a day? Of course not, but that is what OUR federal gov't, signed us up to do. :mad:
There have been thousands of companies who have moved overseas or down to South America, in whole, or in part. It's beyond ridiculous to point to ONE company moving overseas 12 years after Romney left from Blain Capital, and say "See! He shouldn't be President, he caused this company to move to China!"
That's not being reasonable, and you know it. Yes, it's tough being RIFF'd - been there, got the T shirt.
A capitalist society is not a fair society (no society is, so nothing new), but those RIFF'd employees should move on and see what they can do NOW, not stand around, waving signs, feeling sorry for themselves.
Santorum isn't in the running anymore. I didn't care for him when he was,
Completely irrelevant is what you think about Santorum. But again, avoiding a reality that you cannot honestly dispute. The Pope called for Church doctrine imposed on American law. And Santorum agreed. So you pretend Santorum, et al did not say that? Imposing religion on the American people is an extremism ideological principle.
Does not matter what you think. You demonstrate the extremism that Romney must entertain to be elected. You represent baggage that, if eliminated, would make a Romney presidency acceptable.
"A conservative, liberal, and moderate walks into a bar. The bartender says, "Hi Mitt". " Romney must entertain extremism that he once completely rejected. Extremists so dominate that even Romney cannot be honest. Honesty, as so many demonstrated, clearly has not been your strong suit here. Did we not learn anything from George Jr?
You even blamed George Jr's 2007 recession on Dodd-Frank created in July 2010. No informed person could make that mistake. An ideologue. Conclusions made; then facts are invented. Dodd-Frank created George Jr's recession? A perfect example of ideological reasoning. And that is the point. Romney's baggage is ideologues - that you demonstrate.
Extremism is a greatest threat to America, its allies, America's relationship with it allies, the avoidance of war, the anti-nuclear proliferation treaty, another Cold War, economic health, an increasing American standard of living, and the innovations necessary to create solutions to all of our problems.
Romney has a problem that McCain had. That is the point. You demonstrate the baggage that Romney brings to the White House.
You demonstrate how dangerous a Romney presidency would be for everyone in America and the world. It is not a pretty picture - as if we ignore disasters created by George Jr to do it all over again. Because Limbaugh said it was good. That is the point. You demonstrate the rhetoric and lies found in an extremist political agenda.
It was no accident that you lied about a 2007 George Jr recession created by a 2010 law. That mistake is only possible when your conclusion was made by ignoring reality and well known facts.
Nobody is going to prove otherwise to you. That is the point. Extremists have conclusion by even ignoring facts and reality. The people that Romney, unfortunately, brings to the White House.
Completely irrelevant is what you think about Santorum.
I agree -- that's why I don't bother thinking about Santorum. He was too right wing for me, and I knew he would be too right wing for the country.
But again, avoiding a reality that you cannot honestly dispute. The Pope called for Church doctrine imposed on American law. And Santorum agreed. So you pretend Santorum, et al did not say that? Imposing religion on the American people is an extremism ideological principle.
I keep asking you to support your argument that the Pope called for Church doctrine to be imposed on American law.
You keep avoiding it -- because it isn't true??
Does not matter what you think. You demonstrate the extremism that Romney must entertain to be elected. You represent baggage that, if eliminated, would make a Romney presidency acceptable.
I'm pragmatic, not extreme. If Obama's policies worked, I'd say "Hallelujah!", and vote for him.
But they haven't worked.
Romney has a problem that McCain had. That is the point. You demonstrate the baggage that Romney brings to the White House.
You demonstrate how dangerous a Romney presidency would be for everyone in America and the world. It is not a pretty picture - as if we ignore disasters created by George Jr to do it all over again. Because Limbaugh said it was good. That is the point. You demonstrate the rhetoric and lies found in an extremist political agenda.
So bending the constitution every way he pleases, doesn't make Obama an extremist? Building more national debt than any President EVER, doesn't make him an extremist? Taking over the health care industry, doesn't make him an extremist?
Get out!
It was no accident that you lied about a 2007 George Jr recession created by a 2010 law. That mistake is only possible when your conclusion was made by ignoring reality and well known facts.
Nobody is going to prove otherwise to you. That is the point. Extremists have conclusion by even ignoring facts and reality. The people that Romney, unfortunately, brings to the White House.
Nope, I just had the wrong name of the bill, on my mind at the time. The current crisis was caused by a change in the fed law and policies, designed to enable a much greater percentage of home ownership.
Congressman Barney Franks was on the committee that oversaw Freddie Mac and Fanney Mae, and testified just six months before the housing market crash, that both these agencies were in good sound financial health. Of course, that was a lie, and they had to be bailed out, shortly thereafter.
That, and the derivatives from Wall St. (which totaled more than a TRILLION dollars of liability), brought about this economic problem.
There were other actions by the feds that helped bring it about, as well, but they were relatively minor.
its hilarious that the entire rest of the developed world regards Obama as a center-right moderate and yet you think he's some kind of extremist.
Obama is extremely moderate. He more than sold out the left wing of the party - he threw the left wing under the bus by extending the disastrous Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, by gutting health care reform by passing what was, four years ago, a CONSERVATIVE plan for insurance mandates without a public option, by expanding extrajudicial execution of even American citizens abroad, by refusing to close Gitmo...
Anywhere else in the western world, Obama would be a moderate conservative. Only in the minds of right-wing nutcases like you, Adak, is Obama even remotely extremist.
I must admit, over here we all get the giggleshits when American pundits refer to Obama as a 'socialist'.
I must admit, over here we all get the giggleshits when American pundits refer to Obama as a 'socialist'.
The GOP can't use "communist" to scare voters any more, so the new boogeyman is a "socialist".
snip--
Our fiscal policies MUST be conservative, however. We just CAN'T keep spending a Trillion dollars we do not have, and have to borrow it from somewhere else, and then pay interest on it.
If that debt interest should ever increase by just a couple percent, we'd be in SERIOUS difficulty!!
I agree with you about the unsustainability of a policy that spends a trillion dollars a year more than we collect in revenues. We agree on that point, but I feel our views diverge sharply immediately after that agreement.
glatt's right. go re-read his post.
Also, the interest on any debt we have already incurred is fixed. It doesn't "increase by just a couple percent". Any increase in our borrowing costs will be known at the time we borrow, and frankly is set by the world attitude about the safety and reliability of return for money invested in Treasury Bonds. Do you know how much it costs to borrow this money? Take a guess.
The way I understood him to be explaining it in the debate:
1. Reduce ‘individual’ tax rate
...a. Individuals in households pay less
...b. Individuals who own small businesses pay less
2. Tax revenues decreased at this point
3. Small businesses stimulated at this point
...a. Resulting in tax revenues going back up
4. Also, deductions eliminated for households
...a. Households end up paying the same amount
BigV, post #211, did you see? A few pages back...
Did a little digging... wow this was buried quite deeply.
For reference, here are the points 2 and 3:
Firstly did this all make sense to you, with the exception of points 2 and 3; and to be clear, was it a point '2, a.' that you needed--or a new point '3, a.' moving the current point '3, a.' to '3, b.' ??? I don't see a gap, but if you can point it out I will try to do a better job.
Flint, thanks for your patience. Here's what I see in your first description.
1. Reduce ‘individual’ tax rate
check. for the purposes of this thought exercise, let's start here.
...a. Individuals in households pay less
and this logically follows
...b. Individuals who own small businesses pay less
and this logically follows.
2. Tax revenues decreased at this point
paying less taxes logically produces this result, fine.
3. Small businesses stimulated at this point
this is where I get stuck.
I think you're saying this small business owned by someone who gets their income from that business will have more money since less money is being paid in taxes. Ok. BUT. What is this stimulation? There aren't more sales (no logical argument being made for this proposition). More money isn't *coming in*, they're just not paying as much in taxes. What's the business going to do with this marginal amount of additional money? How is this stimulation? There's no way the amount would be enough to justify hiring someone. I have read that the cost of an employee ranges from 1.25 to 1.4 times the base salary.
What is SBA's definition of a small business concern?
SBA defines a small business concern as one that is independently owned and operated, is organized for profit, and is not dominant in its field. Depending on the industry, size standard eligibility is based on the average number of employees for the preceding twelve months or on sales volume averaged over a three-year period. Examples of SBA general size standards include the following:
Manufacturing: Maximum number of employees may range from 500 to 1500, depending on the type of product manufactured;
Wholesaling: Maximum number of employees may range from 100 to 500 depending on the particular product being provided;
Services: Annual receipts may not exceed $2.5 to $21.5 million, depending on the particular service being provided;
Retailing: Annual receipts may not exceed $5.0 to $21.0 million, depending on the particular product being provided;
General and Heavy Construction: General construction annual receipts may not exceed $13.5 to $17 million, depending on the type of construction;
Special Trade Construction: Annual receipts may not exceed $7 million; and
Agriculture: Annual receipts may not exceed $0.5 to $9.0 million, depending on the agricultural product.
hm... well, sidetracking myself, perhaps a "small business" could have a tax burden that 20% of which would represent enough savings to pay for a new employee... maybe. However! I find it *counterintuitive* to say the least that the first thing a business would want to do with newfound cash is to hire new people. Business are built to increase profit, not to expand employment opportunities. Their reason for existence is to increase profits and they take the path or least resistance to do so.
But I digress.
All this is moot, since Romney's plan is to make the changes to the tax code REVENUE NEUTRAL. This is service to his pledge to avoid increasing the deficit, which would be a logical result of lower tax revenues as we have previously established. So, respectfully, [strike]your point[/strike] Romney's point that businesses would be stimulated by the [strike]increased[/strike] unchanged revenue/tax burden is supported by wishful thinking only. This is my primary complaint.
...a. Resulting in tax revenues going back up
by "broadening the base", meaning more money is subject to taxation by the result of fewer deductions. No one telling this story has provided any understandable, reasonable justification for the growth that is required to fulfill these promises. It's like 1 + 1 + 1 = 5. It just doesn't add up, when you look at each point. It's fine to just assert "5", but it's not rational.
4. Also, deductions eliminated for households
Ok, this is the base broadening part I mentioned a moment ago...
...a. Households end up paying the same amount
But this doesn't follow logically in my mind. How can households pay the same amount of tax if they have fewer deductions, meaning their taxable income is greater? Or are you saying broader base, fewer deductions, lower rates, same tax amount?
Never mind the math(s).
4.a is explicitly contradictory with 2. Slipping in "also" and "end up" doesn't help.
...
I find it *counterintuitive* to say the least that the first thing a business would want to do with newfound cash is to hire new people. Business are built to increase profit, not to expand employment opportunities. Their reason for existence is to increase profits and they take the path or least resistance to do so.
...
This is true--as people will follow human nature, businesses will do what it is natural for them to do. This is the fundamental idea behind policies designed to 'piggyback' on people's natural tendencies--as opposed to 'engineering' results.
For example, business A. pays slightly less in taxes, they will invest this in growing their business, thus growing their profit (assuming the same margin, getting 'bigger' produces more revenue). So, they add production, increase output, and service new customers. Every part of the industry they are a part of incrementally increases in capacity.
Is it a direct a direct correlation--they made enough extra to justify hiring a set amount of additional staff? No, probably they will try to get more productivity out of their existing employees, have them work longer hours and such.
But the point is that when business capacity grows, at some point you will need additional workers to do that work. The industry certainly doesn't exist just to hire people, but all of those businesses will need to hire people to get that extra stuff done. The bigger they are, the more they make, the more workers they need.
That's the basic idea--businesses WANT to grow so they can make more money!
Oh, and when they make more money, there is more to tax.
...
How can households pay the same amount of tax if they have fewer deductions, meaning their taxable income is greater?
The way I understood it is because the rate is lower.
4.a is explicitly contradictory with 2. Slipping in "also" and "end up" doesn't help.
My apologies, I couldn't figure out a good way to diagram that Point 1. and Point 4. happen
at the same time. If the tax rate going down and the deductions being eliminated happen at the same time, they cancel each other out--there is no net effect.
Theoretically, mind you. I'm just trying to explain what I thout the idea was, since I did not find it to be confusing, but rather simple.
For example, business A. pays slightly less in taxes, they will invest this in growing their business, thus growing their profit (assuming the same margin, getting 'bigger' produces more revenue). So, they add production, increase output, and service new customers. Every part of the industry they are a part of incrementally increases in capacity.
I question this line of thinking because American (non-financial) corporations are sitting on $5 trillion, yes that's a T, in cash reserves.
But we're talking about small businesses--think Hank Hill's boss on King of the Hill. Buck Strickland wants to make more money to spend on gambling and hookers. He can't increase his margin, so to make more he has to get bigger. He has to add customers, he has to increase capacity, and he ends up needing another truck driver to make those extra deliveries.
You need more customers in order to expand. Businesses don't just expand because they have extra money, they expand because demand is higher for their product/service (and they can't squeeze any more out of their current resources).
And that means more cash is needed in the consumer's pocket. In most cases, small business customers are the middle class. Give the middle class more cash and they will buy more with it which will give small businesses reason to expand.
Right now, corporate cash is at an all time high. Why? Not enough demand for products to justify expansion. Why? Not enough cash in the middle class's pocket with which to buy more products.
You need more customers in order to expand. Businesses don't just expand because they have extra money, they expand because demand is higher for their product/service (and they can't squeeze any more out of their current resources).
I'm sure that is a valid variable here. I'm not an economist. But I do know that businesses want to grow and get bigger, and that it takes an investment in increasing capacity (buying a new truck, machine, or computer, for example) in order to get bigger. That takes money.
Another problem is banks sitting on money they are afraid to lend. I think if the propane demand went up, the bank would lend Buck Strickland the money to grow his business meeting that demand. Serving small business has been the traditional roll of local banks, and it allows them to pay interest to their local depositors, which helps the local community.
You need more customers in order to expand. Businesses don't just expand because they have extra money, they expand because demand is higher for their product/service (and they can't squeeze any more out of their current resources).
And that means more cash is needed in the consumer's pocket.
I'm sure that is a valid variable here. I'm not an economist. But I do know that businesses want to grow and get bigger, and that it takes an investment in increasing capacity (buying a new truck, machine, or computer, for example) in order to get bigger. That takes money.
Stormie is correct. The myth that the Republicans are pushing this election is that small businesses are the job creators. That's not true. Businesses are reactionary. They get busy and they hire more help. They get busy when the consumers start buying their product or service more. Consumers buy more when they have more money to spend, (or feel like they have more money to spend and are willing to charge it.)
Sure, businesses always want to grow and expand. But if they are in a mature field, that growth is always through taking market share from other companies. That does not create jobs. If company A has 20 employees and competitor B has 20 employees, and they both are selling widgets, then for company A to grow and expand to 30 employees, competitor B will have to lose customers and lay off 10 employees. Net job gain zero. In fact, to take market share, often a company does it through being more efficient and offering a product at a lower price. "More efficient" usually means fewer employees. So you actually end up with fewer jobs total.
The only way to get the entire pie to be larger is to get new customers who weren't buying widgets before. The only way to do that is to invent a new widget (like an iPhone) or make the widget so cheaply that not only do you take market share from competitors, you get customers who were sitting on the sidelines previously.
The most effective way to stimulate the economy is to get consumers to start spending.
For example, business A. pays slightly less in taxes, they will invest this in growing their business, thus growing their profit (assuming the same margin, getting 'bigger' produces more revenue). So, they add production, increase output, and service new customers. Every part of the industry they are a part of incrementally increases in capacity.
But business expenses are deductible, so if they want to invest in growing their business, they can do that pretax anyway.
Plus, if a "small business" is not only making $250,000 in
taxable income, but making enough
over $250,000 that the extra money taxed at that rate is significant, they are not the local corner store that politicians want you to picture when they use the phrase "small business".
We have a small business problem in this country.
The problem is that small business in this country doesn't work.
Maybe we could start with rigorous antitrust legislation and action to break up monopolizing or otherwise market-dominating multinationals that siphon money from the poor and working-class to offshore tax havens and to Chinese massive-scale industry.
Maybe we could tax the wal-marts and the apples and the fast-food conglomerates and the comcasts and the financial giants and use that money to subsidize and otherwise help local businesses fill some parts of those same economic niches across the country.
Maybe we could guarantee living wages to hourly or otherwise marginalized workers, giving them the option of shopping local instead of buying chinese crap from wal-mart.
Maybe we could fix the food deserts in our country by making sure EVERY American has access to affordable HEALTHY options, helping to close the health care gap between economic classes and slow the ridiculous rise in health care costs nationally.
Maybe we could put enough money into our cities to build the communities from the inside, with local, small, neighboorhood businesses, instead of outside businesses taking money back out of the community and to the affluent suburbs or gentrified neighborhoods.
Maybe we could work to end the highly racialized nature of our schooling system, and fund education in this country well enough to make sure every American has a REAL opportunity to learn not only job skills, and not only standardized test questions, but also civics, critical thinking, and other more broadly applicable skills that will leave them ready for the job market or for college.
Maybe while we're at it we could reform the for-profit predatory system of colleges that exist only to cash in on the guaranteed student loan program, and the banks that make the profit while the government assumes the risk, by regulating the rising costs of both private and public education, and subsidizing schools through GOVERNMENT loan programs, where the GOVERNMENT keeps the interest profits, instead of the banks.
I could keep going for an hour, if I didn't have to get dressed and ready to leave for class in fifteen minutes. Every one of those things would have broad stimulative effects on the economy, and have either a short-term or a long-term revenue-boosting effect as the tax base broadens. Keynesian economics, bitches. Shit works and always has.
Stormie is correct. The myth that the Republicans are pushing this election is that small businesses are the job creators. That's not true. Businesses are reactionary. They get busy and they hire more help. They get busy when the consumers start buying their product or service more. Consumers buy more when they have more money to spend, (or feel like they have more money to spend and are willing to charge it.)
Sure, businesses always want to grow and expand. But if they are in a mature field, that growth is always through taking market share from other companies. That does not create jobs. If company A has 20 employees and competitor B has 20 employees, and they both are selling widgets, then for company A to grow and expand to 30 employees, competitor B will have to lose customers and lay off 10 employees. Net job gain zero. In fact, to take market share, often a company does it through being more efficient and offering a product at a lower price. "More efficient" usually means fewer employees. So you actually end up with fewer jobs total.
The only way to get the entire pie to be larger is to get new customers who weren't buying widgets before. The only way to do that is to invent a new widget (like an iPhone) or make the widget so cheaply that not only do you take market share from competitors, you get customers who were sitting on the sidelines previously.
The most effective way to stimulate the economy is to get consumers to start spending.
Agreed. Both supply (companies investing) and demand (customers spending) are important but I would argue that the supply side is not as widely recognized today so needs to be emphasized more.
I do want to make the point that in response to an increase in demand, companies can increase supply in two ways: hiring more workers or making their current workers more efficient. Historically, technology moved slow enough that increasing productivity wasn't an option but I think we are approaching the threshold where it may be cheaper (in general) for companies to increase supply by simply increasing productivity, not the amount of workers. I think this, along with technology allowing lower skilled workers to replace higher skilled workers (think manager positions), explains much of our current economic "recovery".
Honestly, my generation will have to deal with a lot of problems (national debt, rising inequality, global competition, climate change), but automation and increases in productivity may be the hardest hitting since nothing else can be solved without a strong economy. Also, it seems economists have their heads in the ground and scream "neo-luddite" every time someone suggest the problem.
The full details of Romney's tax plan:
http://www.romneytaxplan.com/So if it's not locked down it's free stuff? Laws do not cover everything. As a matter of fact, the more libertarian and tea partiers are arguing for less laws. The assumption is that government protections are unnecessary because the free market and innate human compassion will provide the necessary checks and balances.
You're mixing business policy with charity/welfare policy, and throwing in a little Conservative vs. Liberal philosophy?
Wow! Can you narrow that down to something more specific?
Mr. Romney proved this wrong. If there was the least fiscal advantage to destroying companies or moving them overseas, even companies that were stable and profitable before being loaded with leveraged debt, then these companies were torn down.
"The least fiscal advantage", I take big exception to. You don't take over a company and take on that level of risk, for a small chance of an upturn. If the company wasn't able to jump up a BIG step (in the opinion of Bain Capital), then Bain Capital wouldn't have been there.
In the primaries Gingrich pilloried Romeny for this. This was not 'creative destruction', this was destruction by loophole.
Yes, and Gingrich's association with the truth, suffered because of it. He was working with hardball politics, and that's how the game is played. Politics is not a particularly polite field of endeavor. ;) The voters eventually saw it was b.s., and let him go. He had his own skeletons in the closet, from the way he treated his first wife and son, after he left them. (Quite mean spirited, if I do say so. Gingrich is NOT a nice guy.) He is a smart guy, but his problem is, he has a lot of wacko idea's, stacked right next to the great idea's. When he reaches for one, he frequently gets the other kind.
The GOP can't use "communist" to scare voters any more, so the new boogeyman is a "socialist".
Then how would you describe him, to an American? He's MUCH MORE left than a "liberal" has normally been described. I agree he's obviously not a communist.
I like the term "statist", because he's trying to move the fed state, into every part of our lives.
And I don't WANT the state into every aspect of my life. That requires a LOT of tax money to support it, and THAT leaves me with both little money, and little freedom.
Does "little money" and "little freedom" sound like something you want?
The most effective way to stimulate the economy is to get consumers to start spending
And consumers can't spend money, unless they HAVE money to spend!
Which is why we need JOBS, and yes, small businesses are the most efficient (fastest), new jobs creators, in the private sector.
It's not the Republican party's theory, it's straight out of economics. I understand your hesitancy to accept it, because it's a FACT, and liberals don't generally mix well with facts.
Businesses change as they compete, and sometimes get into entirely new markets, or new ways to serve their same market. The competition is a fantastic way for us consumers, to get better products and services, and THAT also gets the money moving -----> ZOOM!!
Then how would you describe him, to an American? He's MUCH MORE left than a "liberal" has normally been described. I agree he's obviously not a communist.
I like the term "statist", because he's trying to move the fed state, into every part of our lives.
And I don't WANT the state into every aspect of my life. That requires a LOT of tax money to support it, and THAT leaves me with both little money, and little freedom.
Does "little money" and "little freedom" sound like something you want?
He's not the one trying to put the state into womens' bodies.
Then how would you describe him, to an American? He's MUCH MORE left than a "liberal" has normally been described. I agree he's obviously not a communist.
MUCH LESS left than a liberal.
Center to center right. It's hard to think of something he's proposed or done that wasn't proposed or done by the moderate Republicans of yesteryear. The Overton window strategy has worked; Obama's a big disappointment to liberals, but he'll get the votes because in every way Obama failed them, Romney's worse.
It's not the Republican party's theory, it's straight out of economics. I understand your hesitancy to accept it, because it's a FACT, and liberals don't generally mix well with facts.
I thought you said you weren't an economist?
Point is, making rich people richer does not directly translate to "job creation".
And yeah, I'd probably call Obama a centrist. Certainly not a liberal of any flavor.
It's not the Republican party's theory, it's straight out of economics.
Yes, because as an academic discipline, economics is a politics/ideology free zone.
Economics is a little like history: one part 'science' to one part interpretation and one part art.
Agreed. Both supply (companies investing) and demand (customers spending) are important but I would argue that the supply side is not as widely recognized today so needs to be emphasized more.
I do want to make the point that in response to an increase in demand, companies can increase supply in two ways: hiring more workers or making their current workers more efficient. Historically, technology moved slow enough that increasing productivity wasn't an option but I think we are approaching the threshold where it may be cheaper (in general) for companies to increase supply by simply increasing productivity, not the amount of workers. I think this, along with technology allowing lower skilled workers to replace higher skilled workers (think manager positions), explains much of our current economic "recovery".
--snip
this.
Stormie is correct. The myth that the Republicans are pushing this election is that small businesses are the job creators. That's not true. Businesses are reactionary. They get busy and they hire more help. They get busy when the consumers start buying their product or service more. Consumers buy more when they have more money to spend, (or feel like they have more money to spend and are willing to charge it.)
--snip--
The most effective way to stimulate the economy is to get consumers to start spending.
this.
You need more customers in order to expand. Businesses don't just expand because they have extra money, they expand because demand is higher for their product/service (and they can't squeeze any more out of their current resources).
And that means more cash is needed in the consumer's pocket. In most cases, small business customers are the middle class. Give the middle class more cash and they will buy more with it which will give small businesses reason to expand.
--snip
this.
But we're talking about small businesses--think Hank Hill's boss on King of the Hill. Buck Strickland wants to make more money to spend on gambling and hookers. He can't increase his margin, so to make more he has to get bigger. He has to add customers, he has to increase capacity, and he ends up needing another truck driver to make those extra deliveries.
Let me ask you a question Flint, regarding supply and demand in our economy at this time. Buck Strickland aside for the moment, do you think the current limit on our economic growth is related to--in any way--insufficient supply? Like, there's not enough stuff out there to buy? Empty store shelves, stores that could sell it if only they had it? Not enough propane, anywhere??
I'll tell you what it looks like from here, in my house, and in the economic lives of everyone I know. We're all spending *as fast as we can*. There is plenty of supply, there's plenty of demand, what there isn't is plenty of money. The balance of money has tipped dramatically toward businesses and away from workers, spenders, buyers, customers.
Big_V. This lecture by Elizabeth Warren (1998) may interest you. It talks about why the middle class does not have enough money to spend. It is long, 1 hour, but extremely informative. The first 10 minutes are introductions so that can be skipped.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A
[QUOTE=BigV]
...
How can households pay the same amount of tax if they have fewer deductions, meaning their taxable income is greater?
The way I understood it is because the rate is lower.[/QUOTE]
this is the core problem I have understanding Romney's tax plan. He says reduce rates, reduce deductions, revenue neutral. Where is this "more money" coming from?
BigV, follow the link for the answer.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/10/the-6-studies-paul-ryan-cited-prove-mitt-romneys-tax-plan-is-impossible/263541/
Edit: A second article:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-12/the-final-word-on-mitt-romney-s-tax-plan.html
Basically, you assume unrealistic job growth or you change the definition of the middle class...
ph45! I have neglected to thank you for this *extremely informative post*. Thank you. They are good articles, no crap, lots of detail well explained.
Big_V. This lecture by Elizabeth Warren (1998) may interest you. It talks about why the middle class does not have enough money to spend. It is long, 1 hour, but extremely informative. The first 10 minutes are introductions so that can be skipped.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A
have started the vid, but it's gonna be preempted by the debate. I'll report later though. thanks.
MUCH LESS left than a liberal.
Center to center right. It's hard to think of something he's proposed or done that wasn't proposed or done by the moderate Republicans of yesteryear. The Overton window strategy has worked; Obama's a big disappointment to liberals, but he'll get the votes because in every way Obama failed them, Romney's worse.
Obama has stated that under his system of cap and trade, our electric rates "would necessarily skyrocket". He wants to also run all our coal fired electric power plants so "they would go bankrupt".
I call that VERY liberal.
But today, we have YET ANOTHER stimulus money being flushed down the shitter, to the tune of 249 Million Dollars!
Let's hear it for Obama's stimulus plan!!
Battery maker A123 files for bankruptcy protection
By TOM KRISHER, AP Auto Writer – 5 hours ago
DETROIT (AP) — After years of struggling in the nascent market for electric cars, battery maker A123 Systems Inc. filed for bankruptcy protection Tuesday.
The filing drew criticism from Republicans who claim the Obama administration has wasted millions of taxpayer dollars on alternative energy companies like A123.
The company received a $249 million Department of Energy grant three years ago with high hopes that it would help foster a U.S. battery industry. At the time, the country was far behind the world leaders, Korea and China.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hmY_CO-lqhHjo4OgDuzv5bZnBsWw?docId=3f2e2787ac3f478ab96f9fb2b7fac279
WHEN, WHEN, WHEN, will Obama stop flushing our money, down the toilet, by the hundreds of millions of dollars? :mad:
Cap and trade was a Republican invention.
Want to try again?
Adak, you can call it what you will. That doesn't change what it is, or isn't.
I could keep going for an hour ....
Not only could I spend a full hour listing bullet points - i could write for an hour each about each of them. Why can't that ever be something I do?
Here's something I posted on my tumblr as a slightly but only slightly tongue-in-cheek post at 3:30 in the morning, when i should be sleeping so I can do my homework in the morning but instead I'm drinking a tripel ale and tequila. [COLOR="white"]and smoking up.[/COLOR] My middle school ex I've been skype[COLOR="White"]fuck[/COLOR]ing with the last few weeks is texting flirtily with me again but very slowly while she writes her thoreau essay due tomorrow and, well, i'm not going to sleep until I know if she's gonna take a study break.
So, instead, I'm listening to the first four Ramones albums [COLOR="white"][Ramones, Leave Home, Rocket to Russia, Road to Ruin][/COLOR] in chronological order and indulging vices - [COLOR="white"]i think im going to have a cigar in a minute[/COLOR] - and #nightblogging on tumblr.
the vast majority of jobs worked by American workers are jobs that don’t “come home” with you.
When your shift or your day or your hours finish, you clock out and go home. Or, you get salary plus overtime, and you get paid extra in bonuses or manager’s raises or OT or whatever for time you spend outside of work doing work-related things, or your salary reflects your complicated and demanding schedule.
Why are the only major, inevitable exceptions to this…. Teaching and being a student?
Students do homework. Teachers spend time out of class grading and preparing and everything else. Arguably teachers SHOULD BE and in theory (but not practice) ARE paid a salary that takes out-of-class time into account.
Why are students, for 12-16-20+ years, educated in a way that assumes so much extra time outside of class - especially in high school/college/beyond - writing essays and doing homework, when that is NOT at ALL a skill applicable to working life in general, and not useful to the vast majority of the potential workforce, leaving especially those who can’t afford higher education in a situation where public education yet again fails to adequately prepare them for working life, reenforcing systemic patterns of disadvantage that add to the problem of vast numbers of people being unemployed and underemployed while major corporations sit on vast reserves of money?
TAGS:
#[ibby] really really does not like doing her homework #[ibby] would rather rant about our education/employment problem than actually do homework #this is nearly a standard 250-word page long thats a LOT for a 3:30am post #imagine if i cared even half as much about doing homework as about ranting on tumblr #nightblogging
oh my god i sound like tw [COLOR="White"]on drugs[/COLOR] what is going on?
[COLOR="white"]also i'm loving this Deadpool-style two-voice commentary[/COLOR] agh somebody make me go to bed i have class tomorrow
Cap and trade was a Republican invention.
Want to try again?
Oh, I'm sure a national tax on a product of any kind, is a Republican invention, because we WANT the government to get more of our money.
You sure know your Conservative ideas, don't you?:rolleyes:
Are you drinking, smoking some wacky tobacky, or what?
No, really, dude. Cap and trade was the CONSERVATIVE response to a FLAT CAP on emissions! Cap and trade was not the deal between two parties, or a liberal idea - it was a REPUBLICAN plan built of a compromise between free-market Ayn Rand lunatics who wanted to seem to want a market alternative, hence the TRADE part of Cap and Trade, and the INSANE FRINGE - that now DOMINATES the republican party - that denies the proof of wide-scale climate change and didn't see why caps should be there in the first place and wanted to subvert them as much as possible.
Learn your modern fucking political history, you idiotic shill.
Are you drinking, smoking some wacky tobacky, or what?
I'm doing both, and I'm STILL right. And I dunno how old you are, but I'd guess by your get-off-my-lawn embarrassing-older-relative political positions that compared to you, i'm just a kid. and I'm STILL RIGHT.
why don't you take a flying fuck at a rolling donut?
Adak, you can call it what you will. That doesn't change what it is, or isn't.
I will certainly agree.
And what we have here, is 3 1/2 years of failed fiscal policies.
If Obama could have gotten his fiscal policies smartened up, he'd be a shoe-in for re-election. But now? It will be a very close race.
The races in the House of Rep. and the Senate, will also be very important. If I have to listen to Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, I'll be investing in earplugs and noise cancelling headphones. :p:
I believe they could use Pelosi for gentle coercion, down at Gitmo. A few hours listening to her gobbletygook, and they'll be jumping at the chance of confessing their crimes, just to make that irritating sound of her voice, stop. :D
because the current house isn't a textbook case of failed leadership or anything.
Clinton/Pelosi 2016 #misandry 4 lyf #fuckthepatriarchy #fuckthekyriarchy
Both the in the House in DC and in republican state houses across the country the focus has been jobs jobs jobs by which they mean ABORTION. There have been more anti-abortion bills introduced this session than in ANY other session in the HISTORY of our nation. If that isn't an utter failure of national leadership and policy I don't know what is. On the other hand, landmark reforms of health care, fair pay, non-discrimination, and, from the end of the recession, the sharpest rise in private sector job growth since the WPA and the War on Poverty without growing government jobs sounds like Obama knows what's right for this country.
Oh, I'm sure a national tax on a product of any kind, is a Republican invention, because we WANT the government to get more of our money.
Yes. C. Boyden Gray, a Reagan and GHW Bush lawyer, first signed into law by GHW Bush.
this is the core problem I have understanding Romney's tax plan. He says reduce rates, reduce deductions, revenue neutral. Where is this "more money" coming from?
A. The rate is a rate of income being taxed, so when you reduce rates there is more money left to individuals as income, and less money received by the government as taxes.
B. Deductions are (in effect) a method of giving money back, so when you reduce deductions, there is less money received by individuals as returns, and more money recieved by the government as taxes.
Whereas A. and B. have opposite effects, the net effect is neutral (theoretcially--I'm not arguing feasability, just describing a simple flowchart), meaning no change. Neutral doesn't mean more.
I'm still struggling to identify the area which is difficult to understand.
Neutral? Then what's the point?
When you make $50,000, your mortgage deduction is a very big deal.
When you make $50 million, not so much.
Neutral? Then what's the point?
Good question. The point, as I understand it (and insomuch as this is a valid theory) is that since tax rates have gone down, business has been stimulated. Tax revenues have gone up, beause of the increase in commerce. But individuals are paying the same amount, since rate and deduction changes have offset each other.
Keep in mind, all I am responding to is the comment that Romney's tax plan is incomprehensible. I don't think it is.
A. The rate is a rate of income being taxed, so when you reduce rates there is more money left to individuals as income, and less money received by the government as taxes.
B. Deductions are (in effect) a method of giving money back, so when you reduce deductions, there is less money received by individuals as returns, and more money recieved by the government as taxes.
Whereas A. and B. have opposite effects, the net effect is neutral (theoretcially--I'm not arguing feasability, just describing a simple flowchart), meaning no change. Neutral doesn't mean more.
I'm still struggling to identify the area which is difficult to understand.
deductions reduce the amount of income that is subject to taxation. a deduction is an amount of money you've spent during the year on a given thing(s). If those things fall into certain categories, the amount spent can be deducted from your gross income, repeat as necessary, until you get to your adjusted gross income, the amount that is subject to taxation. deductions are like exemptions, a certain kind and amount of income is exempted from taxation.
more deductions, more exemptions, more money excluded from taxation, and for a given rate of taxation, less tax collected.
by eliminating deductions, fewer deductions, fewer exemptions, less money excluded from taxation, for a given rate of taxation, more tax collected.
***
The way I understood him to be explaining it in the debate:
1. Reduce ‘individual’ tax rate
...a. Individuals in households pay less
...b. Individuals who own small businesses pay less
2. Tax revenues decreased at this point
3. Small businesses stimulated at this point
...a. Resulting in tax revenues going back up
4. Also, deductions eliminated for households
...a. Households end up paying the same amount
So. "Neutral doesn't mean more", neutral is neutral, ok, ok. Then where does *this* more money (in the pockets of people) come from?
Romney's said he'd reduce the tax rate. He's said he'd eliminate deductions to make the change revenue neutral. How is this going to make it possible for people to pay less in taxes?
What is it? Is it paying less in taxes or is it revenue neutral?
Romney's said he'd reduce the tax rate.
He's said he'd eliminate deductions to make the change revenue neutral.
How is this going to make it possible for people to pay less in taxes?
Revenue neutral may mean (for Romney) the total $ of revenue stays the same.
So if an upper part of the middle class pays less:
---(e.g., no taxes on stock dividends, interest income, capital gains,
no taxes on estates handed down to family members, etc.)
and bottom half pays more:
---(e.g., loss of deductions for home mortage, charity, education, etc.)
to Romney, if the $ amount remains the same, this is "revenue neutral"...
But for those in the bottom half, somehow it doesn't quite feel that way.
Well, "revenue neutral" means changing the tax structure so that the revenue stream for the government remains unchanged. If Romney will not raise taxes on the wealthy, the only other option is to raise them on the non-wealthy.
Sounded to me, last night, like he is trying to claim that he isn't "raising taxes" on the non-wealthy, instead, he's eliminating loopholes.
Same effect on your take-home pay, if you are non-wealthy.
snip--
Keep in mind, all I am responding to is the comment that Romney's tax plan is incomprehensible. I don't think it is.
I know you're talking, we are all talking about Romney's plan, not Flint's political philosophies.
Romney's tax plan is NOT incomprehensible. Romney's tax plan is arithmetically impossible.
He's said things that taken together are contradictory--they can not all exist at the same time.
A guy walks up to a pretty girl at the club. "You're gorgeous! Let's go back to my place and I'll f*ck your brains out. I promise I'll respect you in the morning. Don't worry, your virginity will remain intact."
Not all can happen.
Romney's promised to reduce tax rates (by 20%).
Romney's promise to eliminate deductions by an equal amount (undefined--vagueness prevents precise calculations, so estimates are used).
Romney's promised to keep proportion of taxes paid by taxpayers in top 5% the same (60%).
Romney's promised to reduce the amount of taxes paid by the middle class ($200,000/year income).
Romney's promised to reduce the deficit (no amount given that I could find).
How can all of these be managed? No one has produced an explanation that provides room for all these promises.
What I take from this is that Romney tells the audience he's in front of the thing they want to hear. Fine, they all do that. But as the audiences change, the main story changes. Also fine, different people can have different high priorities. However, Romney's just the one guy, and if he's elected, he can only do one thing, produce one net result, and when the statements are incompatible, something's going to get broken. What promise will be broken?
What promise will be broken?
the promise that we're all going to live on planet Mormon (kudos to Els for that one)
Romney's going to do it all - make everything work and not cost us a dime, balance the budget, get people back to work, reduce taxes and...and...in what country is 200,000 the "middle class"- ? coz either I'm in the wrong damn country or I'm being butteffed. With no lube.
I know! We'll sell all the unwanted children women are forced to have to the Irish so they can eat them (they do that over there, you know. Nasty folk. Small hands. Smell like cabbage).
Romney will do what the Koch brothers tell him to do.
and what about this republican majority we've had for two years? why aren't things better now since they are BMOC?
Here's a fun fact:
Shortly after becoming governor of Mass., Mitt Romney was asked by a women's group, to hire more women for his administration. He didn't personally know any more that were qualified, but the women's groups had info on several qualified candidates.
And Mitt did - wound up with a high of 42% of his administration filled with women - which was the highest percentage in any state, at that time.
He didn't talk about it, he didn't canvass and run it by test voters, he didn't wait for some law to be passed to require it.
He just did it. Done! :cool:
What would you guess Obama's hiring rate for women in his administration is?
About 8%.
Now you know why smart women, are changing their preference for President, to Mitt Romney.
You haters can hate all you want, but if were a woman who needs a job, or one looking to move up and break into upper management.
Then you'd be voting for Mitt Romney, no doubt about it.
A lot of people, in order to climb that ladder, will sell their soul to the devil. That's nothing new. I just hope it doesn't hurt too much when they bang their heads on the ridiculously low glass ceiling.
You won't convince this smart woman that Romney gives two poos about any of us. You might convince some women like, I don't know, Ann's ilk that he cares greatly about women's issues. Unfortunately some haven't come such a long way baby and still have stars in their eyes, blinding any sense of reality. Who still believe that a man knows what is better for women than we emotional little ladies know.
Here's a fun fact:
Shortly after becoming governor of Mass., Mitt Romney was asked by a women's group, to hire more women for his administration.
That's accurate, and also the opposite of his claim during the debate, where he said that he had noticed the lack of women, and approached the women's groups to get his binders.
<snip>
You haters can hate all you want, ...
:lame:
A lot of people, in order to climb that ladder, will sell their soul to the devil. That's nothing new. I just hope it doesn't hurt too much when they bang their heads on the ridiculously low glass ceiling.
You won't convince this smart woman that Romney gives two poos about any of us. You might convince some women like, I don't know, Ann's ilk that he cares greatly about women's issues. Unfortunately some haven't come such a long way baby and still have stars in their eyes, blinding any sense of reality. Who still believe that a man knows what is better for women than we emotional little ladies know.
I don't have to convince anyone of anything. That's the beauty of Conservatism (and good Liberalism). The FACTS are right there, for you to see.
What state Governor has hired more women into his administration - and many of these jobs were SENIOR management positions.
Oh, It was Mitt Romney!
Not Obama with his daughter, who wants the glass ceiling removed - someday - but doesn't care enough to do it in his administration. NO, NO!
Mitt managed it, in one fell swoop.
There was no court order, no law was required, no focus groups had to be consulted, none of the hand-waving and hot air, that is SO COMMON with politicians.
If we don't elect Romney & Ryan in Nov., we will have missed a rare opportunity for a great President, and a great V.P., as well.
Strip clubs also hire a high % of women. They make a special effort to do it too.
]
What state Governor has hired more women into his administration - and many of these jobs were SENIOR management positions.
Oh, It was Mitt Romney! ]
About Mitt Romney's 'binders full of women'? Guess what. It's BS.That's a good article, but I :lol: at the ad for a speed dating site at the bottom!
thank god Ibby found that article. I heard about that bullshit last night but I'm notorious for not being able to link shit so thank you, Ibby, for that.
Mitt hired women for positions he didn't give a shit about and really, he just wants us all to vaccuum and make more Mormons. Kinda like the Catholic Church, really.
Now you know why smart women, are changing their preference for President, to Mitt Romney.
You haters can hate all you want, but if were a woman who needs a job, or one looking to move up and break into upper management.
Then you'd be voting for Mitt Romney, no doubt about it.
Here's another fun fact:
This smart woman will not be changing her preference and voting MR. In fact, plenty of other smart women feel the same. Actually, MR did more harm than good as far as the women's votes are concerned, during the debate.
Undoing gains
Never fails to astound me how different people can see the same thing so completely differently.
[YOUTUBE]ZLDPTaR0Wbo[/YOUTUBE]
Yeah. Silly thing to say, but I think he was led into it somewhat. It was a question about how he feels when his Dad is called a liar by Obama. Instinctive emotional response to an attack on his Dad.
An unfortunate thing to say, and possibly indicative of something unpleasant in the attitudes of Romney's people, but...equally likely to be indicative of nothing more than a strong sense of family loyalty coupled with a degree of rashness.
I have no problem with the son saying that. The way that debate was set up, with the audience in a circle around the combatants, and the combatants able to walk around each other, it really had the vibe of a boxing match. He verbalized what I think many people were feeling. That it was a fight.
I think what's more indicative of Romney's attitude is that he was a bully in school who was the ringleader to get a gang together to pick on a different kid, pin him down, and cut his hair off against his will.
Obama for another four years, would not be good - he's promised us more of the same policies that have not been effective at improving the economy. Also, he's burdened us with over a Trillion of dollars of debt, every year he's been in office.
You can't keep that up, I don't care WHAT. A monetary crisis the likes of which we have never seen, WILL be the sure result if we keep it up.
Mitt Romney will change things, and he knows business, and how to get it going. One thing he mentioned in the debate was supporting an eVerify hiring system, so illegals will not be drawn here to get a job. Living in a border city and state, that will be a BIG help for us.
Mitt will fix this problem, when many other politicians wouldn't, afraid it might hurt their popularity, and companies like the cheap labor illegals offer, and lobby to have it kept this way.
Bush, Obama, Clinton, etc. Nobody would implement eVerify, but Mitt Romney will - and that's the kind of positive change that we need to help limit this on-going illegal traffic across the border.
Y'know, from outside America looking in, it looks a lot like the Obama administration has managed to navigate very stormy economic seas and get the ship headed back in the right direction.
Romney and his ilk are part of the financial and commercial casino culture that all but shattered the global economy. In no way is it at all wise to invite them to apply the outdated and failed economic ideology that created this mess in the first place.
Obama for another four years, would not be good - he's promised us more of the same policies that have not been effective at improving the economy.
--snip
This is factually wrong.
Obama's policies, to the extent that he's been able to enact them, have been effective at improving our economy.
I don't know where in the world you could come up with such an utterly wrong assessment of what has happened in this country for the last few years. In the immortal words of President Obama "Governor, that's just not correct."
Stop lying.
Edited for accuracy, in bold...
Mitt Romney will attempt to tell Congress to change things, and he knows business, and how to get it going. One thing he mentioned in the debate was supporting an eVerify hiring system, so illegals will not be drawn here to get a job. Living in a border city and state, that will be a BIG help for us.
Mitt will attempt to tell Congress to fix this problem, when many other politicians of both parties couldn't get the bill past Congress, afraid it might hurt their popularity, and companies like the cheap labor illegals offer, and allow special interests and career preservation convince them to have it kept this way.
Bush, Obama, Clinton, etc. Nobody could get their relevant 2-party Congress to pass eVerify, but Mitt Romney will attempt to tell Congress to do it - and that's the kind of positive change that we need to help limit this on-going illegal traffic across the border.
Cuz... yknow... the Executive Branch doesn't actually make the laws. They just champion the ideas then signs/doesn't sign the paper once it gets to his desk.
You make a valid point about American Civics, but I am ashamed to admit I've given up hope for such a fine distinction to be noticed much less understood in the clamor of the season.
You get full credit from me at least for being right.
Appreciated, V.
It's been a long while since I ever believed any candidate's campaign promises as anything they WILL do, since they aren't the be-all-end-all for law- and policy-making. There are 535 other cooks in that kitchen.
Y'know, from outside America looking in, it looks a lot like the Obama administration has managed to navigate very stormy economic seas and get the ship headed back in the right direction.
Romney and his ilk are part of the financial and commercial casino culture that all but shattered the global economy. In no way is it at all wise to invite them to apply the outdated and failed economic ideology that created this mess in the first place.
How far outside are you? Pluto? :rolleyes:
Because the liberals (and that includes Bush Jr., who was a liberal in spending), has spent us into the poor house, failed to secure our borders, and in order to get their large campaign contributions, failed to rein in the Wall St. types getting into very risky and highly leveraged derivatives.
And to top it off, they allowed FHA to buy mortgages from unqualified home buyers, like it was free candy!
Romney is a Conservative basically, and KNOWS business. He'll run us back into the black ink.
This is factually wrong.
Obama's policies, to the extent that he's been able to enact them, have been effective at improving our economy.
I don't know where in the world you could come up with such an utterly wrong assessment of what has happened in this country for the last few years. In the immortal words of President Obama "Governor, that's just not correct."
Stop lying.
When you overspend by a Trillion dollars in EVERY YEAR, and still can't restore a robust economy.
Time for you to go. You've done all the good you could do, clearly.
Edited for accuracy, in bold...
Cuz... yknow... the Executive Branch doesn't actually make the laws. They just champion the ideas then signs/doesn't sign the paper once it gets to his desk.
Actually, the executive branch DOES make the bills, into laws, by signing them (normally).
But you're quite right that we do need a Conservative House of Rep. and Senate, to help him.
Or you can listen to the mad ravings of Nancy Pelosi! :eek: :eek:
Let me try another tack.
What do you think should have happened starting 21 Jan 2009? What do you think the Obama administration should have done that they did not do?
Another similar question.
What do you think a McCain-Palin administration would have done starting in Jan 2009? How would things have been different?
Actually, the executive branch DOES make the bills, into laws, by signing them (normally).
But you're quite right that we do need a Conservative House of Rep. and Senate, to help him.
Or you can listen to the mad ravings of Nancy Pelosi! :eek: :eek:
Don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing about needing a "Conservative House of Rep. and Senate" to "help" anybody, nor is that relevant to the actual process of legislation.
That will not solve the problem of an inactive Congress either because there will always be varying degrees of everything, even Conservatives, and they will oppose each other for the sake of image and career. Plenty of times they've been too busy focused on calling each other out, posturing, blocking, and whining within their own ideology, trying to prove themselves More Conservative Than That Guy/Gal instead of putting that energy towards work that they actually support. Liberals do it too. Tea Partiers do it. Libertarians do it. They all do it. Even independents will argue with each other over how independent they are/aren't. If you take out the visceral need to one-up the other guy, Congress would get a lot more done, regardless who's sitting in the seat.
And if we're going to pick even smaller nits, the Executive Branch does not create any laws. It only signs off on(or not, if they don't sign) a final submission and that finalization turns it into law. It does none of the actual writing, scripting, lawyering, debating, pushing, blocking, etc. All of the making, all of the creating, all of the growth of a bill is done in Congress. Executive Branch is only a cheerleader here.
And for the record, I don't give Pelosi a second thought. Or a first one. Unless someone invokes her, like you did. Then I promptly forget about her. Until you invoke her again, which I'm sure won't take long.
When you overspend by a Trillion dollars in EVERY YEAR, and still can't restore a robust economy.
Time for you to go. You've done all the good you could do, clearly.
That ultra liberal newspaper (sarcasm), the
Wall Street Journal, says you are full of shit. Why do you lie so much?
• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.
• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.
What's that you say? Oh, I see, you said "overspend" not "spend". You don't care that Obama has increased the budget less than any president since Ike in the 1950s? You still think that when the economy is weak and tax revenue is lower, the government should spend within its means? Don't you realize that when times get tough, that's when you get more people who are unemployed and you need the government to come in and pay for services that weren't needed so much during the boom years.
It like a family, saving up for a rainy day during the good times, and then spending some of that rainy day fund to get through the bad times.
Actually, the executive branch DOES make the bills, into laws, by signing them (normally).
But you're quite right that we do need a Conservative House of Rep. and Senate, to help him.
Or you can listen to the mad ravings of Nancy Pelosi! :eek: :eek:
Hm. The Force is strong with this one.
I accept your challenge to discuss this issue by using factual realities.
When you [Obama ed. by BigV] overspend by a Trillion dollars in EVERY YEAR, and still can't restore a robust economy.
Time for you to go. You've done all the good you could do, clearly.
In light of the first quote here, please explain the second quote.
Hm.
I think Adak is maybe a college frosh.
How far outside are you? Pluto? :rolleyes:
Across the pond.
Because the liberals (and that includes Bush Jr., who was a liberal in spending), has spent us into the poor house, failed to secure our borders, and in order to get their large campaign contributions, failed to rein in the Wall St. types getting into very risky and highly leveraged derivatives.
Right. That famously liberal president GWB...talk about moving the fucking goalposts.
And as to failing to rein in Wall St types....I'm sorry are we talking about the same mitt Romney? Are you seriously suggesting that he will in any way take on the Wall St types? They are his people. Look at how he conducted himself in business. He didn't create jobs in America, the country he professes to love, he sent that work to other countries where the workforce have fewer demands (like a living wage and contracted protections).
He ran his companies for the sole benefit of the high-end shareholders and boardmembers. At the expense of the workforce.
He pays minimal tax on vast wealth compared to most ordinary Americans, and that still wasn't enough for him. No, he still had to siphon funds offshore to reduce that bill still further. For himself and for his companies.
That tax, which he is choosing to divert through international systems rightly belonged to the American people. He begrudges the American people the same levels of tax that other people are expected to pay out.
Frankly, if he's so patriotic, if he loves his country if he feels the burden of national duty is upon him, then he should have put his money where his mouth is.
Romney is a Conservative basically, and KNOWS business. He'll run us back into the black ink.
He'll definitely run you somewhere mate. And it may well be a black place.
I think Adak is maybe a college frosh.
Is that code for trolling dumbass? Cuz, I'd have to agree.
My patience wears thin pretty fast when someone makes up stuff and posts it thinking nobody will check on it, and if they do and prove the info is wrong, thet just ignore that and roll right along as if everyone thinks they are right.
Romney is a liar. It's been proven over and over by independent sources as well as partisan ones. He has no actual plan for fixing anything. He wants us to believe he can create 12 million jobs after SAYING it is NOT the job of government to create jobs.
He told us to let Detroit go bankrupt and when that didn't happen, he had the nerve to say HE desrves the credit for SAVING Detroit, not President Obama.
He's for access to birth control except when he's against it. He's for the Lilly Ledbetter act except when he's against it. He's for gay marriage except when he's against it.
I don't care if Mitt Romney turns out to be Jesus Christ in disguise. ANYONE who works and behaves like that shouldn't even have followers on TWITTER, much less politically.
Here's a fun fact: snip
I guess you missed
my post.
I think Adak is maybe a college frosh.
Or campaign employee. Or both.
Adak is typical of baggage that Romney would bring to the White House. Is there anyone who has not been insulted by him? Or has accused him of overt lies? Or finds him honest? Welcome to what has happened to a wacko extremist wing of the Republican party. No wonder they tried to put a witch from Delaware into the Senate. And voted out a major asset of the Senate - Sen Lugar of Indiana. No wonder long time conservatives including Dole, Snow, Powell, Simpson, etc have complained about damage to their party.
Michelle Bachman said taxes should be zero. And then said we should double our military. So fringe Republican types strongly approved. Adak demonstrates the future of this Republican Party. Followers of Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, and other extremist talk show hosts. People educated in soundbyte and ideology. He even blames George Jr's 2007 recession on regulations created in 2010. Baggage that a Romney presidency would impose on all Americans and American allies.
See his rhetoric? No wonder we decided to unilaterally attack three nations. And tried to get into a shooting war with China over a silly spy plane.
Defined long ago was a warning about destructive Limbaugh et al rhetoric. DanaC - appreciate what I was warning about more than 8 years ago?
Adak simply demonstrates kids raised on Limbaugh, et al. Expect to see more who rationalize just like him. This is our future. Not just in America. The adverse affects will be felt throughout the world. They were told we want America to fail. They will go to war on any excuse. They will enrich the rich as the expense of all others. Adak demonstrates how this will happen.
Across the pond.
Bloody clear, mate. I'm just messing with ya.
Right. That famously liberal president GWB...talk about moving the fucking goalposts.
The Conservative goals never budged, but Bush was a lunkhead of a social conservative, and a liberal on fiscal policies. In my view, that's backwards from what it should be.
More famously, (to me at least), he lied about WMD in Iraq. Iraq secret service had tried to assassinate his Dad on a trip (Bahrain I believe??), so he had an axe to grind with Saddam, clearly. Lying about the reason to go to war, is not the way to do it.
I'm not sorry to see Saddam dead, however. I don't think you are either?
And as to failing to rein in Wall St types....I'm sorry are we talking about the same mitt Romney? Are you seriously suggesting that he will in any way take on the Wall St types? They are his people. Look at how he conducted himself in business. He didn't create jobs in America, the country he professes to love, he sent that work to other countries where the workforce have fewer demands (like a living wage and contracted protections).
Unfortunately, neither party will take on Wall St. :mad: I'm beating a dead horse on this matter, I know.
He ran his companies for the sole benefit of the high-end shareholders and boardmembers. At the expense of the workforce.
EVERY business is run to make profit. That benefits everyone, or the employees find better jobs.
He pays minimal tax on vast wealth compared to most ordinary Americans, and that still wasn't enough for him. No, he still had to siphon funds offshore to reduce that bill still further. For himself and for his companies.
Romney doesn't even know what he pays in taxes, until after he signs the return. That's ALL managed as a blind trust so he can avoid any hint of favoritism.
Of course, his tax preparer makes sure he pays the least taxes - that what tax preparers DO. That's their one and only job!
That tax, which he is choosing to divert through international systems rightly belonged to the American people. He begrudges the American people the same levels of tax that other people are expected to pay out.
That's because of the way our stupid tax code is written. When you make money overseas, you pay taxes in the country you made it in, AND you pay taxes on it, in the USA.
Now, if you subsequently bring that money back to the states - guess what ?? You may be forced to pay tax on it, AGAIN.
That's one reason why all international investors in the US, keep a certain amount of money, OUTSIDE the US.
Romney did not create the tax code! He absolutely is following the requirements of the law - just like everybody else who invests both here, and overseas.
Frankly, if he's so patriotic, if he loves his country if he feels the burden of national duty is upon him, then he should have put his money where his mouth is.
Actually Romney gives a great deal to charity, both inside and outside his church.
It's crazy, I drive past a Staples every day. Now, the libs near and far, are vilifying the guy, because he's successful and saved businesses AND JOBS. Net effect for Romney? More jobs saved or created in America. Yes, jobs were also created overseas, but more jobs were also created HERE.
In the UK, you have successful businesses, but I wonder when the last time was that you really felt the thrill of a major upturn in your businesses and economy as a whole? Do you remember how great that was?
Seems like you never really recovered that entrepreneurial spirit, after the two WW's. You did some great mad stuff during WWII, though! Dam busting bombs, night fighting in North Africa, the great Bletchley Park stuff, the "man who never was", in Spain, sinking the Bismark, and that lovely Spitfire.
I miss THAT UK.
Don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing about needing a "Conservative House of Rep. and Senate" to "help" anybody, nor is that relevant to the actual process of legislation.
[COLOR="Red"]WHAT?? The legislative branch of the federal government is NOT RELEVANT to the actual process of legislation??[/COLOR] :D :D
Thanks for the laughs.
That will not solve the problem of an inactive Congress either because there will always be varying degrees of everything, even Conservatives, and they will oppose each other for the sake of image and career. Plenty of times they've been too busy focused on calling each other out, posturing, blocking, and whining within their own ideology, trying to prove themselves More Conservative Than That Guy/Gal instead of putting that energy towards work that they actually support. Liberals do it too. Tea Partiers do it. Libertarians do it. They all do it. Even independents will argue with each other over how independent they are/aren't. If you take out the visceral need to one-up the other guy, Congress would get a lot more done, regardless who's sitting in the seat.
Absolutely, I agree. We see it all the time, especially in the primaries.
And if we're going to pick even smaller nits, the Executive Branch does not create any laws. It only signs off on(or not, if they don't sign) a final submission and that finalization turns it into law. It does none of the actual writing, scripting, lawyering, debating, pushing, blocking, etc. All of the making, all of the creating, all of the growth of a bill is done in Congress. Executive Branch is only a cheerleader here.
The President will have input into legislation he will favor, but he does not write any of the bills for either legislative branch.
And for the record, I don't give Pelosi a second thought. Or a first one. Unless someone invokes her, like you did. Then I promptly forget about her. Until you invoke her again, which I'm sure won't take long.
Oh, we could torture you with the socialist Maxine Waters! Have you met Ms Waters? She's so far left, right has disappeared entirely from her universe. :D
I guess you missed my post.
It shows that top management jobs in both business and government, are VERY largely held by males.
On every corporate board of directors I have every known, males have dominated. Perhaps one woman will be in charge of something like Human Resources (which is an increasingly important position).
Or campaign employee. Or both.
I'm pretty sure I know who Adak is. We all like him under his regular name, but he is sticking to this login through election day because, let's face it, the group speak from the left is dominating the board right now. Imho he is getting some right wing group speak off his chest in an attempt at balance. I'm prolly voting the devil we know rather than the devil we don't because the GOP should not be rewarded for their obstruction of reasonable budget offers from Obama. That doesn't mean I'm happily running off the Democratic cliff. Both parties are populated by extremists right now but I don't consider Obama to be one.
That ultra liberal newspaper (sarcasm), the Wall Street Journal, says you are full of shit. Why do you lie so much?
It tells me you don't know what I'm saying. The dollar amount that we spend, is not important. What IS important, is the balance of income vs. expense. When your family income goes down you need to sharply curtail expenses, right?
Same with our government - if they were smart - but they aren't smart. And that is a problem IF WE KEEP IT UP.
Obama intends to keep it up! Do you know what an "Oh Holy Hell!!" is? That's what a monetary crisis is, in a nutshell. And that is what all this overspending is pushing us toward. We will ALL rue the day that we have a monetary crisis, in our country!
More immediately, his idea of pushing us all to depend on the gov't, is very unsettling. I don't want more gov't - I want my freedom, and my wallet left with something in it, thank you.
What's that you say? Oh, I see, you said "overspend" not "spend". You don't care that Obama has increased the budget less than any president since Ike in the 1950s? You still think that when the economy is weak and tax revenue is lower, the government should spend within its means? Don't you realize that when times get tough, that's when you get more people who are unemployed and you need the government to come in and pay for services that weren't needed so much during the boom years.
It like a family, saving up for a rainy day during the good times, and then spending some of that rainy day fund to get through the bad times.
And if Obama's stimulus policy had worked, I'd say OK, let's re-elect him. But it has failed, and he has no new plan, no new WAY to fix it.
Obama is on Comedy Central tonight. He's been on: The Tonight Show, The David Letterman Show, "Pimp with a Limp", and just about every TV talk show you could imagine. He's bright, does some funny jokes, and can do an excellent imitation of Al Green (the singer).
But I don't CARE about any of that. I want to see our economy growing again, at by more than a crippling 1 or 2 percent!
If Obama could deliver that, and open up some federal lands to oil drilling (and lower the fuel costs), I'd vote for him in a heartbeat. But he can't, and with his ideology, he believes he SHOULDN'T.
Basically, Obama wants to piss down my backside, and tell me it's raining.
No thanks.
I think Adak is maybe a college frosh.
Oh! I wish!
Retired.
EVERY business is run to make profit. That benefits everyone, or the employees find better jobs.
Exactly why our government should not be run like a business. What about the "employees" that don't benefit? Self deportation? Renunciation of citizenship?
Business experience has extremely limited usefulness as an indicator of ability to govern effectively.
Let me try another tack.
What do you think should have happened starting 21 Jan 2009? What do you think the Obama administration should have done that they did not do?
Another similar question.
What do you think a McCain-Palin administration would have done starting in Jan 2009? How would things have been different?
I would have kept up our energy requirements. Obama jumped into "green jobs", before considering that Spain did a huge "green jobs" program, and had it backfire horribly on them.
Also, financial instruments that are either a) very highly leveraged, or b) are not dealing with principals (that is, with those who have no "skin in the game"), should be made illegal. These derivatives and etc., are nothing but gambling, without putting your bet on the table, and they WILL come back around and bite you on the bum, from time to time. And take a big bite when they do it.
I would not have given the 500 Million dollars to Salendra, because their business plan was already judged by the Bush administration, to be "too risky". But Obama did it because the owner was a big Obama money "bundler" for his campaign.
I would have started eVerify, to make our jobs start going to citizens and legal residents, only, and decrease our illegal border crossings.
I would NOT have allowed ATF and FBI to run the "Fast and Furious" gun smuggling program - stupid and deadly.
I would not have an "enemies list" where anyone who speaks out against the President (like Joe the Plumber), gets immediately audited by the IRS, etc. Now, Obama is prosecuting whistleblowers with a WWI espionage law!
I would not have put the 249 million dollars into A123 battery company, or allowed the stupid Volt car to be produced - GM loses some $40,000 dollars on each one it sells, and VERY few people want one, because they won't run on anything else but battery power. Their range is about 50 miles - and THAT's IT, until you recharge them for a few hours, at least.
I would have allowed GM to go through regular bankruptcy, and get re-organized, as business law decrees. Not rip off the bond holders and shareholders, and give it to the Unions and the gov't.
I would change the Ted Kennedy citizenship law, where if one member of a family is a citizen, then every member of the family can become one. That is entirely laughable.
I would reform our immigration service, so immigrants (legal), don't have to wait years to be approved.
I would stop the billions of foreign aid we give out every year, on a case by case basis. We need to pay Egypt 400 Million in foreign aid every year, like we need a new hole in our heads.
I would work to have a nation of Palestine be created, in the middle east, but not in Israel. Perhaps in the Sinai next to Israel, and then extending up a bit, toward Jerusalem. The Jews keep Jerusalem, but the Muslims keep access to it, as well as the Jews. The Jews get more of the West Bank area, because it's critical to their strategic safety - from those heights, you can shoot rocks or mortars, onto a great deal of Israel, and the Palestinians have shown an unholy willingness to do launch both, by the thousands.
Despite their behavior, the Palestinians deserve a country of their own, and need to get out of Gaza. We should REALLY help them make their new country. It was passed by the UN, in 1948 - it's well overdue.
These economic sanctions we're taking now against Iran, I would have initiated sooner. The earlier one's were nothing but cotton candy, with no bite to them.
Our Embassies and consulates clearly needed to be either strongly reinforced, or closed. They remind me of the strategy we used against the Japanese in WWII, except we have taken on the role of the Japanese - and Al Qaeda has taken on MacArthur: ridiculous!
The "nation building" efforts we've made in Iraq and Afghanistan, were a huge drain on us. We don't owe these people billions of dollars to reshape their country.
It was a military necessity to take on Al Qaeda. (and the Taliban if they wanted to fight us, as well.) That is all we needed to do. We don't need to be there for 10 years, trying to make a backward tribal country, into a modern one. That is something they must do for themselves. :mad:
I would have given more support to the drive to remove polio from the planet. They need more support to finish it off, just like they did with Smallpox.
I would have started a much more aggressive program to help research into stem cells and regeneration of organs - especially Islet of Langerhorn's, (diabetes), kidneys, and hearts.
In fiscal policy, I'd have used the old tried and true approach - cut gov't spending, and cut taxes. Stop the gov't from buying sub prime mortgages. Stop anyone from passing off fraudulent loan applications, without being prosecuted. A fraud is a fraud, period.
Make banks, back into banks, not gambling casinos.
Some stimulus money was needed, but not NEARLY all that Obama gave.
So many things, I can't begin to list them all.
McCain is not a Conservative. He's a middle of the road guy. Palin is a conservative, but had limited experience. John would have gone with a strong stimulus, I'm sure. Not as big as Obama's, but big.
It would have been interesting, but probably not the success we all want.
Great questions! :cool:
Exactly why our government should not be run like a business. What about the "employees" that don't benefit? Self deportation? Renunciation of citizenship?
Business experience has extremely limited usefulness as an indicator of ability to govern effectively.
Gov'ts can't be run like a business. Entirely different model. But many of the characteristics of a successful businessman, can help a government, when it's economy is not doing well.
Romney is a great choice, because he's done both business and gov't, and quasi gov't/business (the Olympics).
Employees that don't benefit, in gov't, or in business? (commerce)
It's classicman, isn't it?
I'll betcha.
It's classicman, isn't it?
I'll betcha.
My vote too...
I don't. But anywho...
Our country is not a business. That's the problem with promoting a businessman to run it. Running our country isn't about making money for the stockholders/elite and squeezing the most out of the employees/working folk in order to do it. Unless you are an elite, then maybe that IS what it's all about?
Our country is supposed to be about ensuring the future of our children and their children. Are we educating our children? Are we creating an economic model that will keep the working people happy and working for generations to come? Because when they become disillusioned, you will have revolt against the powers-that-be. Are we treating 50.8% of our population like second-class citizens or recognizing their right to be in charge of their own bodies/destiny? Are we teaching future generations to be tolerant of cultural/religious differences or are we teaching them hate and bigotry and intolerance? Because that won't end well.... Are we cultivating positive relationships with other countries or are we playing my military/penis is bigger than yours with everyone? Because our children have to deal with the consequences of this. We will be dead and gone while they send THEIR children off to die. Are we raping the limited natural resources of the only planet we have to live on? Or are we protecting them so future generations will have clean air and water and a healthy ecological cycle? It's not just about spending, although that matters too. History has shown that the economy is healthiest when taxes on the top earners is highest. Why is that such a sticking point?
Taxing the Rich Clearly, because the richest and most powerful don't care about the economy/the rest of us
in the long run, they care about their dollars,
right now.
It isn't just about profits and sadly, that's what too many "businessmen" type politicians are focused on. How can I maximize the profit for me and my buddies? Use natural resources? Increase military spending? Remove financial regulations? Force working class to do more for less so my net income goes up? (ie: no minimum wage, no safety regulations, no unions, no benefits).
What I look for in a politician/leader is a vision for the future. How are their decisions going to impact future generations? What sort of world will my grandchildren be forced to live in?
If Mitt Romney and the religious right have their way, the future I foresee is incredibly grim.
Well said, Stormie. That was brilliant.
I don't. But anywho...
...
In the Hall of Fame
I don't think Adak=Classicman. Classic doesn't put together so much undefensible bullshit.
He also tends not to do mega long posts either.
Totally different...I don't think it's c-man either. Plus, c-man is way busy these days.
[COLOR="Red"]WHAT?? The legislative branch of the federal government is NOT RELEVANT to the actual process of legislation??[/COLOR] :D :D
Thanks for the laughs.
Nice pivot, son.
Re-read my statement:
Don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing about needing a "Conservative House of Rep. and Senate" to "help" anybody, nor is that relevant to the actual process of legislation.
Allow me to rephrase it since you completely missed the point. Twice.
The political leanings of the members of the House and Senate have nothing to do with the actual process of legislation.
[SIZE="1"]$5 says my words get spun again. [/SIZE]
I don't. But anywho...
Our country is not a business. That's the problem with promoting a businessman to run it. Running our country isn't about making money for the stockholders/elite and squeezing the most out of the employees/working folk in order to do it. Unless you are an elite, then maybe that IS what it's all about?
No, but our economy is sick, and it depends to a large extent on the health of our businesses, to keep everything together in our fiscal world.
Think about our children's future, if we have to close our businesses. Our entire economy would go belly up. That means our gov't won't be able to help us, either - because it will have no means to do so.
Our country is supposed to be about ensuring the future of our children and their children. Are we educating our children? Are we creating an economic model that will keep the working people happy and working for generations to come? Because when they become disillusioned, you will have revolt against the powers-that-be. Are we treating 50.8% of our population like second-class citizens or recognizing their right to be in charge of their own bodies/destiny? Are we teaching future generations to be tolerant of cultural/religious differences or are we teaching them hate and bigotry and intolerance? Because that won't end well.... Are we cultivating positive relationships with other countries or are we playing my military/penis is bigger than yours with everyone? Because our children have to deal with the consequences of this. We will be dead and gone while they send THEIR children off to die. Are we raping the limited natural resources of the only planet we have to live on? Or are we protecting them so future generations will have clean air and water and a healthy ecological cycle? <snipped for brevity>
What I look for in a politician/leader is a vision for the future. How are their decisions going to impact future generations? What sort of world will my grandchildren be forced to live in?
If Mitt Romney and the religious right have their way, the future I foresee is incredibly grim.
It's always smart to look as far ahead as you can to see whether you're headed in the right direction or not. Individually, or as a city, county, state, or country.
But let's put your concerns into context, with some facts:
1) We can never know all the implications of how what we do now, will impact our descendents. Hubris galore to believe that we could do that. Trying? Sure, but never knowing them fully.
2) Romney is not a religious nutter. He has a religion - isn't he supposed to have the FREEDOM to practice it, just as you or I have the FREEDOM to practice one or not, as we choose?
I don't see any threat from the right, to our Bill of Rights. If you do, what are they?
3) All the surveys indicate that religions in both the UK and the US, have lost a huge amount of members, in the last 50 years. That trend is showing every indication of continuing. That is causing the religious right to lose power, not gain it.
4) We need to re-think the idea of nation building when we go to war with groups like Al Qaeda. They are not a nation, and we don't owe Afghanistan billions of dollars in nation building and 10 years of fighting their "jihadi's". If they attack us, we attack them, but we don't stay for 10 years, traveling around the countryside with bulls-eyes on our backs. Six months should be plenty of time to defeat them, and go home.
5) If you're talking about Crony Capitalism for buddies, Obama is famous for it, as was Bush. It's a bad deal, because sometimes their "buddies", really are very well qualified for a federal position, but usually they're woeful. How can we make a law that permits the former, and stops the latter?
Probably best to simply have the press shame them. Will the press do that to Obama? Absolutely not. Barely did it to Bush, and the press didn't like Bush jr.
I reject the idea that we want to have one part of society, pitted in class warfare mode, against another part. That's been part of Obama's playbook, which is also a central theme in many radical playbooks. Typically, it's used to invoke changes that otherwise would be too unpopular to the public. If you work up some hatred for some class of people, then nobody will speak up when you take something from them - because they're hated now.
I'll promise you one thing, Obama will NOT be looked upon kindly by historians, for his use of class warfare. Frankly, it's contemptible.
Did you hear V.P. Joe Biden giving his first speech since his debate with Paul Ryan? The guy is wired stupid - referring twice to how Obama got our soldiers out of "Iran and Iraq".
Huh?
We've never been in Iran since Regan got our embassy hostages back, in 1980.
Nice pivot, son.
Allow me to rephrase it since you completely missed the point. Twice.
The political leanings of the members of the House and Senate have nothing to do with the actual process of legislation.
[SIZE="1"]$5 says my words get spun again. [/SIZE]
Well, I'm retired, so I'm probably not your "son", but you've skipped a few Poli Sci or Civics classes, somewhere along the way.
The President signs the bills, and he requests bills (as FDR famously did right after Pearl Harbor, in his "date that shall live in infamy" speech to Congress). But the House and the Senate must pass bills, BEFORE they ever reach the President and can be signed into law by him (or not).
So it's takes both the House and Senate, and usually the President (unless the Congress overrides his veto), to pass a bill, and enact it as a law.
Are you referring to the attorneys who write the bills? That's called "authoring", not legislating.
Poly Sci...the new synthetic breathable Sci! Now in four new colors!
Ohhhh, Poli Sci. nevermind.
I keep resisting posting this GIF every time Adak posts, so I'm just going to use it now. It applies both ongoingly and retroactively.
Poly Sci...the new synthetic breathable Sci! Now in four new colors!
Ohhhh, Poli Sci. nevermind.
Funny!
I've been calling them Poly-tics for so long, I latched onto the 'y', instead of the 'i'.
Now corrected for your viewing pleasure!
I can see why you like that gif.
No damning facts, no common sense to have to face.
A true liberals dream!
Well, I'm retired, so I'm probably not your "son", but you've skipped a few Poli Sci or Civics classes, somewhere along the way.
The President signs the bills, and he requests bills (as FDR famously did right after Pearl Harbor, in his "date that shall live in infamy" speech to Congress). But the House and the Senate must pass bills, BEFORE they ever reach the President and can be signed into law by him (or not).
So it's takes both the House and Senate, and usually the President (unless the Congress overrides his veto), to pass a bill, and enact it as a law.
Are you referring to the attorneys who write the bills? That's called "authoring", not legislating.
Nah, if I had a son, he'd be more forthright. And no, you're wrong again. I had to slog through Civics classes in high school. And I'm still technically correct. The President does request bills, this is correct. The Presidential office is one of several places bills can come from. That is just a request, borne of an idea. Sure, the request will be written down but that in itself is not the bill. Later on, he can speak with House and Senate members/leaders to get them to pass it, champion the cause. All of the actual making, creating, AUTHORING is done by Congress. After the bill is made, written, debated, revised, rewritten, re-debated and passed (if it does), then and only then does it go back to the President for any tangible action, the signing.
This is starting to get into word usage and similar semantics so... potato, potahto.
And just out of curiosity, exactly how many Civics and Poli-Sci classes have you taken to be so impliedly qualified to speak on legislative processes? I wasn't aware there was a required number. How many does one need to take? Is there a certification?
Nah, if I had a son, he'd be more forthright. And no, you're wrong again. I had to slog through Civics classes in high school. And I'm still technically correct. The President does request bills, this is correct.
Correct is as I stated, the President MAY request bills.
The Presidential office is one of several places bills can come from. That is just a request, borne of an idea. Sure, the request will be written down but that in itself is not the bill. Later on, he can speak with House and Senate members/leaders to get them to pass it, champion the cause. All of the actual making, creating, AUTHORING is done by Congress. After the bill is made, written, debated, revised, rewritten, re-debated and passed (if it does), then and only then does it go back to the President for any tangible action, the signing.
This is starting to get into word usage and similar semantics so... potato, potahto.
Yes, and you've come around nicely. The above is correct.
And just out of curiosity, exactly how many Civics and Poli-Sci classes have you taken to be so impliedly qualified to speak on legislative processes? I wasn't aware there was a required number. How many does one need to take? Is there a certification?
I'm not sure. You had to take at least one class in junior high, and a World History class in 10th grade (iirc). I'm not sure what you needed beyond that to graduate from high school, because I went into advanced courses offered from the college, while a Senior in high school. That's where I took Poli Sci.
The hard part was getting papers typed. High school didn't require that, and I didn't have a typewriter. Finally got an old manual one.
I had all A's in history classes, but this was the best in a large high school of 3,500 students, so everybody in there was REALLY smart. Most were smarter than I was, getting A's in every subject. Our instructor was a Marine Major, who was seriously smart.
He used to joke when the smartest guys were out of the class, that he should mark their papers down to a 'B', and we could watch them melt into a little spot of grease on their desk. It was funny the way he told it, but of course, he never did it.
I remember Paul Hall was perhaps the smartest student in the class, but he loved to "debate" (argue). Finally he went overboard with it, and was kicked out of the class for arguing with the instructor. What was the instructor saying that he had to argue against? That millions of people died in WWII!! We were stunned, I can tell you.
Days gone by.
Your name is Paul Hall, isn't it? ;)
I keep resisting posting this GIF every time Adak posts, so I'm just going to use it now. It applies both ongoingly and retroactively.
I never did watch that show. I couldn't bear the idea of a show based on politics when its bad enough that we have real politics. Its kinda like 24 or the Claire Danes thing, a great way to put a false reality in peoples heads.
snip--
a great way to put a false reality in peoples heads.
like our current political campaigns, right?
Your name is Paul Hall, isn't it? ;)
No, I'm a Navy brat. Lived for awhile on Adak Island, as a kid. Dad was a chief, and was stationed there. Didn't pay to argue too much in our family. That's why that moment was so memorable. I'd never seen anybody argue so incessantly with a teacher before.
Yes, and you've come around nicely.
Yes, you indeed have, especially since I haven't changed what I was saying at all, just how I said it. That seemed to work for you. Cheers, I guess.
I'm not sure. You had to take at least one class in junior high, and a World History class in 10th grade (iirc). I'm not sure what you needed beyond that to graduate from high school, because I went into advanced courses offered from the college, while a Senior in high school. That's where I took Poli Sci.
The hard part was getting papers typed. High school didn't require that, and I didn't have a typewriter. Finally got an old manual one.
I had all A's in history classes, but this was the best in a large high school of 3,500 students, so everybody in there was REALLY smart. Most were smarter than I was, getting A's in every subject. Our instructor was a Marine Major, who was seriously smart.
He used to joke when the smartest guys were out of the class, that he should mark their papers down to a 'B', and we could watch them melt into a little spot of grease on their desk. It was funny the way he told it, but of course, he never did it.
I remember Paul Hall was perhaps the smartest student in the class, but he loved to "debate" (argue). Finally he went overboard with it, and was kicked out of the class for arguing with the instructor. What was the instructor saying that he had to argue against? That millions of people died in WWII!! We were stunned, I can tell you.
Days gone by.
Interesting in it's way, and I'm sure civics curricula vary from public vs private school and where the schools are, not to mention my high school and college years were in a very different era than yours, Retired. And when you mention history, I assume you mean specifically American history, not world history or ancient history or similar. But it given that, it seems plenty of pundits, marketing ad writers and bumper-sticker writers never got even a single civics class, considering how they insist the President is the be-all-end-all on policy-making and whether or not an idea becomes law is all down to him.
Of course, if they did, then the one-line zingers wouldn't be as marketable.
Yes, you indeed have, especially since I haven't changed what I was saying at all, just how I said it. That seemed to work for you. Cheers, I guess.
Interesting in it's way, and I'm sure civics curricula vary from public vs private school and where the schools are, not to mention my high school and college years were in a very different era than yours, Retired. And when you mention history, I assume you mean specifically American history, not world history or ancient history or similar.
Retired. (also).
World History class in 10th grade (iirc).
They are quite complete. More to learn than you can possibly remember, but a great class. This was in the pre bilingual public school teaching era. Now the students learn about half as much, and are basically dumb as dirt, unless they attend private school or are home taught. I'm sure some learn a lot on the internet.
But it given that, it seems plenty of pundits, marketing ad writers and bumper-sticker writers never got even a single civics class, considering how they insist the President is the be-all-end-all on policy-making and whether or not an idea becomes law is all down to him.
Yes, the President is a focus for things he has little to do with, at times. Sells more bumper stickers, gets higher ratings on the news, etc.
Alas poor Paul Hall! I knew him, Horatio.
And you're no Paul Hall.
:lol:
www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/55019844-82/romney-obama-state-president.html.csp
The Real Mitt Romney.
Whatever you want him to be, he'll be that for you. And the next guy gets the same deal. As long as each person promises to pay with a vote. He's open to all comers... If you've got the dime, he's got the time.
Yes, you indeed have, especially since I haven't changed what I was saying at all, just how I said it. That seemed to work for you. Cheers, I guess.
One more time:
Your post in #363:
"Don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing about needing a "Conservative House of Rep. and Senate" to "help" anybody, nor is that relevant to the actual process of legislation."
Is incorrect.
The way it works is, congress can pass a law if it can break a Presidents veto, by getting a 2/3rds approval, in both the House of Rep. and the Senate.
It can pass a bill up to the President, despite opposition, if it has enough votes to break the opposition's filabuster, or if it can wear down the filabuster. That requires 60% of the Senators voting to stop the debate on the bill. Since a filabuster can done in different ways, what is needed to beat it may take different measures.
Without opposition, Congress can pass a bill up to the President if they have a majority who vote for it. On a tie vote only, the Vice President will cast the deciding vote.
Your post in #389:
"The political leanings of the members of the House and Senate have nothing to do with the actual process of legislation."
That's incorrect, obviously.
Some references are here, others you'll have to Google for:
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/b_three_sections_with_teasers/glossary.htmAlas poor Paul Hall! I knew him, Horatio.
And you're no Paul Hall.
:lol:
Obviously, I'm not Paul Hall. Paul was absolutely brilliant, but unfortunately, he was also very much aware of it, and sometimes used it in an unwise manner.
If you believe I'm somebody else on this forum, you need to re-think that idea.
You're being deliberately obtuse in your conversation with cyber wolf
*meta-post*
This thread has been pretty good, mostly on the issues, mostly civil, occasionally amusing, and - especially for furriners like me - quite educational in seeing the current US politics play out.
Lately, things have been getting a bit snarky. How about we all take a deep breath and just remember, what ever it is that you're defending, the other guy is just someone being wrong on the internet. It's not worth getting all het up over.
And I'd also like to offer Adak the "Alamo Award*", for sticking to his (her?) position despite being seriously outnumbered and (from my point of view) outargued.
*I just invented this. And I was considering the "Little Big Horn Award". ;)
Play nice, now, folks.
You're being deliberately obtuse in your conversation with cyber wolf
Yes, I know. When the Liberal is wrong, and the Conservative calls him on it, the Conservative is always being<fill in the negative behavior here>
But I gave him facts straight from the gov't, and the link to most of it, so that's all I can do.
I'm sticking with my argument for one simple reason. In my several decades as an adult, I've seen both liberal and conservative Presidents, city councilmen, county supervisors, federal and state congressmen, governors, etc.
And I've noticed that when these politicians are smart Conservatives, the area of their control, thrives and prospers.
When the Liberals are in control, we have a terrible time of it. Witness San Diego. My town. When our Liberal City Council ran things, we were nearly forced into bankruptcy. The New York Times coined our city "Enron by the Sea".
Three San Diego mayors later, we're still trying to get a handle on how to fix the mess the Liberals made - because it's just that bad, and of course, we still have some Liberals in power here.
Contrast that, with the San Diego County Conservative gov't. They have a surplus! Things can get done in the County. Meanwhile, we have City water pipes that just explode and flood the stores and the homes, because they can't afford to replace the old water pipes, like they should have.
Conservatism WORKS. Liberalism FAILS. You can see it in every liberal nation, state, county, or city.
As Margaret Thatcher famously remarked:
"Socialism only works until the money runs out"
A Liberal government, is a BIG government. It has to be so it can do everything that Liberals want done. And the gov't - all of it, rides on your back, and pays it's way, by taking $$$ from your wallet. Your freedoms get more and more tightly constrained.
As the gov't takes more control, you lose. The gov't is not your friend, they are your protector, but they are also a FIST, that can pound you or I, right into the ground. Your job, your business, your home, your car, your everything - they control with the force of law.
Here's an example from New Mexico:
The people are being hard hit by wildfires, and a lot of the land is owned by the feds. Locals want to remove dead trees which are leaning over high voltage electric lines. So does the power company.
But the US Forest Service won't allow it. Eventually, the dead tree falls against the high voltage line, and starts another wild fire. But now the Forest Service doesn't want to put out the fire. They want the fire to "meander" around, and re-introduce wildfires into the forest.
As a result of this policy by the US Forest Service, New Mexico residents have tens of thousands of acres of more fires sweep through the state, uncontrolled, every Summer.
If you'd like to hear the full discourse on the topic straight from the New Mexico Rep. Steve Pearce, you can d/l it from here:
You want Oct. 19th, H2 segment.
http://tunein.com/radio/The-Roger-Hedgecock-Show-p20611/
See if you REALLY want the gov't running more of your life.
BTW, the Feds were supposed to give a lot of Western lands, back to the states, after they had their federal infrastructure set up.
They did that in the Eastern states, but never GOT AROUND to doing it, in the Western states. Rep. Pearce lays it out for you in the audio file.
Imagine that! :rolleyes:
This is quite an interesting assessment of Romney. To me. Bear in mind I really don't know much about him or the political mileu to which he belongs. It's more balanced than a lot of the stuff I've seen lately.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/20/us/politics/romney-as-a-manager-unhurried-and-socratic.html?ref=us
[eta] I haven't read that last post in full, but I just scanned down and the name Margeret Thatcher jumped out at me. I gotta say that was an unpleasant thing to happen.
Margaret may not be popular with you, but the Falkland Islanders are QUITE fond of her! She stood strong when they were suddenly attacked and overrun by Argentina. She also is one of the reasons that millions of people are free today from Communist rule, in Eastern Europe. She's turning over in her grave, now that Socialism has eroded your budget to the extent that you have ZERO aircraft carriers, but that's Socialism for you. If you like Socialism, you wouldn't like M.T., and I'm sure it was very uncomfortable having her as your Prime Minister. Thatcher and Socialism would not be a good mix.
The fact that she had the backbone that few men have; to stand up against the Communists and the invading Argentinians. Well, she was very special, and very well liked by Conservatives.
Well, obviously some people liked her.
And, really...socialism has eroded our budget? Give me a break. Successive governments, 'left' and right have continued the privatisation of our public services and whole sale sell off of national assets, at a rate much faster and deeper than anything Margeret Thatcher would have tried for.
The difference is that under the current and recent governments, the privatisation has been couched in terminology which, by your reckoning may well sound socialist. Don't be fooled.
Do you see that one of the reasons privatization is making a comeback, is that the efficiency it brings is badly needed?
Of course, privatization is just another word for the private sector: ie., Conservative marketplace, ie.; Capitalism.
That's what I mean by Conservatism works. It runs at an efficiency Socialism can only dream of. When people are more rewarded for taking risks, and working hard - they're more willing to take risks, and work hard. It's common sense, it's Conservatism, and it works very well. You have more freedom, You have more choices, and You have more responsibility.
The gov't doesn't pay for your birth control or your gas, You do. The gov't doesn't take nearly as much from your paycheck, You do.
There is an undeniable beauty to it.
You misunderstood my post. Privatisation isn't 'making a come back' in the UK. We've never stepped away from it. It didn't end with Thatcher, it didn't even end with the Major government. It continued apace, through Labour and now Conservative-Liberal coalition governments.
Margaret...She's turning over in her grave...
A pleasant thought.
lol I didn't even spot that.
Adak, Thatch is still alive.
A pleasant thought.
Well I hope you live long now, I pray the Lord
your soul to keep
I think I'll be going before we fold our arms
and start to weep
I never thought for a moment that human life
could be so cheap
'Cos when they finally put you in the ground
They'll stand there laughing and tramp the
dirt down
Do you see that one of the reasons privatization is making a comeback, is that the efficiency it brings is badly needed?
Of course, privatization is just another word for the private sector: ie., Conservative marketplace, ie.; Capitalism.<snip>
:D
Not quite...
"privatization" is just a re-phrasing Willie Sutton's attitude towards banks.
Does anyone really think that privatizing Medicare and Social Security
by having "savings accounts" held in Wall Street banks is because
the Wall Street is so dedicated to helping the sick and older members of society ?
... or privatizing the prison system is only because the new owners just
want to do a better job of rehabilitating prisoners and reducing recidivism ?
... or privatizing government land is because the oil companies or timber companies
or cattle companies or tourist services are more interested in the
quality of the environment and protecting endangered species ?
No, privatization of the government property and services "is where the money is"
And the current crop of "conservatives" are way too lazy to start a
their own new business and compete for customers and make a profit out of it.
They want to take an easier road and take a permanent hand-out
from government property and services.
lol I didn't even spot that.
Adak, Thatch is still alive.
I haven't heard a word about her, for years. Thought she had Alzheimer's or something, years ago.
Think about our children's future, if we have to close our businesses. Our entire economy would go belly up.
As Bain has proven over and over.
I had a long through process in the shower this morning, let me try to reiterate it here:
What is leadership? I've been studying leadership (business leadership) in depth, especially 'Servant Leadership' and related schools of thought. The main point here is that leadership is not management. Leadership is influence. Leaders don't mico-manage what is happening at the departmental level; rather they influence the culture of the organization, creating an atmosphere where decisions lead in a general direction. This is what is happening with the 'mission and vison statements' widely recognized as a part of corporate culture. These things aren't a joke--when Google tells itself "Don't be evil," this is the guiding principle that allows an entity with so much control over our personal data to continue to expand without being mistrusted and repudiated.
This is what business leaders do, and it is something that I'm not sure is very well understood (I myself didn't understand, until I engaged in extensive studies)--essentially, people ask, "What exactly does that high-paid executive who walks around the building in the expensive suit, what exactly does he do?" Leadership isn't building widgets, or being the boss of widget builders, it is something much more esoteric--getting people to want to do what you think they should do, without having to ask them to perform specific actions. Prescriptive mandates are what middle-management worries about. Leaders have that vague concept called a "vision" which is defined by their moral compass and informs the culture of the organization.
So why should we want the government to be run like a busuiness? Not because we want it to specifically adpot the values of finance capitalism, but because the concept of business leadership is what creates the only thing which can make or break a machine with millions of moving parts--the culture defined by the shared vision of that organization.
So what is our shared vision of America? I honestly don't think that we disagree on anything of consequence here, although great efforts are taken by both sides to villify the opposition. The state of politics in America is that of defining the opposition as a "bad" person, who actually wants bad things to happen. That is ridiculous, and both sides do it. Don't let yourself fall into that trap. Please don't sink to that level. We all love children and puppies and sunshine, for goodness sake.
We do disagree on some of the specific methods of obtaining the goals that we all desire. Nobody hates babies, we simply sometimes disagree on the best way to do things.
Here's the problem, we agree on more things than we disagree on.
Why do political parties get so polarized?
Because the numbers of people represented are far too great to form a true consensus, on everything, so the political system we have in place forms these coalitions of positions, and as a politician travels upward into greater scope of command, his obligations necessitate adoption of an accepted portfolio of positions--a fragile alliance of diverse interests, consolidated just enough to hold just about 50% of the people's allegiance. This is politics, this is how it works. It isn't one man or one party that acts this way, it's the system.
So you have a governor with a successful track record employing incredibly similar policies to a sitting president, with who he has to feign disagreement, but after all what do they really disagree on, when so much of their body of work looks basically parallel? Essentially this goes back to that 'leadership' thing. Again, leadership isn't management. Leaders are there to define a vision which informs the culture, and this is where the differentiation between candidates has to be clear. And basically we have had defined for us two opposed school of thought: 1) the "greedy businessman who only cares about himself and his rich buddies, who is oblivious to the experience of poor people, and doesn't recognize the social responsibilities of the government (also he is a patriarchal religious zealot and firearms enthusiast)," and 2) the "big government, tax and spend socialist who thrives on getting greater and greater numbers of people addicted to government handouts--he doesn't have any sense with money because he is spending your money while also planning to take your guns and bibles away, and force you to get a mandatory abortion."
These are cartoon villians. But, in reality, they do have to represent some kind of fundamental difference of that 'vision' thing.
And this is what frustrates me about how we get so bogged down in the specifics of policies--which after all, are just trying to accomplish the same things that we all want, only in different ways. There are different schools of thought on economics and everything else--there isn't one 'correct' answer. And the person who disagrees with you about the means to achieve a goal doesn't have to be a bad person. And the politician who is basically beholden to a coalition of disparate interests which define the 'vision' he must communicate in order to guide millions of people in a general direction, he isn't a boots-on-the-ground manager who tells people exactly how to do their job. In that respect it is almost absurdist to regard a presidential campaign as a battle of specifics.
The reality is, we have two very general groups, who even within themselves do not agree on most things. The amount of things that everybody agrees with is greater than the unity of either of these contived classifications of people.
I think that maybe the areas where we disagree are in the basic gut feeling we have about the best way to get things done. This is probably more informed by our personal experiences than anything else. I know it is for me. I think that it should be this way, rather than getting wrapped up in cliques. Rather than making amateurish errors in reasoning as we cobble together a makeshift argument for a pre-conceived notion.
None of the people involved in these dicussions are 'bad' people; and at the same time, none of the politicians discussed here are without the same set of characteristics that allows any man to rise to that level of national politics. It is what it is--can we not just accept that and move on?
We don't have to get so wrapped up in it that we forget our common sense and common decency.
But we obviously don't always agree on some pretty major items. Can we not at least pretend momentarilly that the other person might be aware of something that we are not, and try to imagine what the set of variables that would support that scenario would look like, and then try to reconcile that with our observations of reality in order to determine the basic feasbility of what they are proposing?
I mean, that's how you learn things.
I've learned, and grown, so much while participating in discussions on the internet, because it allows you the opportunity to observe that people who disagree with you are also intelligent and have well-founded ideas. But you have to be open to that. It isn't a passive thing that happens--you have to force yourself into this mindset, until over time it becomes habit.
It is good to question and examine things.
Belittling someone who disagrees with you is something which damages your own personal growth.
Okay, I'm just rambling now.
But I think I'll actually post this.
As Bain has proven over and over.
Do you have ANYTHING to back this up - anything remotely FACTUAL?
I had a long through process in the shower this morning, let me try to reiterate it here:
What is leadership? I've been studying leadership (business leadership) in depth, especially 'Servant Leadership' and related schools of thought. The main point here is that leadership is not management. Leadership is influence. Leaders don't mico-manage what is happening at the departmental level; rather they influence the culture of the organization, creating an atmosphere where decisions lead in a general direction.
I disagree. Leadership involves different things, for different situations, and also varies with the aptitude and expertise, of the leader. Some lead quite effectively, with a "hire good people, sell them on the goals, and let 'em go!" management style. Others, (most), use a combination of management, and personal involvement, style. Steven Jobs was VERY personally involved at Apple, for instance - most would say somewhat obsessively. He made it work very well, nonetheless.
This is what is happening with the 'mission and vison statements' widely recognized as a part of corporate culture. These things aren't a joke--when Google tells itself "Don't be evil," this is the guiding principle that allows an entity with so much control over our personal data to continue to expand without being mistrusted and repudiated.
This is what business leaders do, and it is something that I'm not sure is very well understood (I myself didn't understand, until I engaged in extensive studies)--essentially, people ask, "What exactly does that high-paid executive who walks around the building in the expensive suit, what exactly does he do?" Leadership isn't building widgets, or being the boss of widget builders, it is something much more esoteric--getting people to want to do what you think they should do, without having to ask them to perform specific actions. Prescriptive mandates are what middle-management worries about. Leaders have that vague concept called a "vision" which is defined by their moral compass and informs the culture of the organization.
Quite right - you nailed it. Good discussion, glad you posted it.
We know that unless you're aggressive, your voice will generally be given less attention, in some venues. You don't want your candidate to be too passive in a debate, for example. While positive political ads are generally best, negative ads, can be effective, especially near the end of a campaign. Try and leave an undecided voter with a bad impression of the opponent, just before they go to the polls.
We've been lazy with our election laws, our tax loopholes, and the influence we allow all manner of special interest groups. It brings in a lot of $$$ into the political process, that gov't then doesn't have to provide to the candidates, but it forces the candidates to "court" their $$$ contributors, when they reach office.
As Representative Charlie Wilson's character said in the movie "Charlie Wilson's War":
"I'm Israel's guy on the hill"
"Charlie, how many Jews do you have in your Texas district anyway?"
"Six, I believe. But you don't win elections with just voters, you win elections with campaign donors, and mine are the Jews in New York City."
And that, (almost word for word), is exactly why our political process is far from what it should be. It's $money$, buying influence, making sure that the gov't, in choosing it's winners and losers in business, chooses THEM/THEIR cause, as one of the winners.
Do you have ANYTHING to back this up - anything remotely FACTUAL?
sigh...So you haven't been paying attention.
So what is our shared vision of America? I honestly don't think that we disagree on anything of consequence here, although great efforts are taken by both sides to villify the opposition. The state of politics in America is that of defining the opposition as a "bad" person, who actually wants bad things to happen. That is ridiculous, and both sides do it. Don't let yourself fall into that trap. Please don't sink to that level. We all love children and puppies and sunshine, for goodness sake.
At first I thought "wow, what world does Flint inhabit where there is no evil and everyone really is, ultimately, only wanting good things for everyone."
It seemed so Pollyanna, and strange that such a glowing recommendation on the inherent goodness of mankind would be in a thread topic initially devoted to the love of Romney, to seeing what a good man he really is, deep down.
Then I thought of a sign I have in my office, to remind me when Dragon Lady gets so far beneath my skin she's gnawing on my bones:
Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.--Napoleon Bonaparte
;)
But I don't believe in the inherent universal goodness of mankind. Sure, goodness exists in abundance, but hardly because there is no evil to counter it.
One more time:
The way it works is, congress can pass a law if it can break a Presidents veto, by getting a 2/3rds approval, in both the House of Rep. and the Senate.
Correct, and as you state, still not done by the President. No direct action taken by the President. Next...
It can pass a bill up to the President, despite opposition, if it has enough votes to break the opposition's filabuster, or if it can wear down the filabuster. That requires 60% of the Senators voting to stop the debate on the bill. Since a filabuster can done in different ways, what is needed to beat it may take different measures.
Very good, and again, as you state, still not done by the President. No direct action taken by the President. Next...
Without opposition, Congress can pass a bill up to the President if they have a majority who vote for it. On a tie vote only, the Vice President will cast the deciding vote.
Full marks, and once again, as you state, still not done by the President. No direct action taken by the President. Next...
Your post in #389:
That's incorrect, obviously.
Some references are here, others you'll have to Google for:
That's a webpage full of glossary terms. I'm seeing a whole lot about what the House does and what the Senate does, and a whole lot about term definition, such as what 'adjournment sine die' means. (Thanks by the way, that was a new term for me.) Fascinating. Do let me know if I missed it, but I'm still not seeing a term that defines how the office of the President has the ability to change the actual process laid out in Article 1, Sections 1 and 2 and further defined in the 17th, 20th and 25th Amendments because he's Conservative or Liberal or Insert-Label-Here. Considering the official guidelines for the creation of laws in this country, my statement is correct.
QED, the Office of President and what color his sign has on it has no direct effect on the process until the bill comes to him to sign, because that is his prescribed role. He can indirectly affect it as a champion and cheerleader; he talk to people and flex Executive Muscle, such as it is. He can go to Senator X's office, or House Leader Y's office and have a nice chat. And that might change some minds and a bill might sail through or get voted down because of it. He can sign it or send it back and say 'Do it again!' But he's not the one actually doing it. Therefore, anything he wants to do or have done must get past the 535 first. If most of the 535 like his plan, it'll be fairly easy; if most don't, it can be tough going; if most don't give a whatsit, then who knows. His political leanings do not supersede the 535 in the process. When it comes to passed laws, he can say "I had this done." He can not say "I did this."
And it is possible to talk about political process without being partisan. Jus' sayin'.
Yes, I know. When the Liberal is wrong, and the Conservative calls him on it, the Conservative is always being<fill in the negative behavior here>
I harbor a morbid curiosity as to how you've decided I (or anyone who does not agree with you) am liberal.
Probably better that I don't ask but this could be entertaining.
And it is possible to talk about political process without being partisan. Jus' sayin'.
That's over in Aisle 5 under "Discuss the Political Process."
This is Aisle 7 "Reasons You Are Wrong If You Don't Love Mitt."
:p:
That's over in Aisle 5 under "Discuss the Political Process."
This is Aisle 7 "Reasons You Are Wrong If You Don't Love Mitt."
:p:
Aw man... there's no maps in this place!
~Snip what I agree with~
So what is our shared vision of America? I honestly don't think that we disagree on anything of consequence here, although great efforts are taken by both sides to villify the opposition. The state of politics in America is that of defining the opposition as a "bad" person, who actually wants bad things to happen. That is ridiculous, and both sides do it. Don't let yourself fall into that trap. Please don't sink to that level. We all love children and puppies and sunshine, for goodness sake.
Who's shared vision? The people in this thread? The people on the board? Americans?
The people I've talked to who are fairly successful businessmen (including family), complain they could have made much more money, not because of taxes but because of government regulations. They want no regulations in the way of doing things cheap, easy and profitable. Some of the regulations I understand are unintended consequences of one-size-fits-all laws.
But in every example they cited to me, the law was to protect people and the environment. No, you can't run the floor drains from the body shop into the creek. No, you can't fill in the swamp for more parking. No, you can't sell counterfeit drugs from China.
In the age of multinational corporations even the states can't protect the public, only the feds have the clout. The recent case of people dying from tainted steroids was apparently a loophole in the regulations, which is a case for more, not less.
We do disagree on some of the specific methods of obtaining the goals that we all desire. Nobody hates babies, we simply sometimes disagree on the best way to do things.
Here's the problem, we agree on more things than we disagree on.
Why do political parties get so polarized?
Maybe nobody(at least very few), hates babies, but some care little about them or their future if they don't live in the right neighborhood or come from the right stock.
~Snip what I agree with~
So you have a governor with a successful track record employing incredibly similar policies to a sitting president, with who he has to feign disagreement, but after all what do they really disagree on, when so much of their body of work looks basically parallel? Essentially this goes back to that 'leadership' thing. Again, leadership isn't management. Leaders are there to define a vision which informs the culture, and this is where the differentiation between candidates has to be clear. And basically we have had defined for us two opposed school of thought: 1) the "greedy businessman who only cares about himself and his rich buddies, who is oblivious to the experience of poor people, and doesn't recognize the social responsibilities of the government (also he is a patriarchal religious zealot and firearms enthusiast)," and 2) the "big government, tax and spend socialist who thrives on getting greater and greater numbers of people addicted to government handouts--he doesn't have any sense with money because he is spending your money while also planning to take your guns and bibles away, and force you to get a mandatory abortion."
These are cartoon villians. But, in reality, they do have to represent some kind of fundamental difference of that 'vision' thing.
Yes they do, and it's a pre vs post FDR vision. Pre FDR the "middle class" was composed of the managers of the robber barons businesses, bankers, and very successful business men. Post FDR and WWII, the "middle class" expanded exponentially because of a consumer driven manufacturing economy and labor unions. Post Reagan we've sen the decline of both and the pre FDR vision wants to continue that slide.
And this is what frustrates me about how we get so bogged down in the specifics of policies--which after all, are just trying to accomplish the same things that we all want, only in different ways. There are different schools of thought on economics and everything else--there isn't one 'correct' answer. And the person who disagrees with you about the means to achieve a goal doesn't have to be a bad person. And the politician who is basically beholden to a coalition of disparate interests which define the 'vision' he must communicate in order to guide millions of people in a general direction, he isn't a boots-on-the-ground manager who tells people exactly how to do their job. In that respect it is almost absurdist to regard a presidential campaign as a battle of specifics.
While I agree we get bogged down on specifics that nobody wants to reveal, the specifics tell the truth about the vision.
~snip reasoning based on a false premise of agreed goal~
None of the people involved in these dicussions are 'bad' people; and at the same time, none of the politicians discussed here are without the same set of characteristics that allows any man to rise to that level of national politics. It is what it is--can we not just accept that and move on?
We don't have to get so wrapped up in it that we forget our common sense and common decency.
Again, who are "the people involved in these dicussions"? Confined to the Cellar, I'd agree. But on the national scene there are some bad people, people who will lie cheat and steal to subjugate the masses.
But we obviously don't always agree on some pretty major items. Can we not at least pretend momentarilly that the other person might be aware of something that we are not, and try to imagine what the set of variables that would support that scenario would look like, and then try to reconcile that with our observations of reality in order to determine the basic feasbility of what they are proposing?
I mean, that's how you learn things.
No, that's not how you learn things, you learn things by questioning, not pretending/imagining. Questioning the whys/hows, and when the response is based on verifiable lies they've swallowed, rather than experience or reasoning, there's nothing to learn except they are gullible
I've learned, and grown, so much while participating in discussions on the internet, because it allows you the opportunity to observe that people who disagree with you are also intelligent and have well-founded ideas. But you have to be open to that. It isn't a passive thing that happens--you have to force yourself into this mindset, until over time it becomes habit.
It is good to question and examine things.
Absolutely, there's a lot to be learned in the internet discussions if you can pick your way through the static. But this personal growth you speak of is mostly personal understanding of other peoples trials, how you perceive, and possibly treat, them. This may make the world a tiny bit better and surely makes you a lot better person.
That said, politics is a different animal in that the outcome affects how you are treated by the government, and how the government allows other people to treat you. That makes it personal, sometimes imperative to your life, liberty, and pursuit of whatever blows your skirt up.
sigh...So you haven't been paying attention.
Still waiting anxiously for that fact on the number of jobs lost versus the number of jobs gained, from the actions of Bain Capital.
All that "I lost my job due to Bain", stuff is real, no doubt, but it's VERY hyped by the Obama re-election campaign. The flip side "I have a job at Staples, etc., due to Bain Capital", is strangely never mentioned by the Obama campaign.
Of course, you believe only one side of the argument - naturally. You couldn't find any facts on it, and you couldn't believe that like everything else in life, there is a yin and there is a yang, an ebb and a flow, or as the wise man states: "a time for every purpose, under heaven". (Ecclesiastes, iirc).
Jobs are created, and jobs are lost in business. Any business. That is the nature of business, which follows the nature of life.
I harbor a morbid curiosity as to how you've decided I (or anyone who does not agree with you) am liberal.
Probably better that I don't ask but this could be entertaining.
Our disagreement was not in the actions of the President, in enacting a bill, into law. I have no idea why you've fixated on that. Possibly because your two other statements about our gov't, were incorrect.
I don't know what your politics are. If you were a Conservative, you would be excited by the Romney campaign, even though he's a middle of the road, type. Compared to Obama, he's definitely more Conservative (thank Heavens).
I thought you would enjoy that Glossary, the descriptions it gives are quite authoritative, imo.
Debate is on. Is that a tiny uterus desecrating Mitt's lapel flag?
Yes. Obama and Romney both had to desecrate corpses before the debate tonight. That was one of the requirements they both agreed to, prior to the debate. :eek:
Try focusing on the <CONTENT>, Griff.
:)
Looks like Mitt wants to double down on the good ole days. A new cold war with Russia plus some new madness in Iran and Syria where we heavily arm the nice radicals but not the bad guys. <eye roll here>
I hear romney saying it's really really scary out there. Mali Egypt Syria Lebanon etc. We need to bring the rule of law to the Muslim world. F. F. S.
Who here thinks that our economy will be stronger with an additional TRILLION DOLLARS in the defense budget
Continuous growth last four years
But romney doesn't want to see that for the next four years
Greece??!
We are not Greece. Puhlease.
Where will the money come from to grow the military
Medicare is good we keep it but Obama care which has good thing we can't afford
Romney says he's afraid AREN'T YOU ALL AFRAID TOO?!?!
Sumarines????
What the Fuck?!?!
We are getting EXTREMELY low on horses and bayonets.
NOW I understand why Romney's so afraid. It's aaaaalll coming together now.
I hope romney can get connected to some of this job retraining money. He could spend it on a grammar tutor to explain what an adjective is.
"DemocratIC Senators"
I know "they" say it that way because "they" think it irks "us". Speaking for myself, it only reveals ignorance, deliberate or accidental. I think accidents are rare at this stage of the campaign.
Romney says China is our friend. Isn't that cute?
At first I thought "wow, what world does Flint inhabit where there is no evil and everyone really is, ultimately, only wanting good things for everyone."
It seemed so Pollyanna, and strange that such a glowing recommendation on the inherent goodness of mankind would be in a thread topic initially devoted to the love of Romney, to seeing what a good man he really is, deep down.
Then I thought of a sign I have in my office, to remind me when Dragon Lady gets so far beneath my skin she's gnawing on my bones:
Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.--Napoleon Bonaparte
;)
But I don't believe in the inherent universal goodness of mankind. Sure, goodness exists in abundance, but hardly because there is no evil to counter it.
I think my point was clear: it is not only insurmountably illogical, but a tragic statement on the state of politics, both at the 'career' level, and here, among friends, that a full 50% of American citizens are labeled as "bad" people.
I don't believe that 50% of us are "bad" people, and I am saddened that you thought this observation deserved a snarky slapdown.
I believe the figure is 47%.
:bolt:
We are getting EXTREMELY low on horses and bayonets.
NOW I understand why Romney's so afraid. It's aaaaalll coming together now.
Soldiers are still issued bayonets. The US Army still has horses. Seems like the Commander in Chief would know that
Our disagreement was not in the actions of the President, in enacting a bill, into law. I have no idea why you've fixated on that. Possibly because your two other statements about our gov't, were incorrect.
I'm 'fixated' because that's what my post was about originally and you keep pivoting away from that.
And which other two statements? I've only said one thing, the correct thing, confirmed by your own statements even, in several different ways.
If you were a Conservative, you would be excited by the Romney campaign, even though he's a middle of the road, type.
This right here is why I don't subscribe to a label. I also have no party/political stickers on my car or signs in my yard. Once you do subscribe, then you are more or less told what to think by your fellows, must submit to the collective beliefs associated with that label, and you will (publicly), if you want to remain in Good Standing with your party/affiliation. And if you happen to be more independent than that but still wish to wear the label, you're still tagged as a supporter of things you may actually abhor. The parties want loyalty, people like to feel they 'belong' to something. And if you don't lock-step, your label is revoked and you automatically become one of the labels your chosen label is supposed to hate. And then you're supposed to feel bad and either live a life of shame or pander to be reinstated. Bugger all that. Life's too short for that nonsense.
Frankly, no candidate for any position, local, Congress or President, gets me excited anymore because I know how the game of politics is played. I show my political support by voting. So, as a voter, I am highly critical of all sides and keep emotions out of it because I know as soon as I let myself have a favorite, it'll be easier for them to pull wool over my eyes.
Because the favorite can do no wrong.
US Marine & mule at the Mountain Warrior Training Center
I believe the figure is 47%.
According to the polls from immediately pre-debate, yes, it actually 47% vs. 47%
Still waiting anxiously for that fact on the number of jobs lost versus the number of jobs gained, from the actions of Bain Capital.
All that "I lost my job due to Bain", stuff is real, no doubt, but it's VERY hyped by the Obama re-election campaign. The flip side "I have a job at Staples, etc., due to Bain Capital", is strangely never mentioned by the Obama campaign.
Of course, you believe only one side of the argument - naturally. You couldn't find any facts on it, and you couldn't believe that like everything else in life, there is a yin and there is a yang, an ebb and a flow, or as the wise man states: "a time for every purpose, under heaven". (Ecclesiastes, iirc).
Jobs are created, and jobs are lost in business. Any business. That is the nature of business, which follows the nature of life.
Anthony Crane
Cambridge Industries
GS Industries
Ampad
DDi
Dade International
Mothercare
GT Bicycle
SMTC Corp
Chippac
Asimco Technologies
Oh, and the unconscionable rape of Burger King.
Anthony Crane
Cambridge Industries
GS Industries
Ampad
DDi
Dade International
Mothercare
GT Bicycle
SMTC Corp
Chippac
Asimco Technologies
Oh, and the unconscionable rape of Burger King.
All I need, and the ONLY thing I'll accept, are the number of jobs lost from Bain Capital, during the the time Romney was the CEO, and the number of jobs gained from Bain Capital's work, during the time Romney was CEO. And the link to the authoritative origin of those numbers.
A simple list of company names is not what's needed, here. Here's a hint. You don't have what you need, and you never will, and I doubt anyone has those figures, because they're so widely disbursed across several companies.
That's WHY the Obama campaign seized on it - because they can't be called liars easily, and certainly not before the election day.
This is Romney's strong point in the campaign - jobs. If they can make you doubt him on that point, they're well on their way to a win on election day. It's the same way Kerry was hit with the "riverboat vets for truth" project. Nobody could really say what Kerry's actions were in Vietnam, but nobody could really dispute what the "vets" were saying, either.
Just plant as big a doubt as you can, about the opponent.
I heard a smear about Obama today. While at Harvard as editor of the law review paper, two male workers quit and filed sexual harassment charges against the school, claiming Obama was the perpetrator.
Harvard paid out to both the students in both cases, under the condition the students kept silent.
Do I believe it? It doesn't matter. Whether Obama was secretly a sexual harasser or not, doesn't interest me. His policies and their success or failure, determine my opinion of Obama, as President.
Period.
I think my point was clear: it is not only insurmountably illogical, but a tragic statement on the state of politics, both at the 'career' level, and here, among friends, that a full 50% of American citizens are labeled as "bad" people.
I don't believe that 50% of us are "bad" people, and I am saddened that you thought this observation deserved a snarky slapdown.
That wasn't a snarky slapdown, it was my view on your view...presented in my typical way (i.e. humor rather than 15 pages of the aforementioned 'smart guy' speak.) God forbid anyone inject any levity into all this nonsense.
I certainly don't think 50% of us are bad people. That's ludicrous. (Some of my best friends and relatives are conservatives.) I just don't believe that everyone loves children and puppies, and I don't believe Romney, in particular, has any real desire to grow the middle class (without which our country cannot survive, imo.)
What happened to you Flint? You used to have a sense of humor.
Got to take these one at a time...
You're welcome. What I had in mind was this link:
I offer this constructive criticism of this link. It is just a picture. It has a title, but there's little there to go on, not a link back to the article, no legends on the axes, nothing. I did follow up on this picture's title, "Publicly held federal debt 1790-2009", and read some material though.
You say it is an picture of the problem with Socialism. That's not what I found.
Here's a link that has much more actual information than just that picture. It's a CBO report titled The 2012 Long-Term Budget Outlook. Here's the money shot:
[ATTACH]41073[/ATTACH]
Let me break that down for you. First of all, the graph, the report, nothing at all has anything at all to do with Socialism, or its supposed problems. I *suspect* that scare word came from some partisan bloviator who saw a report and then took the six or seven words in it that suited his panicky mood at the time, and mashed up that graph and slapped the label Socialism somewhere in the title of the blog post. I think you cribbed it from something like that.
Now that that is out of the way, let's talk about what the CBO is actually saying. They consider two scenarios, they call them extended baselines because they look at their projections for the budget for the next twenty-five or so years.
******
*** the kind of reductions in payments to providers that comprise the hotly debated $176 billion dollars "stolen" from Medicare, according to Ryan/Romney.
So, you say that the problem with Socialism is ... something, but you point at the "extended alternative baseline scenario" as the scary bogeyman. It IS scary I agree. But if you read the CBO's own words, that scary prospect is what they project will happen if the tax cuts are permitted to stay in place.
...
Come on, Adak. This is Socialism? If you want to AVOID the "Socialist" outcome, fine--just keep extending the temporary Bush era tax cuts. This is what Comrade Romney has proposed, hasn't he? He won't increase anyone's taxes. "Absolutely." that was his *exact* statement on the issue, right? Socialist bastard. In fact, if you listen to him further, he says he will LOWER THE RATES. REALLY???? That scary graph was scary because the rates only stay the same, imagine how much faster and higher the Taxapolyse will hit if the rates are lowered? Oh, sure, Romney's gonna pay for them by eliminating funding for Big Bird and some other hand waving, but even taking him at his word, he's only aiming to make the changes "revenue neutral". He doesn't want to bring any more revenue to the Federal system. All cuts. No revenue increases.
You read the report. You look at the graphs. You listen to Romney's words. Then you come back and tell me which scenario his plan would take us to. And be prepared to substitute some numbers for his pitiful and unconvincing hand waving. You've shown your willingness and ability to support your statements to a degree far exceeding Romney's. Go on, convince me. I might vote for you.
All I need, and the ONLY thing I'll accept, are the number of jobs lost from Bain Capital, during the the time Romney was the CEO, and the number of jobs gained from Bain Capital's work, during the time Romney was CEO. And the link to the authoritative origin of those numbers.
Wow that's a high bar! You clearly have high standards for what you will consider valid information, and what you reject for lack of support. Your rigorous fact checking shows you only accept the truth on important issues and are never satisfied with mere assertion.
Yet....
You have never offered any support or "facts" for the smears spread by the Romney campaign that he will balance the budget by cutting taxes.
Nothing at all like the standard of proof you demand from others. This makes you a hypocrite as well as an ideologue. You can shed these twin millstones by producing some details about how Romney will manage his tax cuts and budget balancing. PLEASE NOTE I will only accept actual tax code sections, the dollar value of those sections and (since you such a precocious student of American Civics, the vote count in Congress for each of these changes to our tax laws).
I would challenge you to put up or shut up, but I realize that would be pointless, since you're incapable of either. Just so you know, until you produce some facts like you demand from others your voice, like any other well trained parrot, provides only entertainment, not information.
Soldiers are still issued bayonets. The US Army still has horses. Seems like the Commander in Chief would know that
He said, "Well governor, we also have
fewer horses and bayonets."
All I need, and the ONLY thing I'll accept, are the number of jobs lost from Bain Capital, during the the time Romney was the CEO, and the number of jobs gained from Bain Capital's work, during the time Romney was CEO. And the link to the authoritative origin of those numbers.
Oh, I see. You're too lazy to look up the companies Romney destroyed with his evil Bain leveraged buyout scheme.
That's the only thing you'll accept?
Fuck you, you aren't calling the shots, boy.
He said, "Well governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets."
The National Defense Act approved on 3 June 1916 set the peace strength of the Regular Army at 220,000 officers and men and of the National Guard at 450,000. In 2012, US Army (Active) was 547,400 with an Army Reserve of 205,000 and Army National Guard of 358,200.
If we average to just one bayonet per soldier, that would give us:
1916 - 670,000 bayonets
2012 - 1,110,600 bayonets
Soldiers and Marines have really taken to heart the comment about the bayonets. The saying goes, "Every soldier is a rifleman first."
I haven't counted the number of horses, but I will concede there are fewer horses. Oh Lord, don't even mention the crack about ships diving underwater. The USS Holland (SS-1) was the United States Navy's first commissioned submarine and was launched on 17 May 1897.
Yes, I realize President Obama was just trying to make an illustration of a point. It has just struck a nerve on the military boards
Sarge, would you rather have more bayonets, or more tanks and automatic weapons?
Are we talking linear or non-linear warfare? Or we could say COIN OPS (Counterinsurgency) vs Force on Force? It really doesn't matter. I totally understand the point President Obama made. The crack about bayonets ticked me and alot of others. The bayonet is a symbol that no matter what you do in the military, you have to be prepared to be on the frontline & "fix bayonets".
I'm just being an ass. I really do understand the point. Plus, I admit that Romney isn't my favorite.
Oh, I see. You're too lazy to look up the companies Romney destroyed with his evil Bain leveraged buyout scheme.
That's the only thing you'll accept?
Fuck you, you aren't calling the shots, boy.
If you make an argument this big, you have to back it up - and of course, you can't. I can't refute it, or back it up, either. Nobody has that data.
Would you just accept a smear against Obama, that couldn't be backed up? Of course not.
Don't be such a hypocrite, and try harder to stay civil. Of course I call the shots on what I will accept as a fact. You do the same for yourself.
Wow that's a high bar! You clearly have high standards for what you will consider valid information, and what you reject for lack of support. Your rigorous fact checking shows you only accept the truth on important issues and are never satisfied with mere assertion.
Yet....
You have never offered any support or "facts" for the smears spread by the Romney campaign that he will balance the budget by cutting taxes.
Nothing at all like the standard of proof you demand from others. This makes you a hypocrite as well as an ideologue. You can shed these twin millstones by producing some details about how Romney will manage his tax cuts and budget balancing. PLEASE NOTE I will only accept actual tax code sections, the dollar value of those sections and (since you such a precocious student of American Civics, the vote count in Congress for each of these changes to our tax laws).
I would challenge you to put up or shut up, but I realize that would be pointless, since you're incapable of either. Just so you know, until you produce some facts like you demand from others your voice, like any other well trained parrot, provides only entertainment, not information.
That was covered a few pages back, by another poster, as well as on the website that he posted the link to.
Romney's tax cut is not a "smear". It is a plan, and you may disagree with it, but it is, by definition, not a "smear".
If there is some specific part about it that you don't understand, ask away, and I'll try to help. On a forum, I can't go whole hog on big topics however. The forum has a size limit on posts, and I have bumped up against it, a few times.
The point of the "high bar", is that the data you'd need to prove or to disprove the smear against Romney while at Bain, is NOT available. Which is why it's such a great target for a smear by the Obama campaign. THAT is the point of the "high bar", to bring this point into focus.
IF the data was readily available, don't you think that Obama's campaign would be shouting the numbers in every ad, all across the country? That's why you can be sure that the data is not there. :cool:
Romney's tax cut is not a "smear". It is a plan, and you may disagree with it, but it is, by definition, not a "smear".
Still pushing lies you were told to post. What happened to the many examples from history and other facts? Oh. You ignored them. Tax cuts typically result in recessions. Tax cuts to increase productivity has always been a lie that enriches the rich. And then results in a recession. No reason to list the so many examples from history. That also included economic boom after a tax increase. You routinely ignore what contradicts the party's rhetoric.
snip--
Yes, I realize President Obama was just trying to make an illustration of a point. It has just struck a nerve on the military boards
At the risk of sounding like a kindergartener, Romney started it. It was Romney who chose 1917 as the date to compare a single fact about our military then and now. Romney had been playing Chicken Little all night, fearmongering, and he piled on by comparing the number of ships in our navy then and now, a factually useless comparison. Great for stoking the fires of fear, but nothing else. Obama gave him back what he was giving everyone else--context free facts.
Why do you think Romney used that particular figure? I think it was to be melodramatic. And he got the melodrama he was searching for.
During the debate last night, Romney said (for some unknown reason):
"I like women... "
My G-son finished his sentence...
... because they are the right height."
Tax cut for everyone,
same proprtion of taxes paid by those who earn in the top 5%
eliminating taxes on capital gains, dividends and interest
adding a trillion dollars to the defense budget
"absolutely" not adding any taxes to the middle class of earners who make under $200k/yr
and
...drumroll please.....
balance the budget.
That was covered a few pages back, by another poster, as well as on the website that he posted the link to.
You're saying this was covered a few pages back... right. I looked. Maybe you mean this one:
Brookings Tax Policy Center article
Somewhere else I read that the Romney deficit reduction and budget balancing assumptions are based upon "possible" and "potential" economic upturns. So...if I were to make a million dollars a year, I could get out of debt very quickly. :p: A bank will not give me a loan based on that "assumption", but it's ok for our entire nation's economic well-being?
Or this one:
BigV, follow the link for the answer.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/10/the-6-studies-paul-ryan-cited-prove-mitt-romneys-tax-plan-is-impossible/263541/
Edit: A second article:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-12/the-final-word-on-mitt-romney-s-tax-plan.html
Basically, you assume unrealistic job growth or you change the definition of the middle class...
I did read those posts and the articles at the links, but none of them do what you say they do. I'd like to see your cite, or better yet, just explain to me how he can do all those things he said he's gonna do. Because,
[SIZE="4"]If you make an argument this big, you have to back it up - and of course, you can't. I can't refute it, or back it up, either. Nobody has that data.[/SIZE]
It doesn't exist.
Still pushing lies you were told to post. What happened to the many examples from history and other facts? Oh. You ignored them. Tax cuts typically result in recessions. Tax cuts to increase productivity has always been a lie that enriches the rich. And then results in a recession. No reason to list the so many examples from history. That also included economic boom after a tax increase. You routinely ignore what contradicts the party's rhetoric.
Are these statements true or false, in your judgement?
1) gov't takes more money in taxes. I have less $$$ , my small or large business has less, so I spend less $$$, and my business spends less also.
2) gov't takes less money in taxes. I have more $$$, my small or large business has more $$$, so I spend more $$$ , and my business spends more also.
If they're both true, then I can have reasonable discourse with you. If not, then I can not. I have no connection with your reality.
Your Answer?
@BigV:
Don't get angry with me about economic projections. Gov't and business has been using them since - roughly -- forever. The Egyptians used it when Israel was hit by famine, and had to relocate to Egypt to survive, if you remember.
Anyway, ALL budgets are based on projections. Are those projections reasonable?
Define "reasonable". Because they may prove to be too optimistic (typically), but sometimes they prove to be too pessimistic.
I wouldn't put a lot of stock in these projections. I would say for sure, that with Romney and Ryan and the Republicans in charge in the House and Senate, that our economy will begin to REALLY move forward after a period of re-adjustment in the gov't and in industry. If you haven't seen a recovery take off, I can tell you it's a wonderfully giddy thing, imo. :cool:
Would you mind if I linked you to a notable gov't economist for an oversight on how and why this works?
It won't make you like Romney, because Romney isn't mentioned. It's all about economic policy in a capitalist system.
If you make an argument this big, you have to back it up - and of course, you can't. I can't refute it, or back it up, either. Nobody has that data.
Would you just accept a smear against Obama, that couldn't be backed up? Of course not.
Don't be such a hypocrite, and try harder to stay civil. Of course I call the shots on what I will accept as a fact. You do the same for yourself.
Not a smear when the fact that it happened is well documented.
A fifth grader can figure out if you grab a business and suck the life out of it until it goes belly up, people are out of work. The people suffer, the families suffer, the community suffers, because some predatory millionaires/billionaires need more money? No, they don't need money, it's just a blood sport.
Oh, and stop telling me what the fuck to do, I'm not one of you Morman sheep.
I'm not angry Adak. Not with you anyhow. I'm angry that Romney's successfully lying about what he can promise. It is this deception that angers me. I am calling him on it. I'm not asking for a "reasonable" projection, I'd settle for a possible projection, within the parameters he himself set. It doesn't add up.
Furthermore, your "high standard" is a good one, and one that could fairly be applied to Romney's tax plan, since he's touting his economic savoir-faire. I'm a reasonably smart guy, I can understand stuff, explain it to me, I have asked. You're his only surrogate here, so the question falls to you. There are lots of naysayers, ones whose arguments appear sound to me. I have not heard any argument from you in support of his plans. His desires, sure. His platitudes, sure. But that's not a plan. "I'm going to create 12 million new jobs" is not a plan. Tell me the PLAN. What is your PLAN?
This has not happened, absolutely not from Romney regarding his tax plan. What deductions? How does it add up? These kinds of questions. You and I both know why he won't say so. He won't say so because it doesn't add up. And by specifically identifying x or y or z, he opens himself to resistance from those people who *like* x or y or z. He won't expose himself to that. But it's still not a plan.
"We need to get jobs back from China."
"On day one I'll label China a currency manipulator."
When pronounced in close proximity to each other, the second one sounds like a step toward achieving the second one. But for anyone who knows what the second one entails, there's no support for the first one. These kind of pastel platitudes are useless as policies, though they can be effective to activate people's emotions. That's why he does this. He's campaigning, promising. I get that, and more power to him. But what he's promising can not be delivered.
I will not abide his lies.
The majority of the candidate's income last year came from his investments: capital gains ($6.8 million), taxable interest ($3 million) and dividends ($3.7 million).
In addition, Romney reported $450,470 in business income.
--snip--
The reason Romney's rate is so low -- despite having one of the highest incomes in the country -- is because his income was derived almost entirely from capital gains and dividends from his extensive portfolio of investments. And that form of investment income is typically taxed at just 15%, well below the 35% top tax rate for high earners.
Romney's 2011 tax return, on a matchbook cover.
cite.
Tell me how he can eliminate taxes on capital gains, interest, and dividends and still pay the same proportion of taxes?
According to his own words out of his own mouth, his taxable income will fall from 13.9 million to 0.45 million. Now, that almost half million will be taxed at 35% minus 20% of 35%, so 28% of half a million, about $126,000. That is a big tax bill. But it is far far lower than the $1.94 million dollars he did pay.
How is this possible? How is this consistent with what he says he'll do? It isn't!
By HIS plan, to the extent that he's revealed the specifics, his tax rate goes from 14% to less than 1%.
You're a smart guy. Reconcile this arithmetically. Justify this morally. I'm listening.
It's not his fault, it's the blind trust... except that's also a lie.
That's because Romney placed his quarter-billion dollar family fortune in the hands of his personal lawyer and longtime associate Bradford Malt.
Experts have questioned whether someone with Malt's close ties to Romney could oversee the candidate's finances with true independence. In addition to serving as the trustee for Romney's charitable foundation, Malt's law firm has represented Romney's interests in legal disputes, and Malt served as the primary outside counsel to Romney's company, Bain Capital. A sign of those ties surfaced in August, when Romney filed his financial disclosure report and revealed that Malt had invested over $1 million of the candidate's money in the Solamere Founders Fund. Solamere is managed by Tagg Romney, Mitt's son.
In an email to ABC News, Romney's campaign acknowledged the arrangement does not live up to the strict standards for blind trusts established by the federal Office of Government Ethics. But the campaign was also quick to note that those rules do not apply to candidates for office -- they apply only to federal office holders.
linkIt's not his fault, it's the blind trust... except that's also a lie.
That's because Romney placed his quarter-billion dollar family fortune in the hands of his personal lawyer and longtime associate Bradford Malt.
link
Projections are used all the time for budgeting purposes. It has nothing to do with Bruce's snarky attitude, above. Gotta hate them rich guys, eh Bruce? Some are optimistic, some are pessimistic, with the former being much more common.
Nation-wide economic projections are seldom spot on, because the economy is so complex and variable in the controlling factors, at any given period.
You can be sure of one thing - if the Republicans win the House, Senate, and Presidency, you will see, after a period of re-adjustment by the gov't and the economy, a tremendous recovery. The speed will be slowed down by the recession in Europe and by the recent slow down in the Chinese economy. But unlike today, when we know we have 11.9 million manufacturing jobs, versus 12.4 million in '2009, and the dow dropped 240 points and is expecting a "down" 4th quarter*, things will begin to REALLY look up.
Remember what that felt like?
*From KNX 1070 News Radio, Los Angeles, a CBS affiliate.
I would say for sure, that with Romney and Ryan and the Republicans in charge in the House and Senate, that our economy will begin to REALLY move forward after a period of re-adjustment in the gov't and in industry.
You can be sure of one thing - if the Republicans win the House, Senate, and Presidency, you will see, after a period of re-adjustment by the gov't and the economy, a tremendous recovery.
I think I know what somebody wants for Christmas!
A cracker.
Oh, proving Romney, and you, lied about the blind trust is being snarky?
Cool, be prepared for a lot more snark.
Romney's 2011 tax return, on a matchbook cover. cite.
Tell me how he can eliminate taxes on capital gains, interest, and dividends and still pay the same proportion of taxes?
According to his own words out of his own mouth, his taxable income will fall from 13.9 million to 0.45 million. Now, that almost half million will be taxed at 35% minus 20% of 35%, so 28% of half a million, about $126,000. That is a big tax bill. But it is far far lower than the $1.94 million dollars he did pay.
How is this possible? How is this consistent with what he says he'll do? It isn't! By HIS plan, to the extent that he's revealed the specifics, his tax rate goes from 14% to less than 1%.
You're a smart guy. Reconcile this arithmetically. Justify this morally. I'm listening.
I don't want to quote arithmetic, because it's not a 1+1 kind of thing, when you work with the economy and the tax rates and loopholes.
There are currently a HUGE pool of money, kept outside the states, because anyone with overseas offices, would be taxed on that money AGAIN, if they brought it back into the US.
That capital tax rate, is one of, if not the highest, corporate tax rate, in the world.
Here's what Germany does: you sell stuff overseas, you pay taxes in that country, (as we do also), and you pay little to NOTHING when you bring that money back to Germany! Their take on it is different than ours, however. Creating jobs is a DUTY written into the German Constitution, and every party takes it dead seriously.
Which is why companies like BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and all kinds of German manufactured goods, can compete very well. They make GREAT power tools, I can attest!
That's been a problem with our economy for years, and Romney plans to help fix it. By just lowering the rate, a LOT of money (how much? I don't know. ), will return to the states. And we will be more competitive, in overseas business sales, etc.
I know Paul Ryan's monetary budget plan was published, but I haven't read Romney's proposed tax plan yet. I read what he was going to do, in broad strokes, and I know it will help.
Will it meet a certain specific goal? I don't know. I know cutting taxes massively helped Kennedy out of his recession, it helped Cleveland out of his recession, it helped Reagan out of Carter's recession. And I know FDR's recession was so deep he felt compelled to act just to relieve our anxieties. By most accounts, he lengthened the depression for us, by his actions. We never really got out of it, until we started making parts and etc., for the UK, and etc., just prior to our entry into WWII.
You can match any lie you get from Romney, with two from Obama, so please, let's not go into the "he's a liar", game. Politicians are not known for being strictly tied to the facts. Especially while they are campaigning.
When all the details are published, (in a bill), then we can look at the numbers, and see what does, and doesn't probably, add up. I expect Romney's numbers to be optimistic because:
1) Europe is still in an economic recession. Greece, Spain, Italy and others, are in very serious shape.
2) China's economy has been slowing down, lately.
If these two big external factors remain (and I believe #1 certainly will, and #2 will NOT stay), then I believe Romney's projections will be off. We do a lot of business with Europe, and have banking ties which directly support their banks. If they go down, we will be bailing them out, yet again.
And I know FDR's recession was so deep he felt compelled to act just to relieve our anxieties. By most accounts, he lengthened the depression for us, by his actions. We never really got out of it, until we started making parts and etc., for the UK, and etc., just prior to our entry into WWII.
FDR's recession?
Stock market crashed in 1929.
Hoover and the repubs resisted all calls for intervention and it developed into the worst economic downturn in modern history.
FDR elected 1932. Started
trying to intervene.
As you say, success was limited until the pre-war rush. Which was all put on debt. And then paid off by taxing high income earners.
after a period of re-adjustment by the gov't:behead::rattat::apistola:
Fixed that for ya.
FDR's recession?
Stock market crashed in 1929.
Hoover and the repubs resisted all calls for intervention and it developed into the worst economic downturn in modern history.
FDR elected 1932. Started trying to intervene.
As you say, success was limited until the pre-war rush. Which was all put on debt. And then paid off by taxing high income earners.
We had VERY high taxes, throughout the 1950's, but the gov't also cut it's spending MAGNIFICENTLY, when WWII, was over. You can tax the rich until they're all bankrupt, but it wouldn't pay for the excesses, and wasteful spending we have today.
@Richlevy - you know who pays all those gov't workers their wages and benefits, don't you? Still feel all warm and cozy about 55,000 more new federal gov't employees?
I'd love to tell you that the recovery with Romney, will start on Day 1 of his term in office, but the federal gov't is a BIG bureaucratic nightmare. If you see an organizational chart of just who reports to Dept. of Homeland Security, it's enough to make you dizzy. It will take time.
Whenever people suggest that the rich should pay more taxes than they do, someone throws out the 'you could take all their money and it still wouldn't be enough' line.
It isn't one or the other. It isn't a choice between virtually tax free wealth on the one hand and bankrupting the rich on the other.
And, having established that the rich cannot solve the financial crisis on their own, the onus is always shifted almost entirely onto the backs of the working and middle classes.
The wealthy should pay more than they currently pay. The fact that their combined wealth would not be enough even if we took it all, is not a good reason to let them get away with paying so little. It's also not a good reason to expect those who aren't wealthy to carry the can.
Whenever people suggest that the rich should pay more taxes than they do, someone throws out the 'you could take all their money and it still wouldn't be enough' line.
Showing that SOMEBODY has seen the math on it.
It isn't one or the other. It isn't a choice between virtually tax free wealth on the one hand and bankrupting the rich on the other.
I agree.
And, having established that the rich cannot solve the financial crisis on their own, the onus is always shifted almost entirely onto the backs of the working and middle classes.
Which is EXACTLY wrong-headed! Stop right there! Where does the onus lie for this? Right on gov't spending!! But the liberals do NOT NOT NOT want to allow one dollar to be cut from anything, no matter WHAT!
The wealthy should pay more than they currently pay. The fact that their combined wealth would not be enough even if we took it all, is not a good reason to let them get away with paying so little. It's also not a good reason to expect those who aren't wealthy to carry the can.
I agree. But you can't get the Democrats to cut spending -- they will SAY that they will -- did it to Reagan, did it to George Bush I, etc. They refuse to honor their promises on this.
The one time they were forced to, was when the Republicans were in control of Congress, and Clinton was in the White House. The "Contract with America" was in force, and popular, and cuts were made. It's hard for them to admit that it helped our economy a great deal, during the Clinton Administration.
Any recovery of ours is tied directly to the recovery in Europe -- we support their banks, if you don't know.
This is bad news for Europe, AND for us, and our recovery:
Business activity in the eurozone contracted at its fastest pace in almost three-and-a-half years in October, a survey suggests.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20067506
Do you STILL believe we need to re-elect a President who can't find his way around a lemonade stand?
All across the world, in the wake of a global financial crisis, bordering on catastrophe, the truisms of economic theory which have held sway for almost half a century have been shown to be anything but reliable.
You cannot, nor could you ever, cut your way out of a demand led recession. It is utter folly to reduce government spending at precisely the time when it is most needed. People who are unemployed, like their employed counterparts, need food, shelter and consumable goods. Providing state benefits for those people does not remove that money from the economy. It goes back into the market in the form of goods and services purchased.
Removing those state benefits, removes those people from the mainstream market and pushes them into the black market.
At the same time, as those people are pushed into social crisis, basic maintenance costs give way to emergency rescue costs (leaving healthcare until expensive emergency treatment is required - homeless families requiring relatively expensive housing solutions through local and national initiatives, usually underpinned by legal requirements to ensure safety of children - and family breakdown bringing in the need for social service solutions because of the same legal requirements - increased levels of mental stress triggering crisis, etc)
People in work, meanwhile, become far more cautious with their money. Like the investors who become far more cautious with their investments and businesses who become far more cautious in their ventures, working people become more aware of potential risks to their family economy. An increasing fear factor around unemployement, exacerbated by swingeing cuts to local services, does not help increase the confidence and therefore spending activity of working people.
It was not socialism, or social capitalism that sent the global economy into near total meltdown. It was not high taxes on businesses and corporations that caused the American economy to tank, nor was it an overreliance on social safety nets. And the way out of the mire is not to blindly follow an economic paradigm which has so often and so recently been shown for a fallacy.
What do you like about another four years for Obama?
Seriously, I don't see anything attractive about it. He's got no agenda for the economy, since we're already over our heads in massive debt - we CAN'T do that stimulus money plan again. The Democrats know that Obama's budget is miserable, and won't even bother voting on it.
Nothing to look forward to on the economy.
Foreign policy? A disaster, pretty much. Obama has apologized for us, all around the world, and made us look weak - that really helps a lot in dealing with Al Qaeda and Iran. :rolleyes:
Except for the instances where he's followed Bush's example, he's done nothing good for us. Sat on his ass while they dragged our Ambassador 's body through the streets of Benghazi - all watched by our reconnaissance drone, as it happened.
Ho Hum. The leader of one of the groups that killed our Ambassador, was found right in the Benghazi hotel, having tea, by a New York Times reporter. Ho hum. Yeah! Obama will hunt them bad guys down, all right!! :rolleyes:
I don't see a single thing that Obama has done that's been positive, except allowing gays to serve openly in the military -- that is it.
Close Gitmo? Nope. Get us out of Afghanistan? Nope. Start up a decent nationalized heath care? Nope - it's a disaster. Protect social security or medicare? Nope. He's robbed them of 700 Million dollars and given them an IOU. Hastening the day they go bankrupt. Strengthen our military? Nope, weakened it. Redo the nuclear arms limit treaty? Nope.
He's spent a lot of money on his financial backers - over 800 million (Solendra and A123 alone are over that amount).
He wants to close our coal industry, and limit our oil supply. Fuel is already much higher than it was when he took office.
He won't defend our borders, even though we have SCADS of trafficers crossing it illegally and regularly, with illegals and drugs.
Janet Napolitano (Secretary of Homeland Security), comes down here and tells us we're safer than ever before on the border - right after two murders from the trafficers! What a *ucking tool she is.
(But it's OK, since she doesn't use email yet). :rolleyes:
reason.com/blog/.../its-cute-that-janet-napolitano-avoids-em
She even makes Janet Reno look smart!
I'm in favor of kicking them out if they can't do something a lot more positive for the country, than Obama has. I don't CARE what party they belong to.
Wow. So much bullshit, so little time.
It was not socialism, or social capitalism that sent the global economy into near total meltdown. It was not high taxes on businesses and corporations that caused the American economy to tank, nor was it an overreliance on social safety nets. And the way out of the mire is not to blindly follow an economic paradigm which has so often and so recently been shown for a fallacy.
You know sub prime mortgages all came about because of a change in gov't policy to buy them from the banks, without requiring a check of the income of the buyers. You could put down any figure you wanted, no questions asked.
Then the damn derivatives with their tremendous leverages, and next to nothing for collateral. But no, we're not going to stop them! :mad:
That didn't come from the Conservatives! Wasteful spending, and excessive spending, are big problems in out gov't.
Yes, our corporate taxes are first or second highest in the world right now, and it DOES hurt our international business, considerably.
When a huge company like GE can pay $0 in taxes, despite making a large profit, you know our tax loopholes have run amuck - and our politicians are the ones who have made it all possible. THEY will pick the "winners" and the "losers", through the power of their taxation, and if you'd like to be a "winner" you better pony up $$$, and get that lobbyist working for you.
When John Kennedy was facing a recession, he cut taxes big time, across the board (taxes had been quite high in the 50's), and his metaphor was it was like a rising tide, which raises all boats, regardless.
He was right, and it got us into a recovery, MUCH faster than whatever Obama's nonsense is doing. Reagan did it, to stop Carter's recession/stagflation crisis. Clinton cut some spending and taxes as well, when forced by Congress, and it also worked wonders for us, at that time.
So, I could believe your completely unsupported argument, or I could believe my own "lying eyes", of a lot of experience.
Hmmm. Which would you choose to believe? Hot air and hand waving on one hand, or your own eyes, on the other hand?
:cool:
Wow. So much bullshit, so little time.
Wow! That's one hell of an intelligent argument, you have there!
Very befitting a liberal. I know how you struggle with the obvious.;)
I don't hate Romney, nor do I hate wealthy people. I happen to be content with my personal level of comfort/wealth.
What I DO hate is prevarication, evasion, word manipulation and outright lying.
And I also hate stacking the deck to give wealthy people, who don't need MORE in order to survive, MORE. Particularly when such deck-stacking is done at the expense of those who DO need MORE.
Wow. So much bullshit, so little time.
Yes Adak keeps repeating the same distortions, half truths, and outright lies, over and over hoping they'll be believed by someone that hasn't fact checked his bullshit.
I'm sure he's read this entire thread and knows they've been proven wrong, but keeps repeating them anyway, which proves he's a shill for the party.
I don't think so, a troll would just be argumentative/disruptive, Adak is trying to sell Romney. I wouldn't rule out a zealous Mormon, however.
He's trolling, true. But I believe he is a true believer, a zealot. And he has a frighteningly large number of like minded small thinking herd voters. They are intellectually weak but vocal and persistent.
Are these statements true or false, in your judgement?
1) gov't takes more money in taxes. I have less $$$ , my small or large business has less, so I spend less $$$, and my business spends less also.
Largely false. Money spent on the business is deductible, so it comes out of pretax dollars. Lowering the tax rate could lead to less investment in the business, since you would get to keep a larger share of any money taken out of the business.
I don't think so, a troll would just be argumentative/disruptive, Adak is trying to sell Romney. I wouldn't rule out a zealous Mormon, however.
To me, its the persistence. If he is actually trying to sell Romney, I think it is clear that this board is a waste of time for him unless he really believes he is convincing people who are not posting.
But I will say he really spiced up the Politics board for the past few weeks.
True. It's been more interesting with him. I think he's enjoying the attention. Has some free time and this gives him something to do. I think he believes in his party and candidate and loves to argue. Doesn't care much about seeking truth or understanding, so he'll bluff his way through an argument when it's a weak one. He just want to win the argument.
True. It's been more interesting with him. I think he's enjoying the attention. Has some free time and this gives him something to do.
Maybe we're the comparative after-school program designed to keep kids busy til parents pick them up so they don't get themselves into deeper trouble. Perhaps this board is keeping him out of situations where could do more damage.
I've enjoyed this thread, for the most part. It's been interesting hearing some different perspectives on economic stuffs. I just lose patience when people wheel out crap like the 'apology tour' and other creations of right-wing punditry.
...
But we obviously don't always agree on some pretty major items. Can we not at least pretend momentarilly that the other person might be aware of something that we are not, and try to imagine what the set of variables that would support that scenario would look like, and then try to reconcile that with our observations of reality in order to determine the basic feasbility of what they are proposing?
I mean, that's how you learn things.
...
...
No, that's not how you learn things, you learn things by questioning, not pretending/imagining. Questioning the whys/hows, and when the response is based on verifiable lies they've swallowed, rather than experience or reasoning, there's nothing to learn except they are gullible
...
Sorry, Bruce, I did a very poor job of explaining this point.
I appreciate your no-nonsense approach, and your detailed reply indicated you had put a lot of thought into weighing my comments. Please allow me to go into slightly more depth on this one point.
This is a theory of conflict resolution that I have been mulling over for a few years...
The scenario that I described above is the direct opposite of what I often observe people doing, i.e. when a conflicting opinion is presented, emphasis is placed on a detail which 'proves' that the opinion is wrong. This reinforces the listener's opinion, deflects the speaker's opinion, and maintains the status quo--conflict. The listener may even be boggled by the seemingly outlandish nature of a supporting detail which is required to support the speaker's opinion. The conflicting opinion may be interpreted in such a way as to be so far from feasibility that the speaker must be characterized as foolish or incompetent. This is the frequent course of 'argumentative' discussions.
Now, for a change of routine, what if we were to imagine that the speaker is not unintelligent? Certainly people have had different experiences, and have access to different knowledge than ourselves. If we reverse the normal pattern of conflict, and attempt
not to carefully construct a scenario in which the speaker is certainly wrong, but rather the opposite--conceptualize a scenario where the speaker is correct, we have access, albeit tentative or temporarily, to a different thought pattern--we can break ourselves out of our normal bias and preconceptions. Then, we thoroughly test this new theory, making an honest attempt within the boundaries of our own critical thinking techniques, and if we still cannot observe any soundness to the idea, we can 'agree to disagree' --in a civil fashion, having made our best attempt.
When I stated this is "how you learn" I meant, of course, that it is but one of the methods available. Essentially, this is applying a
thought experiment to conflict resolution. I respectfully submit that many heavy thinkers, such as Albert Einstein, would have disagreed that you can't learn things through pretending/imagining.
Yes Adak keeps repeating the same distortions, half truths, and outright lies, over and over hoping they'll be believed by someone that hasn't fact checked his bullshit.
I'm sure he's read this entire thread and knows they've been proven wrong, but keeps repeating them anyway, which proves he's a shill for the party.
As opposed to the wonderful economic theory that you have proposed! :D :D
I have seen why you guys keep repeating the "same bullshit" however. I believe you have not seen the beauty of a free market capitalist economy, at work. It's undeniable beauty is a real surprise. Just an example to whet your appetite:
a small family is struggling to pay a 402 Euro energy bill each month. They got together with others, found a competing energy company with a better price, and switched to it.
Results? Their energy is now MUCH less. Less than 1/4th of what it had been:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20074216
Notice the elements:
Competing (energy) companies
enlightened consumers acting in their own best interests
And no government agency telling them what they can or can not do, in shopping around for the best price. It's a beautiful thing.
I contrast that with the state I live in - California, and what it has done and still doing, under a heavily liberal state government.
Our energy prices have gone through the roof (there is no competition in the energy market), the "compliant" liberal politicians have all agreed to overly generous pay and retirement benefits for our public sector workers, bankrupting our cities (Stockton for instance, has declared bankruptcy). And our state is billions of dollars in the red.
The response to this problem from our liberal Democrat Governor?
Of course - RAISE TAXES! :( When you live with liberals you get to know what they like:
Raising Taxes "dances"
High Taxes "sing alongs"
"Walkathons for Higher Taxes"
etc. ANY pretext, ANY lie, is good, if it helps a liberal to raise your taxes. Because cutting spending is against their religion, and raising taxes is the only way to keep their socialist dreams alive.
Socialism only works until the money runs out, and they run through our money, like it was water. Why? Because the unions pay them back in re-election money. :mad: The only loser is - US.
I thought you guys were mostly being stubborn and slanted in your views, but I'm beginning to see that you just don't know what Conservatism is all about, in the economy. How beautiful it is. Maybe you've heard about this or that being conservative, and it was ugly, but that's NOT Conservatism.
I'll start a new thread for that.
I'll try and show you, with the help of some links, just what Conservatism is all about. Not just the insane junk that is called Conservatism, by those who are not.
If I'm a "true believer" in Conservatism, it's only because I've seen true Liberalism, and know that it's a true lie. Indeed, in California, we live the lie of true liberalism, every damn day. After about 60 years, you get to know it rather well, and it can't hide it's ugly warts, any more. The money has run out, even before the current recession began.
liberal and socialist are not interchangeable terms.
And none of what you describe is what i would consider either 'true liberalism' or 'true socialism'. You, as a conservative have every right to define what is or is not true conservatism. You don't get to define the same for the other side.
I've enjoyed this thread, for the most part. It's been interesting hearing some different perspectives on economic stuffs. I just lose patience when people wheel out crap like the 'apology tour' and other creations of right-wing punditry.
Would you like to hear some of Obama's speeches on audio, where he repeatedly points out that America has "made mistakes in the past"?
Maybe a lot of these same countries would have preferred it if the Soviets still controlled their country? Maybe they would have preferred to be slaves to Hitler, Mussolini, or the Japanese?
What would you call it, if not an apology tour? Because that SURE AS HELL is not what we're used to hearing from our President, speaking to other countries!
It's not an "I'm sorry", but it's not facing the reality that ALL countries make mistakes in foreign policy - not just the USA. Truth is, MANY of the nations in the UN, have truly miserable human rights abuses, or dictators/presidents who have seriously abused their power. And the USA has done a LOT to help other nations, all over the world.
But somehow Obama finds it necessary to point out OUR "mistakes", over and over, around the world?
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/23/politics/fact-check-apology-tour/index.html
The facts:
When President Obama began his term, he made a number of speeches in the Middle East and elsewhere -- all designed to forge better ties with Europe, the Middle East, and Latin America.
Critics such as Romney have said Obama apologized for past actions in such addresses.
Obama did indeed mention past U.S. flaws in speeches. But in those addresses, Obama never uttered an apology for the United States.
Those statements were snippets, part of larger and grander narratives about repairing ties, building friendship and working together.
[...]
During an address in Strasbourg, France, in April 2009, Obama did utter words Romney referenced in the debate.
In that speech, Obama said, "there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive."
But in the very next sentence, Obama called out the Europeans for an "anti-Americanism that is at once casual but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what's bad."
He then goes on to talk about forging "common solutions to our common problems."
"America cannot confront the challenges of this century alone, but that Europe cannot confront them without America. So I've come to Europe this week to renew our partnership, one in which America listens and learns from our friends and allies, but where our friends and allies bear their share of the burden. Together, we must forge common solutions to our common problems."
And in Turkey:
During that speech, he said "another issue that confronts all democracies as they move to the future is how we deal with the past" and touches on a major blemish on U.S. history.
"The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history," Obama said. "Our country still struggles with the legacies of slavery and segregation, the past treatment of Native Americans."
After that statement, Obama segued into a similar stain on Turkey's history -- the massacre of Armenians during World War I, and how both Turks and Armenians should work toward a "new day."
[...]
Back in December, Michael Cohen, a columnist for Foreign Policy's Election 2012 Channel, called the "apology tour" claim "a lie that has been reiterated so often that it has become conventional wisdom on the right. "
"The apology canard has been disproven practically as often as it has been made."
[...]
Conclusion:
Romney's claim is false. The president has mentioned past U.S. mistakes and flaws during speeches about the larger issues of building bridges to other countries. But he has never apologized or gone on an "apology tour."
Obama didn't look weak to other nations. He came across as strong enough to be open and honest and move forward with foreign allies. A far cry, true from 'you're either with us or against us', but in no way an 'apology tour'
liberal and socialist are not interchangeable terms.
And none of what you describe is what i would consider either 'true liberalism' or 'true socialism'. You, as a conservative have every right to define what is or is not true conservatism. You don't get to define the same for the other side.
No, but they can fit into one box - the anti - Conservative box.
I don't live in an apple tree, but I still know what an apple is, thank you. If apples were quite rare, I'd agree with you, but when they're everywhere you look, like liberalism and socialism, you get to know them.
Please, define "True Liberalism" and "True Socialism", but let's do that in a new thread devoted to that topic.
Turkey: That's a good example of what I'm talking about! He's addressing a country that slaughtered the Armenians in the first act of (really major) genocide, in modern times, and refuses to this day to recognize it. And he's talking about the darker period in OUR history??
Wait a second, here!
Saying it once, or saying it in a more private setting, would be OK. Going around the world with basically the same "apology" template in his VERY public speeches, is WAY off the mark.
It may be good for a human (and a country), to acknowledge their shortcomings to themselves, but to proclaim them to the world, all around the world, is unwise, unnecessary, and makes us look like our Commander in Chief is our chief apologist, and ripe for a bit of exploitation.
Actually, I'd truly hesitate do any such thing. I don't believe there really is a 'true socialism' or a 'true liberalism'. That suggests a belief system set in aspic. That's just not really how people and societies work.
These things are contextual and contingent on many factors. The fact that you consider Obama to be verging on the socialist is a case in point. What is 'socialist' or 'liberal' in your political milieu is not necessarily the same as in mine. Nor indeed does every socialist share a carbon copy of each other's beliefs.
Hahahah.
I went tootling around on wiki seeing how liberal and conservative were defined on there and found a few things that made me smile.
First, here's a snippet from the Liberal entry:
Liberalism, a political ideology:
Classical liberalism, a political ideology that advocates unregulated markets, limited government, rule of law, due process, and individual liberties including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and others
Conservative liberalism, a variant of liberalism, combining liberal values and policies with conservative stances, or, more simply, representing the right-wing of the liberal movement
Economic liberalism, the ideological belief in organizing the economy on individualist lines, such that the greatest possible number of economic decisions are made by private individuals and not by collective institutions
Social liberalism, the belief that liberalism should include social justice and that the legitimate role of the state includes addressing issues such as unemployment, health care, education, and the expansion of civil rights
But the bit that really made me laugh was fro the Conservative entry:
In the United States, conservatism is rooted in the American Revolution and its commitment to conserve the rights and liberties of Englishmen. Most European conservatives writers do not accept American conservatism as genuine; they consider it to be a variety of liberalism.[27
*chuckles*
According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, "In the United States liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies."[13]
Goes to show. In this area, we really are talking a very different language. I have to mentally adjust my political settings when I discuss politics with you guys :)
Largely false. Money spent on the business is deductible, so it comes out of pretax dollars. Lowering the tax rate could lead to less investment in the business, since you would get to keep a larger share of any money taken out of the business.
Sorry, Happy Monkey, you're in the wrong tree!
The whole point is that you won't HAVE money to put into your business, because your customers didn't have the money to buy as much of your widgets.
Because the gov't took more of their money, and the gov't is also taking more of your personal income, also.
Didn't you ever run a small business before? :cool:
As opposed to the wonderful economic theory that you have proposed! :D :D
I have seen why you guys keep repeating the "same bullshit" however. I believe you have not seen the beauty of a free market capitalist economy, at work. It's undeniable beauty is a real surprise. Just an example to whet your appetite:
a small family is struggling to pay a 402 Euro energy bill each month. They got together with others, found a competing energy company with a better price, and switched to it.
Results? Their energy is now MUCH less. Less than 1/4th of what it had been:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20074216
Notice the elements:
Competing (energy) companies
enlightened consumers acting in their own best interests
And no government agency telling them what they can or can not do, in shopping around for the best price. It's a beautiful thing.
It sounds like you're strongly in favor of unions, since that's *precisely* what that group of enlightened consumers have formed. They're engaging in
collective action in opposition to a given company. That kind of stance seems unusual for you. Please note in your story that this story is only possible thanks to the "free market". It is the very lack of regulation, the stuff of government action, which costs money, that permitted the energy companies to make confusing and expensive tariff schedules that take advantage of customers. The
follow on article from the one you linked to talks about how to expand the success of that unified action by those enlightened customers by increased regulation to make it easier for customers to do this. More regulation? More interference by the government in the "free market"? Is this really what you're crowing about?
The energy regulator, Ofgem, has proposed some big changes to the way gas and electricity companies sell to customers.
Specifically, it wants to make sure that customers receive personalised information about whether they are on the cheapest deal.
It is all part of Ofgem's wider plan - announced in March 2011 - to inject some real competition into the domestic energy market, which it says is run on the basis of "complex tariffs, poor supplier behaviour and a lack of transparency".
I contrast that with the state I live in - California, and what it has done and still doing, under a heavily liberal state government.
Our energy prices have gone through the roof (there is no competition in the energy market), the "compliant" liberal politicians have all agreed to overly generous pay and retirement benefits for our public sector workers, bankrupting our cities (Stockton for instance, has declared bankruptcy). And our state is billions of dollars in the red.
The response to this problem from our liberal Democrat Governor?
Of course - RAISE TAXES! :( When you live with liberals you get to know what they like:
Raising Taxes "dances"
High Taxes "sing alongs"
"Walkathons for Higher Taxes"
etc. ANY pretext, ANY lie, is good, if it helps a liberal to raise your taxes. Because cutting spending is against their religion, and raising taxes is the only way to keep their socialist dreams alive.
--snip
So, to sum up, free market bad, unions good, government regulation good.
There may be hope for you yet Adak.
Perhaps I can help with a vernacular translation of Adak's view on Conservative-ish-ism-icity-etc. It really means "No." It is a label to attach to a nostalgic view of something that used to be better than it is (a subjective position). What is is *not* is conserving anything. No saving ....
I'm just gonna stop there. It really isn't a useful label or concept, and it's totally useless in the way Adak uses it. Stereotypes--UHHHN--What are the good for? Absolutely NOTHING! Say it again! /Edwin Starr
Conservatism means never having to apologize.
While he apologized for how some interpreted his comments, Mourdock was steadfast in his position.
"I believe God controls the universe. I don't think biology works simply in an uncontrolled fashion," Mourdock said. "For speaking from my heart … I cannot apologize. I would be less than faithful to my faith."
Turkey: That's a good example of what I'm talking about! He's addressing a country that slaughtered the Armenians in the first act of (really major) genocide, in modern times, and refuses to this day to recognize it. And he's talking about the darker period in OUR history??
That was his point. Turkey refuses to acknowledge a darker period in their history, and when encouraging them to do so Obama acknowledges a darker period in our history, showing that a mature country can do it.
And you and Romney complain that he's not following Turkey's lead instead?
He is a Conservative. He cannot apologize.
A
a small family is struggling to pay a 402 Euro energy bill each month. They got together with others, found a competing energy company with a better price, and switched to it.
This right here....this is called "collective bargaining". The conservatives round these parts are doing their best to eliminate such things. You can't tell me that collective bargaining is fine when it's the consumer and oh...totally unfair when it's employees. It's the same idea. It's a matter of, "if you want us (as your employers or customers), you give us _____ at what we collectively feel is a fair price.".
Who is the real Mitt Romney?
We've heard lots of opinions, lots of generalizations, a few details, plenty of contradictions. There are many voices clamoring for our attention, claiming, usually by naked assertion that he's the best. I am trying to understand their reasoning, and one major tool I use to gain understanding is to consider who's doing the talking. And that has been difficult to discern when it comes to the Romney campaign.
It's not just Romney out there saying "Vote for me!", but lots of other people, but they're largely invisible, like Clint Eastwood's foil. Look at all the money being spent for each campaign. More importantly, look at who is spending it. The vast majority of the money being spent in favor of Romney's campaign was collected anonymously. I have serious doubts about why this is a good idea.
If Romney's your guy, enough that you'd spend millions of dollars to help him get elected, why wouldn't you want your name known in that effort? To me, the clearest reason is that you don't want people to associate your name with Romney's. Why not? Why not? Perhaps you're shy. Or maybe you think that voters who look at Romney and wonder who else is supporting him will be turned off by his association with you. For example, I don't think the Koch brothers, just to use an example, have the same priorities as I do for the President. And if they're supporting Romney, then I think Romney's less appealing.
Now let's look at who's spending what.
[CODE]Ad Spending By Outside Groups, April 10-Oct. 10
Party Affiliation Amount Spent Donor Status Percent
Democratic $20,032,460 Disclosed 86.6%
[COLOR="Blue"]Democratic $3,101,280 Undisclosed[/COLOR] 13.4%
Total Democratic $23,133,740
Republican $69,112,620 Disclosed 44.4%
[COLOR="Red"]Republican $86,600,860 Undisclosed[/COLOR] 55.6%
Total Republican $155,713,480
Source: Kantar Media CMAG[/CODE]
Those undisclosed donors are overwhelmingly Republican, almost thirty times more! Why? What are they hiding? Who are they hiding from? It seems absolutely clear to me that Romney knows who's giving him these many millions, so, his "debt" to them is known. But I don't know to whom he will be beholden. That troubles me. I think much of this money is corporate spending, and despite the fact that I need a job, I have no illusions that "the company" exists for my benefit. What is good for them is only sometimes good for me. This is based on my own personal experience as well as a lifetime of learning from the mistakes of others. Class warfare? You betcha. And this is a stealth attack.
There's so much that is unknown about Romney, so many details missing, and so many contradictory statements out there. It is not possible to know the real Mitt Romney, who is bankrolling him, and what they will want from him as President. You want my vote? You have to give me good information. All I hear from Romney is "Trust me." That's not a fact, it's a line used by people who want something from me. Their secrecy speaks more about them than they wish it did though.
We don't know the real Mitt Romney, and that's just the way he wants it. No thanks.
That was his point. Turkey refuses to acknowledge a darker period in their history, and when encouraging them to do so Obama acknowledges a darker period in our history, showing that a mature country can do it.
And you and Romney complain that he's not following Turkey's lead instead?
Put on your foreign policy hat for a moment. Understand that to many politicians, around the world, the foreign policy they use is based on a zero sum game: your nation's loss, is my nation's gain (or at least, could be).
So, especially for the U.S., if you travel 'round the world making statements that are taken for introspective reflections of a weak moment, nations that are watching very carefully, react accordingly.
This is the problem that Carter got into with Iran. They saw him as weak (in his military attitude), and decided to overrun the embassy in Tehran, and take our personnel hostages for over a year.
Clinton had some of the same problem in Africa, and in dealing with Osama Bin Laden. Things were going well here, and he just didn't put much effort into finding those responsible for attacks on our embassies in Africa, etc. Clinton says "I would have killed Osama, if I could have found him".
Well Bill, you won't find him, because you're not looking very much. Bin Laden was 6ft. 4inches or so, and in the Middle East, that stands out. You could have found him. Also, he's pretty famous thereabouts.
It's all fine to be a historian, and reflect on these things, in private, or even in a book. It's not fine to go around the world, and do it, as the representative of your country, in public speeches.
No American voted for Obama, to be our apologist. He is our President, damnit! He can apologize until he's blue in the face, when he becomes a private citizen again.
"A time for every purpose under heaven". This was a poor time to reflect on the shortcomings of America's past.
P.S. Almost every nation has had slavery at some time or other. It's not like we were the only one's using it. Same with the Native Americans. They drove weaker tribes off the lands they wanted, whenever they deemed it wise to do so. Some tribes were completely destroyed.
The Sioux for example, were weaker, at one time, and were driven out of their homelands by the stronger Sac and Fox tribe (Mesquakie-Sauk), onto the plains. Many died from starvation (they were eating grass to survive, at times), before they learned the new skills they needed to survive.
The Indians understood completely. That was their practice, as well, (to drive out their enemies from land they wanted), for thousands of years. And no, they were not gentle about it.
We learned better torture techniques, from the Indians (without any equipment). We learned the practice of taking scalps, and drying them on little hoops, from the Indians.
The vast majority of the money being spent in favor of Romney's campaign was collected anonymously. I have serious doubts about why this is a good idea.
If Obama wins the election, and you're listed as a Romney donor, you could face a big problem: IRS, FTC, SEC, ATF, Homeland Security, etc.
And please, don't say it couldn't happen - it's already happening to those who have disagreed with Obama.
Romney's donors are largely businesses. Lots of businesses do business with some gov't agency.
You get the connection clearly, of course. They would be cut off from work with the federal gov't, if Obama wins re-election, if their names were known.
Hard to believe, after reading that Joe the Plumber was audited by the IRS, shortly after asking Obama an embarrassing question in public, that you can't figure this stuff out.
Put on your foreign policy hat for a moment. Understand that to many politicians, around the world, the foreign policy they use is based on a zero sum game: your nation's loss, is my nation's gain (or at least, could be).
Like Romney (and Obama) regarding China?
Better question, no, observation. I think this is how you see the world. If I or my team/color/Liberalism has a valid point, it is a direct loss for you. This is not how the real world operates. It's a dumb way to move through the world, but I can see that view is complimentary with much of your other statements.
Viewing foreign policy in this zero-sum way is stupid. How much do you think you'd accomplish by dominating your host? Is this the kind of dumbass headspace Romney was coming from when he insulted the Olympic organizers in London? He wanted to make sure the sum was in AMERICA'S favor? You look ridiculous in that hat Adak. Please take it off, you're scaring the United Nations.
If Obama wins the election, and you're listed as a Romney donor, you could face a big problem: IRS, FTC, SEC, ATF, Homeland Security, etc.
And please, don't say it couldn't happen - it's already happening to those who disagree with Obama.
Do you live in a bunker?
---
The mind boggles at the comic, no, FARCICAL insanity of this statement.
Let's see. Romney's Obama's "public enemy number one", right? Is he being investigated to death? IRS, FTC, SEC, ATF, Homeland Security? What about Ryan? Clint Eastwood? Sean Hannity? My cousin?
You're a joke, man.
Viewing foreign policy in this zero-sum way is stupid. How much do you think you'd accomplish by dominating your host? Is this the kind of dumbass headspace Romney was coming from when he insulted the Olympic organizers in London? He wanted to make sure the sum was in AMERICA'S favor? You look ridiculous in that had Adak. Please take it off, you're scaring the United Nations.
You never heard of "Gunboat Diplomacy"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunboat_diplomacy
Foreign policy is not the peaches and creme and intellectual exercise that you seem to believe it is.
I didn't say foreign policy was brilliant - just what is IS.
Friendly nations do better, of course. US and UK -- but still, we have spies in the UK, and the UK has spies in the US. Even during WWII, both the US and the UK did not share everything they learned, with each other. (a lot, but not everything).
US and Israel -- same thing, only much worse. They've damaged us a lot with their spying, and eroded a lot of good will in the US, with it.
Yes. Romney has been investigated by several lawyers, working for Obama. Unfortunately for Obama, Romney's clean. Chicago politics (where you find something in the opponents past and bring it out), hasn't worked against Romney.
This is how Obama got elected to his Illinois seat, you may recall. His opponent was ruined.
If Obama wins the election, and you're listed as a Romney donor, you could face a big problem: IRS, FTC, SEC, ATF, Homeland Security, etc.
And please, don't say it couldn't happen - it's already happening to those who have disagreed with Obama.
Romney's donors are largely businesses. Lots of businesses do business with some gov't agency.
You get the connection clearly, of course. They would be cut off from work with the federal gov't, if Obama wins re-election, if their names were known.
Hard to believe, after reading that Joe the Plumber was audited by the IRS, shortly after asking Obama an embarrassing question in public, that you can't figure this stuff out.
I see you edited your post to add more nonsense.
btw, is this you? jdang307? He sounds just as kooky as you do.
one at a time, ok?
Businesses are romney's donors, largely. you're implying they would be cut off from work from the federal government because they backed obama's opponent.
...
well, I thought I had the strength to refute this, but I don't.
******
joe the plumber is audited.
y'know, it's dark outside where I live. this is OBVIOUSLY the nefarious work of Mitt Romney, personally, to extinguish the sun, in an underhanded attempt to make solar energy fail. Why does he hate America?!
Same thing, right? You should look up causation and correlation and coincidence. I leave the finding the definitions and examples as an exercise for the student.
good night.
This is how Obama got elected to his Illinois seat, you may recall. His opponent was ruined.
is that how he got elected to his current seat?
No, I believe a lot of us were glad to have a smart charismatic guy in the White House, after having 8 years of Bush.
Unfortunately, Obama couldn't stay behind his charisma, he had to show some policy, and that was his undoing.
Having Bill Ayres visit the White House? Never ever would I have believed that possible.
So, especially for the U.S., if you travel 'round the world making statements that are taken for introspective reflections of a weak moment, nations that are watching very carefully, react accordingly.
Countries do not base their foreign policy on rhetoric. At least Russia, China, Iran, or Pakistan don't.
This is the problem that Carter got into with Iran. They saw him as weak (in his military attitude), and decided to overrun the embassy in Tehran, and take our personnel hostages for over a year.
Not true.
It's all fine to be a historian, and reflect on these things, in private, or even in a book. It's not fine to go around the world, and do it, as the representative of your country, in public speeches.
Admitting past mistakes is often seen as a sign of strength, not weakness. I don't know of anyone outside the US who saw those speeches as a sign of weakness. Only Republicans do.
No American voted for Obama, to be our apologist. He is our President, damnit! He can apologize until he's blue in the face, when he becomes a private citizen again.
He never apologized. You are wrong.
"A time for every purpose under heaven". This was a poor time to reflect on the shortcomings of America's past. \
Disagree. There are two types of power: hard power and soft power. Obama's speeches, along with other things, gave the US a huge boost in soft power. I can almost guarantee that McCain would not be able to get as tough of sanctions against Iran as Obama did.
P.S. Almost every nation has had slavery at some time or other. It's not like we were the only one's using it. Same with the Native Americans. They drove weaker tribes off the lands they wanted, whenever they deemed it wise to do so. Some tribes were completely destroyed.
So why are you insecure about admitting it if everyone did it?
The Indians understood completely. That was their practice, as well, (to drive out their enemies from land they wanted), for thousands of years. And no, they were not gentle about it.
We learned better torture techniques, from the Indians (without any equipment). We learned the practice of taking scalps, and drying them on little hoops, from the Indians.
Good thing we don't live in the pre-1800's, huh?
Did you know that the South succeeded from the US because they thought the North was weak?
Did you know that Hitler invaded Poland because he thought they US was weak?
Did you know that Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait because he thought the US was weak?
Did you know that Osama Bin Laden attacked the US because he thought the US was weak?
Strength and weakness are relative things. If other Presidents of major powers were touring the world acknowledging their nations past errors, over and over - then OK. But that's not the case, is it?
Now, compared to past Presidents, and Presidents of other major nations, our country appears weaker - and yes, terrorist groups and other nations, watch and analyze what the President says, and how he says it, as well.
For example, Saddam Hussein DID believe, based on the comments of the President and Sec. of State, that we would not intervene with his take over of Kuwait, militarily.
Are you arguing that if we appear weak, we're really improving the odds for peace (peace through weakness?), and the nice terrorists will leave us alone?
That's REALLY interesting logic you have there! :rolleyes: Worked really well when the UK tried it when Chamberlain was in office, and tried it again with the Falklands, didn't it? :rolleyes:
Care to try it again? Is there a certain number of lessons needed before you learn it's not working?
You kind of fell down the rabbit hole there didn't ya?
I fail to see how our foreign policy in the past four years could be considered weak? It is is only Republicans that believe that.
I'm offended that Rmoney keeps insisting that America is not the best damn country in the whole wide world. He's a fucking traitor, that's what he is. We are perfect, thanks to Mr. Obama.
You kind of fell down the rabbit hole there didn't ya?
I fail to see how our foreign policy in the past four years could be considered weak? It is is only Republicans that believe that.
Who else is trying to take advantage of our less than stellar foreign policy?
1) North Korea, which continues to expand it's range of ICBM's, despite it warnings from the UN and the US, not to. Next will be a nuclear bomb test. This is after shelling an island belonging to South Korea (which is our ally, and where we station more than ten thousand troops).
2) Al Qaeda and it's related terrorists groups in Cairo and Benghazi, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Yemen, and Mali, etc.
3) China, which continues to push for ownership of a vast area of sea between itself and Japan, and between itself and the Philippines.
4) Syria, which knows we don't have the stomach to support the rebels. Finally, we are starting to arm them.
5) Al Shabab, (an Al Qaeda linked group), who could be crushed in Somalia right now, if we gave the legitimate gov't a little help.
6) Argentina, which is calling on all South American countries to blacklist every shipping company that serves the Falklands. It has several nations signed up for this.
7) Rwanda, which is supporting a terrorist army in the Congo. We have soldiers in country to find and stop the terrorist army.
8) Iran, where the mullah's continue to thumb their nose at the US and the international community, by refining nuclear material, and supporting terrorist groups. Latest effort was to kill with a bomb, the intelligence chief in Lebanon. He was investigating the murder of his father -- chief suspect: Iran.
And much much more.
There is ALWAYS movement on the foreign affairs front. Nations are always jockeying for a better position. Various groups that want a country of their own, are always plotting ways to get one, by violence. We don't hear much about it, because diplomatic efforts, and the efforts to unravel them by force, are made sub rosa, whenever possible.
I don't believe that Obama's administration has been a foreign policy disaster. I simply argue that his planned fleet reductions and foreign policy, will leave us weaker. Despite some more capable ships we have now, we can't have a ship or fleet in the Pacific, help with a problem in the Atlantic or Mediterranean, despite the assurances of Obama. It's crazy that he would use that as a defense, in the foreign policy debate.
we can't have a ship or fleet in the Pacific, help with a problem in the Atlantic or Mediterranean, despite the assurances of Obama. It's crazy that he would use that as a defense, in the foreign policy debate.
Cite.
Who else is trying to take advantage of our less than stellar foreign policy?
1) North Korea, which continues to expand it's range of ICBM's, despite it warnings from the UN and the US, not to. Next will be a nuclear bomb test. This is after shelling an island belonging to South Korea (which is our ally, and where we station more than ten thousand troops).
2) Al Qaeda and it's related terrorists groups in Cairo and Benghazi, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Yemen, and Mali, etc.
3) China, which continues to push for ownership of a vast area of sea between itself and Japan, and between itself and the Philippines.
4) Syria, which knows we don't have the stomach to support the rebels. Finally, we are starting to arm them.
5) Al Shabab, (an Al Qaeda linked group), who could be crushed in Somalia right now, if we gave the legitimate gov't a little help.
6) Argentina, which is calling on all South American countries to blacklist every shipping company that serves the Falklands. It has several nations signed up for this.
7) Rwanda, which is supporting a terrorist army in the Congo. We have soldiers in country to find and stop the terrorist army.
8) Iran, where the mullah's continue to thumb their nose at the US and the international community, by refining nuclear material, and supporting terrorist groups. Latest effort was to kill with a bomb, the intelligence chief in Lebanon. He was investigating the murder of his father -- chief suspect: Iran.
you sound like romney--holycrabcakes! it's scary out there, scary people, be afraaaaiiiid!!!
So, back to your list. I challenge you to name one from that list that wouldn't be there even if we had a "stellar" foreign policy.
Adak, your arguments have no reference point and therefore are worthless.
First, if these state and non-state actors were extremely passive before 2009 and then suddenly became aggressive after 2009 you would have point. That hasn't happened. State and non-state actors have tested every American president since FDR. There is no fundamental difference from what is occurring during Obama's term and prior terms.
Second, if other state and non-state actors did become more aggressive, you would need to make sure that it was due (or partly due) to a belief of American weakness and not outside factors. For example, Islamic terrorists did not just start believing America was weak in the 1990's with that belief increasing in time. An outside factor led to an increase in attacks in the 1990's and that is continuing until today.
Cite.
We are escorting American flagged oil tankers, in the Gulf of Persia, with a fleet of Navy ships, because Iran has threatened to attack them. That's been all over the news.
But we also need a fleet to support our efforts in Afghanistan, and we need other Navy ships to help control the Pirates raiding around the Horn of Africa (and all the way down to the Seychelles).
A Cruiser in the Gulf of Persia, can't assist in the anti Pirating work, nor can that ship (no matter how advanced it is), assist in Afghanistan, if it's at sea, near the Horn of Africa.
And certainly we can't assist anywhere in the Mediterranean Sea, if our fleet is running exercises with the Japanese Navy or South Korea, or the Philippine or Australian Navy.
No matter how advanced your ships are, they can't be two or more places, at the same time.
Adak, your arguments have no reference point and therefore are worthless.
First, if these state and non-state actors were extremely passive before 2009 and then suddenly became aggressive after 2009 you would have point. That hasn't happened. State and non-state actors have tested every American president since FDR. There is no fundamental difference from what is occurring during Obama's term and prior terms.
Second, if other state and non-state actors did become more aggressive, you would need to make sure that it was due (or partly due) to a belief of American weakness and not outside factors. For example, Islamic terrorists did not just start believing America was weak in the 1990's with that belief increasing in time. An outside factor led to an increase in attacks in the 1990's and that is continuing until today.
Kicking a dead horse to make it run again, has no reference points either, but it's common sense that it won't avail you anything.
Yes, there are a plethora of other factors - always are in foreign policy. In general however, we've seen the losses we've had when we were not strong. They don't build up in a straight line, but they do build up, over time.
Believing something different will result, after you've take the same action over and over, is a sure sign of a liberal (and therefore a simple and naive) philosophy.
you sound like romney--holycrabcakes! it's scary out there, scary people, be afraaaaiiiid!!!
So, back to your list. I challenge you to name one from that list that wouldn't be there even if we had a "stellar" foreign policy.
OK. I'll pick Somalia. Al Shabob is on the run atm. With a push from us, they'd be out of business.
Are you a child to believe that these "bad actors" won't ever attack us or our allies?
North Korea MILITARY (not the government), just told South Korea that if any helium balloon leaflets were sent over the DMZ, they would open fire with artillery "mercilessly". And "the PRK Army never speaks without acting".
Does that sound like the idyllic foreign relations paradise you seem to believe in?
Wake up! :eek:
Read up!:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20000970Quote:
we can't have a ship or fleet in the Pacific, help with a problem in the Atlantic or Mediterranean, despite the assurances of Obama. It's crazy that he would use that as a defense, in the foreign policy debate.
Cite.
You said Obama used as a defense in the foreign policy debate that a ship in the Pacific can help with a problem in the Atlantic or the Mediterranean.
I'd like you to provide a citation for this statement, please. Absent a citation I will consider it another one of your fearmongering smears.
Since there is no "foreign policy Mitt Romney", I'd like to return to the search for the "real Mitt Romney". I'm reposting this, and a couple more observations and questions.
Who is the real Mitt Romney?
We've heard lots of opinions, lots of generalizations, a few details, plenty of contradictions. There are many voices clamoring for our attention, claiming, usually by naked assertion that he's the best. I am trying to understand their reasoning, and one major tool I use to gain understanding is to consider who's doing the talking. And that has been difficult to discern when it comes to the Romney campaign.
It's not just Romney out there saying "Vote for me!", but lots of other people, but they're largely invisible, like Clint Eastwood's foil. Look at all the money being spent for each campaign. More importantly, look at who is spending it. The vast majority of the money being spent in favor of Romney's campaign was collected anonymously. I have serious doubts about why this is a good idea.
If Romney's your guy, enough that you'd spend millions of dollars to help him get elected, why wouldn't you want your name known in that effort? To me, the clearest reason is that you don't want people to associate your name with Romney's. Why not? Why not? Perhaps you're shy. Or maybe you think that voters who look at Romney and wonder who else is supporting him will be turned off by his association with you. For example, I don't think the Koch brothers, just to use an example, have the same priorities as I do for the President. And if they're supporting Romney, then I think Romney's less appealing.
Now let's look at who's spending what.
[CODE]Ad Spending By Outside Groups, April 10-Oct. 10
Party Affiliation Amount Spent Donor Status Percent
Democratic $20,032,460 Disclosed 86.6%
[COLOR="Blue"]Democratic $3,101,280 Undisclosed[/COLOR] 13.4%
Total Democratic $23,133,740
Republican $69,112,620 Disclosed 44.4%
[COLOR="Red"]Republican $86,600,860 Undisclosed[/COLOR] 55.6%
Total Republican $155,713,480
Source: Kantar Media CMAG[/CODE]
Those undisclosed donors are overwhelmingly Republican, almost thirty times more! Why? What are they hiding? Who are they hiding from? It seems absolutely clear to me that Romney knows who's giving him these many millions, so, his "debt" to them is known. But I don't know to whom he will be beholden. That troubles me. I think much of this money is corporate spending, and despite the fact that I need a job, I have no illusions that "the company" exists for my benefit. What is good for them is only sometimes good for me. This is based on my own personal experience as well as a lifetime of learning from the mistakes of others. Class warfare? You betcha. And this is a stealth attack.
There's so much that is unknown about Romney, so many details missing, and so many contradictory statements out there. It is not possible to know the real Mitt Romney, who is bankrolling him, and what they will want from him as President. You want my vote? You have to give me good information. All I hear from Romney is "Trust me." That's not a fact, it's a line used by people who want something from me. Their secrecy speaks more about them than they wish it did though.
We don't know the real Mitt Romney, and that's just the way he wants it. No thanks.
Crossroads GPS is a major player in the Romney campaign. There's no denying it, despite the fact that their organization
is a so-called social welfare group seeking IRS tax exempt status under section 501(c)(4), which would allow it to keep its donors' names secret. But that law also restricts the group's ability to engage in electoral politics. IRS rules do not specify exactly what percentage these groups can spend on politics. They require only that their primary goal must be "social welfare" and not politics.
Crossroads GPS is headed by Karl Rove, a person whose ideals and methods I have opposed for years. I didn't like him when he ran GWB's life and I don't like him now. As a starting point, if Rove's for it, I'm against it. Look at what kinds of social welfare he's promoting now.
[YOUTUBE]9aLv72J95JQ[/YOUTUBE]
Social welfare? Or political speech? It is clearly a call to political action. We have structures for this, they're called Political Action Committees, PACs. The thing about PACs is that the donors must be recorded and filed so the electorate, we citizens, you and me, can see WHO is saying what. Not so with the Social Welfare organizations. They are not required to reveal their donors. Yet, Karl Rove can use this anonymous money to influence voters. Aren't you curious about who is buying this influence for Romney? I sure am.
I'd like to know to whom Romney will owe a debt of gratitude, or more, should he be elected. It is not a lot of people.
Check this out:
In its first 18 months, Crossroads GPS raised $67 million of its total $77 million from as few as 16 rich donors. What it has raised this year, and how much came in large donations, will not be disclosed to the IRS and the public until April 2013.
Wow, only sixteen people made up about 87% of the money! Just these few rich people are trying to get him elected, but trying in secret. What is gonna happen when Romney's elected? Don't you think these people are gonna want a return on their investment? Probably not a bunch of lottery winners in that small group, they're business people, they don't just throw money away, they're *investing* it. Do you really believe they're doing it for the social welfare of the viewer? Lots of philanthropists put their names on their donations. These people are trying to make a difference.
I sincerely doubt the difference they're striving for is the same difference I'm striving for. The concerns of Romney's NFL and NASCAR owning friends are not my concerns. I don't want them calling the shots.
There's so much about Romney that doesn't add up. He is hiding so much, all headlines and no body. No details. No tax returns to show where his treasure is, so will his heart be also, right? I can't decide if he's more Thurston Howell III or Mr Burns. But he's a caricature and a scary one.
Kicking a dead horse to make it run again, has no reference points either, but it's common sense that it won't avail you anything.
Yes, there are a plethora of other factors - always are in foreign policy. In general however, we've seen the losses we've had when we were not strong. They don't build up in a straight line, but they do build up, over time.
Believing something different will result, after you've take the same action over and over, is a sure sign of a liberal (and therefore a simple and naive) philosophy.
How are we kicking a dead horse? I'm assuming that was an analogy and not just worthless rambling?
Well Adak? What's your position on all the secret money bankrolling Romney?
Quote:
Cite.
You said Obama used as a defense in the foreign policy debate that a ship in the Pacific can help with a problem in the Atlantic or the Mediterranean.
I'd like you to provide a citation for this statement, please. Absent a citation I will consider it another one of your fearmongering smears.
Not quite. The idea is that a ship in the Gulf of Persia, can't help with a Naval issue in the Mediterranean Sea, and one in the Mediterranean Sea, can't help with a problem in the Sea of Japan, etc. Yet Obama believes it's OK to have fewer ships.
You can't rescue an oil tanker under attack, but firing long range ship to ship missiles at small boats nearby the tanker, from the Gulf of Persia. See what I mean?
Think about real life issues where the Navy has had to intervene in the last 10 years. How many times could a simple firing of a longer range missile from an advanced Cruiser, have been the solution to the problem? Almost never.
In the foreign policy debate, Romney argued that the decline in the number of ships in the US Navy, resulted in a weakening of our Naval military strength.
Obama then stated in a condescending tone, that we had these ships called Aircraft Carriers, and planes land on them, and the ships today were much more capable than ships in the past, so we have more strength, with fewer ships.
There was more; that's just an off the cuff highlight of that exchange in the debate. You can hear the debate in zillions of places on the net.
What's wrong with Youtube?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tecohezcA78How are we kicking a dead horse? I'm assuming that was an analogy and not just worthless rambling?
We need to use our common sense in developing our policies - whether inside the country, or our foreign policy.
Let history be your guide here. We were weak before WWI, and we lost a lot of soldiers because we were unprepared, and our soldiers were horribly under trained when they arrived at the front.
After the "War to end all wars", we naturally let our military disband largely, and stopped looking like a first class military nation. Other nations, like the UK, did the same thing.
Shortly thereafter, Hitler came to power, and Germany started rebuilding it's military. We were weak, the UK was weak. Poland was terribly weak, and the French had actually gone back to using HORSES for some of their army transport! Russia with Stalin, had just killed off most of their top military leaders, because Stalin feared them. They were woeful at that time.
With that weakness all around of course Hitler felt encouraged to bully and bluster, and finally, go to war with them!
We couldn't believe it! Neither could most of the people in the UK. They were kicking the dead peace horse, waiting for it to run again and carry us all to a lasting peace.
But that horse was really dead. :mad:
Thinking that we'll have little need for a strong foreign policy, and the ability to project military strength today, is just lunacy. There is a LOT of instability in the Middle East. North Korea is a chronic hot spot, as is the recent squabbles with China and Japan over some islands that lie between them.
And then there's Al Qaeda and their several associated groups, that are quite active in Mali, Sinai, Syria, Libya, Tunisia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, etc.
With the UK so very weak - NO aircraft carriers for now, and the French being headed by a Socialist, We need to be alert, and not knocking down the number of ships in our Navy.
Well Adak? What's your position on all the secret money bankrolling Romney?
Both candidates have secret money behind them. You know those "Obama mobile phones" that are going out to Obama supporters?
Those were financed by Carlos Slim - who's the worlds richest man, and not even an American.
So no, Romney's money sources don't bother me any more than Obama's.
To be honest, these big $$$ men, REALLY like having some association with those in the White House. Even if it's just to visit and share a drink, maybe a dinner, and a chat with the President - they LOVE it. It gives them a great deal of pleasure.
But the President has constraints. He can't cater to their needs too much, even if he wanted to, because he's such a major figure that everything he does is watched and reported (nowadays).
Let history be your guide here. We were weak before WWI, and we lost a lot of soldiers because we were unprepared, and our soldiers were horribly under trained when they arrived at the front.
After the "War to end all wars", we naturally let our military disband largely, and stopped looking like a first class military nation. Other nations, like the UK, did the same thing.
Shortly thereafter, Hitler came to power, and Germany started rebuilding it's military. We were weak, the UK was weak. Poland was terribly weak, and the French had actually gone back to using HORSES for some of their army transport! Russia with Stalin, had just killed off most of their top military leaders, because Stalin feared them. They were woeful at that time.
With that weakness all around of course Hitler felt encouraged to bully and bluster, and finally, go to war with them!
We couldn't believe it! Neither could most of the people in the UK. They were kicking the dead peace horse, waiting for it to run again and carry us all to a lasting peace.
But that horse was really dead. :mad:
Thinking that we'll have little need for a strong foreign policy, and the ability to project military strength today, is just lunacy. There is a LOT of instability in the Middle East. North Korea is a chronic hot spot, as is the recent squabbles with China and Japan over some islands that lie between them.
And then there's Al Qaeda and their several associated groups, that are quite active in Mali, Sinai, Syria, Libya, Tunisia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, etc.
With the UK so very weak - NO aircraft carriers for now, and the French being headed by a Socialist, We need to be alert, and not knocking down the number of ships in our Navy.
Couple of points:
The disestablishment of large chunks of the armed forces after a conflict is pretty much the way Britain has always done things. We only stopped passing the annual Mutiny Act (for governing the size, budget and purpose of the army) in 1879.
Cultural unease over large standing armies was only just starting to pass out of the national consciousness by the time of the first world war.
It is standard for Britain to allow herself to become militarily weak during peace time and then have to scrabble around furiously recruiting and training up soldiers when large scale conflict erupts. It's one of the key reasons that Britain often does very badly at the start of a conflict. Not only is a large proportion of the army still green when they begin, but the structural integrity of regiments and battalions has often been shattered by large scale disestablishment and the need to move men around by, for example, combining the remnants of different battalions into a new whole, or using homebased battalions as a recruitment filter for overseas regiments.
Over the course of the conflict they become skilled and experienced and gel into an effective fighting force. Then when the conflict ends numbers are again slashed, and regiments stripped down or removed from active service altogether.
Rinse and repeat :p
Second, whilst Britain is weak now relative to its historic strength (in terms of military and naval reach) it is still the fifth in Global Firepower rankings. Given the size of our land and population, that's still way overpowered.
The lack of aircraft carriers is a problem. For all that I am generally anti-war it grieves me to see our navy so depleted. We don't even build ships anymore. Naval power has been a factor in English and British identify since the 10th century. The closure of the shipyards felt like a part of that was being ripped away.
Back to the disestablishment of regiments though: now that the dust is beginning to settle on our recent military ventures, the government has announced a large scale reorganisation of the army, along with massive budget cuts. Some regiments are being disbanded atogether, others are being absorbed into surviving regiments.
truly there is nothing new under the sun.
You know, I've been thinking about this thread and the 'True Conservative' thread, and I think I should retract an element of what I have said in here:
For ease, I've been using the labels 'conservative' and 'republican'. But actually the views expressed by Adak in this thread, though in line with much of what we see of republicanism/conservatism through news and political commentary, doesn't seem so in line with mainstream conservative views. Certainly judging from other conservative dwellars.
I probably should withdraw the labels 'conservative' and 'republican' and replace them with extreme republican, or right-wing conservative. I suspect they are no closer to many ordinary conservative or republican Americans, than the Socialist Workers' Party is to me.
Carrier? I didn't even lift her!
[ATTACH]41377[/ATTACH]
Just saying.
Umm, thought we went down to 1 carrier in 2011?
Uhhh .. pic was on a page dated 2011 ... I saw it "somewhere" a few days ago and dug it up.
I suppose it depends also on whether or not you define the Invincible class as a true aircraft carrier. I think we still have one in service.
=ZenGum;835994
Just saying.
China's single crappy carrier isn't depicted either. The point still stands that we are insanely over-committed to our Navy. Romney's ideas in this department make no sense whatsoever. This is one area where Romney seems like he's had a consistent position, so we can maybe believe he will throw Eisenhower under the bus.
[youtube]r8GHBk_HSXg[/youtube]
Why does Thailand need a carrier ?
My first thought was it must be scrap iron from the our Reagan years.
Why does Thailand need a carrier?
Thai–Laotian Border War (1987–1988)
The war was a small conflict over the territories surrounding three villages between the Sainyabuli Province in Laos and Phitsanulok Province in Thailand. The war ended with a Laotian victory, and return to status quo ante bellum. No settlement was made the two nations suffered a combined casualty of about 1,000.
East Timor (1999–2002)
After the East Timor Crisis, Thailand together with 28 other nations provided the International Force for East Timor or INTERFET. Thailand also provided the Force Commander in Lieutenant General Winai Phattiyakul.[7] The force was based in Dili and lasted from 25 October 1999 to 20 May 2002.
Iraq War (2003–2004)
After the successful U.S. invasion of Iraq, Thailand contributed 423 troops in August 2003 to nation building and medical assistance in post-Sadam Iraq. The forces mostly from the Royal Thai Army was attacked in the 2003 Karbala bombings, killing 2 Thai soldiers and wounding 5 others. The Thai mission in Iraq was considered successful and the forces withdrew in August 2004. This mission is considered the main reason the United States decided to designate Thailand as a Major non-NATO ally in 2003.
Southern Insurgency (2004–ongoing)
The ongoing Southern Insurgency began long before 2004, waged by the ethnic Malays and Islamic rebels in the three southern provinces of Yala, Pattani and Narathiwat. The Insurgency intensified in 2004, when terrorist attacks on ethnic Thai civilians from the insurgents escalated. The Royal Thai Armed Forces in turn responded with heavy armed tactics. The casualties currently stands at 155 Thai military personnel killed against 1,600 insurgents killed and about 1,500 captured, over the backdrop of about 2,729 civilian casualties. Currently there is a plan by the Royal Thai Government to hand over responsibility of the conflict to a civilian body, a move the military does not favour.
Cambodian–Thai border stand-off (2008-ongoing)
They seem pretty militarily active lately compared to some places.
Yehbut, being militarily active and needing an aircraft carrier aren't the same thing.
I was a little surprised they needed one. Not because I think they don't have any military engagements going on, just that I didn't think they went far enough afield to need carriers.
For a coastal nation, with as much coastline and as many islands as Thailand, and military concerns across the southern pacific... hell, if they can find the budget for it, i can imagine it'd be totally useful and great to have.
Yeah. Once I started thinking about it, it did make sense :p
it's just down to cost priorities. If the Thais think they'd rather have a carrier than... however many smaller boats, or airfields, or whatever, that they could buy/maintain for the same price, I'm SURE they'd put it to good use.
Hell, I bet Mongolia would buy an aircraft carrier if they figured out how to afford it. Why WOULDN'T you want a carrier if you could afford it?
Is Adak still posting Tea Party propaganda about a smallest US military since 1887?
Not quite. The idea is that a ship in the Gulf of Persia, can't help with a Naval issue in the Mediterranean Sea, and one in the Mediterranean Sea, can't help with a problem in the Sea of Japan, etc. Yet Obama believes it's OK to have fewer ships.
You can't rescue an oil tanker under attack, but firing long range ship to ship missiles at small boats nearby the tanker, from the Gulf of Persia. See what I mean?
Think about real life issues where the Navy has had to intervene in the last 10 years. How many times could a simple firing of a longer range missile from an advanced Cruiser, have been the solution to the problem? Almost never.
In the foreign policy debate, Romney argued that the decline in the number of ships in the US Navy, resulted in a weakening of our Naval military strength.
Obama then stated in a condescending tone, that we had these ships called Aircraft Carriers, and planes land on them, and the ships today were much more capable than ships in the past, so we have more strength, with fewer ships.
There was more; that's just an off the cuff highlight of that exchange in the debate. You can hear the debate in zillions of places on the net.
What's wrong with Youtube?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tecohezcA78
I watched the whole debate. What you say Obama said never happened. Your smear is baseless. Obama did not say that a ship in the Pacific can help a ship in the Atlantic as you said:
Despite some more capable ships we have now, we can't have a ship or fleet in the Pacific, help with a problem in the Atlantic or Mediterranean, despite the assurances of Obama. It's crazy that he would use that as a defense, in the foreign policy debate.
You did say that, Obama didn't say that; your statement is merely a smear, a figment of your frightened imagination.
A decline in naval military strength? A decline relative to what? You can not possibly be suggesting it is a decline relative to the naval military strength of our navy in 1916, can you? Romney set those parameters--Obama answered in kind. You must know how important it is to keep units of measure consistent when comparing two quantities. It's not a matter of one person's facts versus another person's facts, it's just the difference between logical statements to address the issues and using non-sequiturs to make up some noise as the run up to your conclusion.
I think one of our carriers could take out the entire "
Great White Fleet" handily.
regarding secret money
Both candidates have secret money behind them. You know those "Obama mobile phones" that are going out to Obama supporters?
Those were financed by Carlos Slim - who's the worlds richest man, and not even an American.
So no, Romney's money sources don't bother me any more than Obama's.
To be honest, these big $$$ men, REALLY like having some association with those in the White House. Even if it's just to visit and share a drink, maybe a dinner, and a chat with the President - they LOVE it. It gives them a great deal of pleasure.
But the President has constraints. He can't cater to their needs too much, even if he wanted to, because he's such a major figure that everything he does is watched and reported (nowadays).
Yes, both do have secret money in their campaign. That is troubling. Both have foreign money supporting them, also troubling and illegal to boot. But the relative amounts are not balanced, much, much more untraceable money is being devoted to Romney's campaign. They're both wrong, but Romney's got a huge lead on this score.
Cite.
Most of the foreign-connected PACs put their money on Republicans. They sent $7.5 million to Republicans and $5.3 million to Democrats. This diverges sharply with a recent Gallup International poll, which found that the world favors Obama by 81 percent.
The local subsidiary of Singapore’s largest container shipping company, Neptune Orient, gave $6,000 to Democrats and $29,000 to Republicans. An exception is Japan’s Sony Entertainment, which gave $98,000 to Democrats and $72,000 to Republicans.
Few of the foreign-connected, corporate PACs made direct donations to Mitt Romney (Obama does not accept PAC money). However, another potential route for corporations to influence elections is to encourage their US employees and their relatives to do so. Credit Suisse, the financial giant, gave zero to Romney through its US corporate PAC. But the company’s employees and relatives gave $554,000 to Romney through hundreds of small donations. Credit Suisse employees gave $38,500 to Obama, according to data analyzed by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Cite.It's classicman, isn't it?
I'll betcha.
My vote too...
lol. nope. I've no aliases. If I have something to say I'll say it to you myself. Have I EVER deviated from that? Have I ever not told you what I thought?
I don't think Adak=Classicman. Classic doesn't put together so much undefensible bullshit.
Totally different...I don't think it's c-man either. Plus, c-man is way busy these days.
Thanks Spexx & IM.
You're right, I haven't been around much.
The real Mitt Romney, wait, the political noise about the real Mitt Romney trumpets his "bipartisan effectiveness". He crows about his ability to get things done in MA as a Republican Governor of a state with a legislature with a Democratic majority. Ok, but... the facts indicate that in four years as Governor, Romney issued 800 vetoes. How is this working across the aisle? As you know, when the executive vetoes a bill, it is returned to the legislature to be upheld or overridden. Interestingly, over 700 of those vetoes were overturned.
Romney's transition from business executive where he issued orders and could expect and enforce compliance to government executive where the office holder needs to cooperate with the other branches of government was clearly unsuccessful.
Romney was unhappy with his relationship with the legislature and MA was unhappy with him. His poll numbers for unfavorability were 69%. This was likely a major contributing factor to his absence from the state for most of the last year of his term as governor. Plotting his course to the Presidency, no doubt.
The real Mitt Romney, wait, the political noise about the real Mitt Romney trumpets his "bipartisan effectiveness". He crows about his ability to get things done in MA as a Republican Governor of a state with a legislature with a Democratic majority. Ok, but... the facts indicate that in four years as Governor, Romney issued 800 vetoes. How is this working across the aisle? As you know, when the executive vetoes a bill, it is returned to the legislature to be upheld or overridden. Interestingly, over 700 of those vetoes were overturned.
Romney's transition from business executive where he issued orders and could expect and enforce compliance to government executive where the office holder needs to cooperate with the other branches of government was clearly unsuccessful.
Romney was unhappy with his relationship with the legislature and MA was unhappy with him. His poll numbers for unfavorability were 69%. This was likely a major contributing factor to his absence from the state for most of the last year of his term as governor. Plotting his course to the Presidency, no doubt.
@DanaC: good discussion on UK's carrier loss. Yes, UK is down to zero carriers, atm. One is being built, but won't be in service for a couple more years. Yes, I do mean REAL carriers.
The chart on Carriers is out of date.
I didn't say that Obama said a ship in the Pacific could handle a problem in the Atlantic or the Med. What I was trying to say, is that following Obama's logic, a ship in one place, would have to be able to handle a problem, that was in another place entirely. Ships can project their power, but the world is a big place, and our Navy has a lot of allies to defend, and lots of problems.
Just last week, we had the Miramar Air Show in San Diego. This week a bunch of the fighters that were at Miramar, have been transferred to a "Mid East country". These are Marine airmen, and they work on Navy carriers. My point is, these guys, and our carriers, are kept busy, working.
It's always disappointing when a good conservative governor is elected, but the legislature for the state is solidly liberal. MA has paid handsomely for being liberal. They see that now, but it's hard to take back a gov't service, after the people have become used to having it.
Now they have to pay for that misstep.
Romney can work with liberals, but no conservative can work with a liberal legislature which is strongly polarized and vote straight liberal on every vote, regardless of it's worth. We've seen that all too often at the federal level, haven't we? Hopefully, we'll get a good block of conservatives in the House and Senate, and we can get ourselves back on track.
The hot air is all out of the liberal's balloon, and all we'd get from another four years of Obama and the liberals, is the last "pffffff", as the balloon sputtered out. He has no PLAN, and no PROGRAM to ignite any spark of change. Same O Same O.
The weird thing is, even though his plans haven't worked, and he has nothing new to offer us, some people still support him. Obama doesn't even CLAIM he has anything new!
Weird.
You know insanity is doing the same thing that didn't work before, over and over, and expecting a different outcome, right?
Yeah.
That's what I don't understand. Obama's policies are NOT working, so why keep supporting them, and him?
It's weird. Just weird.
That's what I don't understand. Obama's policies are NOT working, so why keep supporting them, and him?
It's weird. Just weird.
What is not weird, just typical of ideologues everywhere, is your inability or unwillingness to see the real success of Obama's policies, and the wisdom of continuing to support them. The problem is *not* his policies, the problem, in this case, is your misrepresentation and/or misunderstanding of them.
***
regarding the sphere of influence of a given ship, OF COURSE a ship can project power effectively in many places the actual ship isn't in. I suppose we could have a rational argument about the radius of such a sphere, but no rational person would ever suggest that a ship in the Pacific could exert influence in the Atlantic or the Mediterranean. That is what you said Obama used as an excuse. You cling to that. Obama's logic, no person's logic would ever suggest that, you raise it only as a strawman about how dumb Obama is. Your persistence on this point only shows how dumb this point is, and those who believe it.
***
Romney's no aisle crosser. Romney's used to giving orders, fine as the big boss man, but it doesn't work that way at all as the President. I've no confidence that his business experience will have any significant positive effect on our nation. He won't even have his most-favored tool as Governor, the line-item veto. He'll have to work with the whole Congress, something he his record shows he is unable to do consistently or significantly.
You know insanity is doing the same thing that didn't work before, over and over, and expecting a different outcome, right?
You mean like reading your posts?
Anyway, that statement doesn't make sense, even in its cliched overuse, in this case. How many times have we voted in Obama?
Over and over and over?
:confused:
p.s. IT's =IT IS. ITS = ownership
the real mitt romney: Disaster Relief is immoral.
[YOUTUBE]OhXyJeKaj8E[/YOUTUBE]
KING: What else, Governor Romney? You’ve been a chief executive of a state. I was just in Joplin, Missouri. I’ve been in Mississippi and Louisiana and Tennessee and other communities dealing with whether it’s the tornadoes, the flooding, and worse. FEMA is about to run out of money, and there are some people who say do it on a case-by-case basis and some people who say, you know, maybe we’re learning a lesson here that the states should take on more of this role. How do you deal with something like that?
ROMNEY: Absolutely. Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that’s the right direction. And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, that’s even better.
Instead of thinking in the federal budget, what we should cut—we should ask ourselves the opposite question. What should we keep? We should take all of what we’re doing at the federal level and say, what are the things we’re doing that we don’t have to do? And those things we’ve got to stop doing, because we’re borrowing $1.6 trillion more this year than we’re taking in. We cannot…
KING: Including disaster relief, though?
ROMNEY: We cannot—we cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids. It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids, knowing full well that we’ll all be dead and gone before it’s paid off. It makes no sense at all. [emphasis added]
yup. You're reading that right. Disaster relief is immoral because deficits.
Helping Americans devastated by storms, or earthquakes, or fires, who have had their whole lives, their houses, their things, their livelihoods washed away or blown away or burnt to ashes or whatever, get a leg up and start the long, slow process of recovery, is immoral because deficits.
That there's some plain-and-simple ayn-rand-ron-paul insanity. Then again, no surprise, from the party in favor of
letting sick folks just die.
You took that WAAAY out of context...
He is saying the states should take care of it. Not that we shouldn't have disaster relief altogether.
the real mitt romney: deceptive and misleading.
[YOUTUBE]VQ8P04q6jqE[/YOUTUBE]
The key line is in the ad asserts that while President Obama "sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China, Mitt Romney will fight for every American job." It doesn't explicitly say that Jeep will move American jobs to China, but the rhetorical contrast that it sets up with Romney allegedly fighting "for every American job" it is clear that the ad is intended to convince viewers that under Obama, Jeep is going to shift production overseas. That's simply not true.
The fact that Romney chose his words with a clear eye towards maintaining plausible deniability is actually more disturbing than if he had simply gotten his facts wrong. Everybody makes mistakes; the test is whether you correct them. When Romney claimed Jeep was considering moving all of its production to China, he got called out for it. But instead of correcting his false claim or at least dropping it, his campaign tweaked the language of the claim to be less egregious (in isolation) but equally deceptive (in context).
You took that WAAAY out of context...
He is saying the states should take care of it. Not that we shouldn't have disaster relief altogether.
That's utterly ridiculous. The states can't do it, and private companies sure can't do it. Mitt Romney didn't say "if the states can't afford it, the federal gov't should step in to help"; he said "we cannot afford to do those things". "those things" being DISASTER RELIEF.
I'm not commenting on how realistic it is, which I don't know, but Romney never said that disaster relief was immoral. Romney did his entire "the debt is immoral" spiel and from actually watching the video, the part you emphasized was Romney just finishing his statement, not answering King's question.
With respect to disaster relief, this is what Romney responded to this:
KING: What else, Governor Romney? You’ve been a chief executive of a state. I was just in Joplin, Missouri. I’ve been in Mississippi and Louisiana and Tennessee and other communities dealing with whether it’s the tornadoes, the flooding, and worse. FEMA is about to run out of money, and there are some people who say do it on a case-by-case basis and some people who say, you know, maybe we’re learning a lesson here that the states should take on more of this role. How do you deal with something like that?
ROMNEY: Absolutely.
The entire "immoral" spiel was just his standard anti-debt rhetoric. If you assume that the role can successfully be moved to states, there is nothing wrong with that statement. I just don't know if it is realistic or not.
What is not weird, just typical of ideologues everywhere, is your inability or unwillingness to see the real success of Obama's policies, and the wisdom of continuing to support them. The problem is *not* his policies, the problem, in this case, is your misrepresentation and/or misunderstanding of them.
***
Who should I believe, Obama - or my "lying" eyes? Obama or the CBO data? Obama, or the labor stats?
It's an easy decision - I'm sticking with the facts, and leaving my belief in Obama's policies, in the garbage where they belong.
regarding the sphere of influence of a given ship, OF COURSE a ship can project power effectively in many places the actual ship isn't in. I suppose we could have a rational argument about the radius of such a sphere, but no rational person would ever suggest that a ship in the Pacific could exert influence in the Atlantic or the Mediterranean. That is what you said Obama used as an excuse. You cling to that.
My argument is that cutting the number of ships, has left us unable to respond quickly, to hotspots and other naval duties (like combined fleet training and maneuvers with other nations).
Do you remember when we started air operations in support of the rebels in Libya? We needed an aircraft carrier over there, off the Libyan coast, but because we HAD NO aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean Sea (which had been our policy for many years), we had to wait for several days while one was brought up through the Suez Canal. :mad:
With the help of the French and the Brits, we came out alright in stopping the armor "slaughter" groups headed for Benghazi, but other targets simply had to wait. Undoubtedly that cost lives in Misrata, etc. which were under attack at that time.
Now is not the time to cut down the number of our Naval ships.
Romney will have no problems at all, because the Congress will be controlled by the Republicans, imo. I agree completely that a President can't do much, if he's blocked at every turn, by a Congress that is polarized along party lines, and is controlled by the other party.
That's why you need to vote a straight Republican ticket, obviously! :D
Disaster relief is immoral because deficits.
Helping Americans devastated by storms, or earthquakes, or fires, who have had their whole lives, their houses, their things, their livelihoods washed away or blown away or burnt to ashes or whatever, get a leg up and start the long, slow process of recovery, is immoral because deficits.
The deficits will destroy us far far worse than any natural disaster in our history, if we don't stop them. You have no idea of how bad it gets when you have a real monetary crisis in a country.
In any budget, you can point out SOMETHING that appears cruel. Any budget. In fact, when Obama was asked about something similar in regards to Obamacare, he said "maybe you just send some folk home with a pain pill or something. Not everyone needs an operation." (the operation was an expensive one).
Romney is correct however - the federal gov't can't afford to be a replacement for insurance on your home. Why should it be? That's why we have insurance companies, and I don't know anyone who doesn't have insurance on their home. Maybe a few Democrats don't, but they're always hard to figure out. :rolleyes: Paying for the National Guard to be brought in is fine, but paying people for their losses - no. The federal gov't is NOT our insurance company. Which is good, because the fed's could never run as efficiently as any insurance company.
The help that you are appealing for, should come from the State, but most immediately, from the nearby and affected communities, friends, and various charity groups like the Red Cross, etc. Katrina is a lesson in this. The people went to the Superbowl for shelter, expecting the gov't to take care of them. But the gov't had told them to bring their own provisions, etc. Many did not however. So the Superbowl was completely overwhelmed, both in numbers, and in what they needed. They simply weren't set up to handle THAT many people.
And it took days for FEMA to get even bottled water in to those inside. :eek:
This last hurricane that hit New Orleans, the city was clear - The Superbowl is CLOSED, and no one will be admitted. So what happened? The people made their own arrangements, and everything worked out much better. Of course, there was much less flooding, but the idea is that YOU are the one responsible for your own safety, and YOU will do a LOT better job than some FEMA director in Washington can do for you. (The director's previous job was as an officer in an Arabian horse club, btw Oh! I hate Crony Politicians!)
Do you REALLY want to put your safety in the hands of these nitwits? Why? Please discuss!
My argument is that cutting the number of ships, has left us unable to respond quickly, to hotspots and other naval duties (like combined fleet training and maneuvers with other nations).
Does not matter how massive our military is. 13 times larger than any nation is still too small. Adak is Romney's baggage. Same baggage was so destructive under George Jr. Limbaugh disciples (also called the Tea Party) are so easily brainwashed as to not even know they are brainwashed. Extremists say we need more military and more wars. Same brainwashing made same claims in 1930s Germany.
Romney once said in a debate with Ted Kennedy that he was was more liberal than Kennedy. A good politician knows who to lie to. Locate the most easily brainwashed. Ie Limbaugh disciples. Then claim to be an extremists just like Limbaugh. The most brainwashed will conveniently forget that Romney said he was more liberal than Kennedy. Brainwashing the least educated is that easy.
We need a president who can lie even more then Nixon and George Jr. So wackos extremists need Romney. Liars clearly make the best leaders. Liars can even massacre 5000 American servicemen for no purpose. So that Tea Party extremists will know that was good.
We need more military to massacre more Americans in useless wars. Adak said so. He can deny with the best of them. So it must be true.
snip--
My argument is that cutting the number of ships, has left us unable to respond quickly, to hotspots and other naval duties (like combined fleet training and maneuvers with other nations).
--snip
That may well be your argument. But that's not what you said. Here's what you said:
[SIZE="1"]Who else is trying to take advantage of our less than stellar foreign policy?
1) North Korea, which continues to expand it's range of ICBM's, despite it warnings from the UN and the US, not to. Next will be a nuclear bomb test. This is after shelling an island belonging to South Korea (which is our ally, and where we station more than ten thousand troops).
2) Al Qaeda and it's related terrorists groups in Cairo and Benghazi, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Yemen, and Mali, etc.
3) China, which continues to push for ownership of a vast area of sea between itself and Japan, and between itself and the Philippines.
4) Syria, which knows we don't have the stomach to support the rebels. Finally, we are starting to arm them.
5) Al Shabab, (an Al Qaeda linked group), who could be crushed in Somalia right now, if we gave the legitimate gov't a little help.
6) Argentina, which is calling on all South American countries to blacklist every shipping company that serves the Falklands. It has several nations signed up for this.
7) Rwanda, which is supporting a terrorist army in the Congo. We have soldiers in country to find and stop the terrorist army.
8) Iran, where the mullah's continue to thumb their nose at the US and the international community, by refining nuclear material, and supporting terrorist groups. Latest effort was to kill with a bomb, the intelligence chief in Lebanon. He was investigating the murder of his father -- chief suspect: Iran.
And much much more.
There is ALWAYS movement on the foreign affairs front. Nations are always jockeying for a better position. Various groups that want a country of their own, are always plotting ways to get one, by violence. We don't hear much about it, because diplomatic efforts, and the efforts to unravel them by force, are made sub rosa, whenever possible.
I don't believe that Obama's administration has been a foreign policy disaster. I simply argue that his planned fleet reductions and foreign policy, will leave us weaker. [/SIZE]Despite some more capable ships we have now, [SIZE="3"]we can't have a ship or fleet in the Pacific, help with a problem in the Atlantic or Mediterranean, despite the assurances of [SIZE="5"]Obama[/SIZE]. It's crazy that he would [SIZE="5"]use that as a defense[/SIZE], in the foreign policy debate.[/SIZE]
I have challenged you repeatedly to support this statement of yours, and you can't or won't. You have a different argument, what you were trying to say was, a ship can't be in two places, look at the video of the debate, etc etc etc. Whatever.
I ask you directly, do you [COLOR="Red"][SIZE="3"]
reaffirm [/SIZE][/COLOR]or [COLOR="Blue"][SIZE="3"]
reject [/SIZE][/COLOR]this statement of yours?
[youtube]OhXyJeKaj8E[/youtube]
...and the Romney campaign is doubling down on FEMA.
[youtube]cAHuJriBz2A[/youtube]
I think this guy is thinking of the Bush-era 'Brownie' FEMA. Most of the time FEMA does it's job quite well. And having one national emergency agency, which will be constantly training and gaining field experience is a good idea in addition to the existing state agencies, which are victims to states ongoing budget crises and a certain forgetfulness when the last major disaster in a state can be years ago.
Privatizing FEMA would be even worse. Can you imagine putting the profit motive and someone like Halliburton/KBR into this - kickbacks to state legislators, horrendous markups on disaster supplies and services? All the graft and corruption we encountered in Iraq brought here to our own desperate citizens in their worst time of need.
I'd rather they just fucked with Big Bird.
The deficits will destroy us far far worse than any natural disaster in our history, if we don't stop them. You have no idea of how bad it gets when you have a real monetary crisis in a country.
... like
runaway spending on more military might that we do not need?
As Commander-in-Chief, Mitt Romney will keep faith with the men and women who defend us just as he will ensure that our military capabilities are matched to the interests we need to protect. He will put our Navy on the path to increase its shipbuilding rate from nine per year to approximately fifteen per year, which will include three submarines per year. He will also modernize and replace the aging inventories of the Air Force, Army, and Marines, and selectively strengthen our force structure. And he will fully commit to a robust, multi-layered national ballistic-missile defense system to deter and defend against nuclear attacks on our homeland and our allies.
This will not be a cost-free process. We cannot rebuild our military strength without paying for it. Mitt Romney will begin by reversing Obama-era defense cuts and return to the budget baseline established by Secretary Robert Gates in 2010, with the goal of setting core defense spending—meaning funds devoted to the fundamental military components of personnel, operations and maintenance, procurement, and research and development—at a [SIZE="4"]floor of 4 percent of GDP.[/SIZE]
Ridiculous.
He contradicts himself in his first sentence saying that he'll match our military to our interests. But his whole plan is to make sure this all happens above a *FLOOR* (his italics, not mine) of 4% of GDP. If all you have are military dollars, everything looks like a military threat. He doesn't say how he will pay for it, what with reducing everyone's taxes, dramatically increasing our defense budget, typical Romney, say anything that will stampede the voters,
facts be damned.
In any budget, you can point out SOMETHING that appears cruel. Any budget. In fact, when Obama was asked about something similar in regards to Obamacare, he said "maybe you just send some folk home with a pain pill or something. Not everyone needs an operation." (the operation was an expensive one).
Jesus, you are obdurate. Please provide a citation for this. (ps, I'm just gonna ask nicely this once, and if you don't give a cite, I'm going to chalk this up to more defamation by you.)
Romney is correct however - the federal gov't can't afford to be a replacement for insurance on your home. Why should it be? That's why we have insurance companies, and I don't know anyone who doesn't have insurance on their home. Maybe a few Democrats don't, but they're always hard to figure out. :rolleyes: Paying for the National Guard to be brought in is fine, but paying people for their losses - no. The federal gov't is NOT our insurance company. Which is good, because the fed's could never run as efficiently as any insurance company.
I agree with you, the federal government can't afford to be a replacement for insurance on your home.
But no one is suggesting that. You are melodramatically exaggerating the role of FEMA.
The help that you are appealing for, should come from the State, but most immediately, from the nearby and affected communities, friends, and various charity groups like the Red Cross, etc. Katrina is a lesson in this. The people went to the Superbowl for shelter, expecting the gov't to take care of them. But the gov't had told them to bring their own provisions, etc. Many did not however. So the Superbowl was completely overwhelmed, both in numbers, and in what they needed. They simply weren't set up to handle THAT many people.
Money from the state, collected in the state, distributed to the state? No interstate/federal help?
And it took days for FEMA to get even bottled water in to those inside. :eek:
This last hurricane that hit New Orleans, the city was clear - The Superbowl is CLOSED, and no one will be admitted. So what happened? The people made their own arrangements, and everything worked out much better. Of course, there was much less flooding, but the idea is that YOU are the one responsible for your own safety, and YOU will do a LOT better job than some FEMA director in Washington can do for you. (The director's previous job was as an officer in an Arabian horse club, btw Oh! I hate Crony Politicians!)
Do you REALLY want to put your safety in the hands of these nitwits? Why? Please discuss!
My god, you sound like Romney, that you believe that people, some 47% of us, won't take responsibility for our lives, that we, some 47% of us, believe it is the federal government's responsibility to take care of us in every way, including our safety. Unbelievable.
Yet.
You would blindly put our national safety in the hands of the same "nitwits", with an even bigger military budget. Gotcha. I doubt you can explain that one away, but you probably meant to say something else.
The US is not in danger of losing its global power status through not having enough ships in its Navy. You have more navy than the rest of the world combined.
You are in danger of losing your superpower status through going bloody bankrupt. Maintaining that enormous military is a significant factor in your fiscal problems.
Sure, it took several days to get a carrier into position for the Libya operation. That was OKAY. Things worked. It was quick enough.
That may well be your argument. But that's not what you said. Here's what you said:
I have challenged you repeatedly to support this statement of yours, and you can't or won't. You have a different argument, what you were trying to say was, a ship can't be in two places, look at the video of the debate, etc etc etc. Whatever.
I ask you directly, do you [COLOR="Red"][SIZE="3"]reaffirm [/SIZE][/COLOR]or [COLOR="Blue"][SIZE="3"]reject [/SIZE][/COLOR]this statement of yours?
I support it, of course. I try and re-write it so you can grasp it, but maybe one more time, and this IS the last time:
Cutting the number of ships in our Navy, reduces our ability to get the ships we need to move to a hotspot - to that hotspot, in a short amount of time.
Of course, we want to save $$$ by not over-spending on our Navy, but we have been cutting down the number of ships, quite a bit. We need to stop cutting down the number of ships in our Navy.
Think about this: The US Navy escorts almost all of the worlds oil tankers, as they leave the Gulf of Persia, loaded with oil. Not the French, not the UK, not anybody else. The Iranians have threatened on several occasions to attack those tankers (that's why they've all been reregistered as US ships, so they have US Naval protection).
Oh, and btw., the South Korean dissidents HAVE released a bunch of helium balloons with leaflets attached, into North Korea. These ARE the leaflets that the North Koreans said they would begin merciless artillery fire on the South, if they were sent. No one is sure what may happen as a result, but I'm sure the Navy will want to keep a couple Carrier groups nearby, just in case.
In light of this, do you REALLY believe this is the best time to continue cutting Navy ships?
Does not matter how massive our military is. 13 times larger than any nation is still too small. Adak is Romney's baggage. Same baggage was so destructive under George Jr. Limbaugh disciples (also called the Tea Party) are so easily brainwashed as to not even know they are brainwashed. Extremists say we need more military and more wars. Same brainwashing made same claims in 1930s Germany.
Romney once said in a debate with Ted Kennedy that he was was more liberal than Kennedy. A good politician knows who to lie to. Locate the most easily brainwashed. Ie Limbaugh disciples. Then claim to be an extremists just like Limbaugh. The most brainwashed will conveniently forget that Romney said he was more liberal than Kennedy. Brainwashing the least educated is that easy.
We need a president who can lie even more then Nixon and George Jr. So wackos extremists need Romney. Liars clearly make the best leaders. Liars can even massacre 5000 American servicemen for no purpose. So that Tea Party extremists will know that was good.
We need more military to massacre more Americans in useless wars. Adak said so. He can deny with the best of them. So it must be true.
Well, we've got a great liar in Obama, but let's not compare lying politicians - that's like asking which elephant is bigger than a flea. :rolleyes: All politicians lie, and all of them say stupid stuff, from time to time. You can't talk that much, and not go wrong, from time to time. Just watch Obama give a non-campaign speech, when the teleprompter doesn't work -- he hems and haws and stammers like you wouldn't believe.
Ted Kennedy? Please- a sad case of a sad drunk who crashed his car while driving drunk, and left his date to die, while he sobered up for several hours before reporting the accident. A truly despicable man. He could give a good speech, however. Fine speaker when he was sober.
I don't believe we can do any more good in Afghanistan, and yes, I believe we've handled it badly. Wars like Afghanistan and Iraq, should be REALLY avoided. These places are not like Europe after WWII, or Japan. Their culture is VERY Islamic, and mostly tribal in large parts of the country. Many don't WANT to move into the 21st Century, and we don't need to drag them into it, kicking and screaming. Let them stay where they want to be. If Al Qaeda from country X attacks us, or tries to, we attack them - but we don't build up/rebuild their country for them at a cost of 100's of Billions of dollars. They can rebuild their own country, if needed.
[youtube]
I think this guy is thinking of the Bush-era 'Brownie' FEMA.
Most of the time FEMA does it's job quite well. And having one national emergency agency, which will be constantly training and gaining field experience is a good idea in addition to the existing state agencies, which are victims to states ongoing budget crises and a certain forgetfulness when the last major disaster in a state can be years ago.
Privatizing FEMA would be even worse. Can you imagine putting the profit motive and someone like Halliburton/KBR into this - kickbacks to state legislators, horrendous markups on disaster supplies and services? All the graft and corruption we encountered in Iraq brought here to our own desperate citizens in their worst time of need.
I'm not in favor of privatizing FEMA, and yes, I was clearly referring to Brown era FEMA. The big idea here though, is that WE take care of OURSELVES, and help our neighbors and friends. DON'T rely on the gov't to take care of us.
DO NOT become dependent on the gov't, for your survival and recovery, in an emergency. You will be quite sorry if you do, because FEMA can be overwhelmed in any big emergency, and YOU could be totally ignored. You probably will be found after you're dead, however. I'll give them that much credit.
The US is not in danger of losing its global power status through not having enough ships in its Navy. You have more navy than the rest of the world combined.
You are in danger of losing your superpower status through going bloody bankrupt. Maintaining that enormous military is a significant factor in your fiscal problems.
Sure, it took several days to get a carrier into position for the Libya operation. That was OKAY. Things worked. It was quick enough.
You might think differently if your family was a victim in Misrata that died during that period.
Fact is, we are going bankrupt from our over-spending. We need to cut back, clearly, and some cuts in the military, may be needed and OK. Further cuts in Navy ships is not smart at this time, however.
We have taken on the extra task of escorting nearly ALL the world's oil tankers, leaving through the Persian Gulf, which Iran has threatened to attack. This is a substantial amount of extra work to take on, AND the Korean peninsula is heating up, as well. Also, we still need one carrier at least, to support Afghanistan, while ops are on-going there.
I'm not in favor of privatizing FEMA, and yes, I was clearly referring to Brown era FEMA. The big idea here though, is that WE take care of OURSELVES, and help our neighbors and friends. DON'T rely on the gov't to take care of us.
DO NOT become dependent on the gov't, for your survival and recovery, in an emergency. You will be quite sorry if you do, because FEMA can be overwhelmed in any big emergency, and YOU could be totally ignored. You probably will be found after you're dead, however. I'll give them that much credit.
YOU do not have the kinds of resources that the gov't has. YOU can do everything in your power to prepare and survive, but if the levies fail and the wave comes, that may not be enough. Because YOU only have domestic responses. Unless you happen to have helicopters, fully trained medics, hydraulic rescue equipment etc etc.
If FEMA can be overwhelmed, then so can ordinary people. Your post implies blame towards those who relied on the gov't for their survival, when their own resources failed them in the wake of Katrina.
... like runaway spending on more military might that we do not need?
He contradicts himself in his first sentence saying that he'll match our military to our interests. But his whole plan is to make sure this all happens above a *FLOOR* (his italics, not mine) of 4% of GDP. If all you have are military dollars, everything looks like a military threat. He doesn't say how he will pay for it, what with reducing everyone's taxes, dramatically increasing our defense budget, typical Romney, say anything that will stampede the voters.
Does Obama say how he's going to pay for Obama care? Nooooo!
That's what lying politicians do - get over it.
Jesus, you are obdurate. Please provide a citation for this. (ps, I'm just gonna ask nicely this once, and if you don't give a cite, I'm going to chalk this up to more defamation by you.)
I don't have a cite for you. It's been played a few times on the conservative radio talk shows. The announcer/host said where and when, but I didn't write it down. It came up when Obama care was about to be voted on, so it was some time back.
I agree with you, the federal government can't afford to be a replacement for insurance on your home.
But no one is suggesting that. You are melodramatically exaggerating the role of FEMA.
Oh, am I? What were all those trailers about after Katrina, then?
You and I both know that the reason those buildings in New Orleans couldn't be rebuilt quickly, was because they either had no flood insurance, or if they were rebuilt, their new flood insurance rates would be higher (probably too high), or unavailable.
Think about it. The City of New Orleans is built on washed down dirt from the Mississippi River. As the dirt compacts, the city sinks about just a bit, every year. In addition, a large part of N.O. is in a bowl depression, close to sea level.
In other words, the city is doomed - it will sink into the Gulf, inexorably. Clearly, they need to build a New New Orleans, back on solid ground, asap. Did you notice that another part of N.O. did receive 12 ft. of flood waters, in their last Hurricane? (Not Sandy). The sea wall and etc., doesn't protect the whole city, even when it works.
We don't need FEMA to think, and we need to start using our own resources to mitigate these disasters ourselves. THEN FEMA and Red Cross and other groups, can assist. ASSIST, not be expected to rescue our butts.
My god, you sound like Romney, that you believe that people, some 47% of us, won't take responsibility for our lives, that we, some 47% of us, believe it is the federal government's responsibility to take care of us in every way, including our safety. Unbelievable.
Watch the interviews done with the Katrina survivors that were inside the Superbowl in New Orleans. Every one of them relied on the gov't for help - and most of them relied on the gov't for everything - even though they were told to bring their own supplies, explicitly and repeatedly.
You would blindly put our national safety in the hands of the same "nitwits", with an even bigger military budget. Gotcha. I doubt you can explain that one away, but you probably meant to say something else.
I am not sure that we need a bigger military budget. I just don't want the Navy ships budget cut any more. As far as the "nitwits" in charge of our national safety - no, the military doesn't allow the Crony Appointments that Presidents are so famous for (like BROWN at FEMA, or Janet Reno as Attorney General).
I don't have a cite for you. It's been played a few times on the conservative radio talk shows. The announcer/host said where and when, but I didn't write it down. It came up when Obama care was about to be voted on, so it was some time back.
And you automatically believed it because it validated your preconceived notions. That's very conservative of you.:rolleyes:
And you automatically believed it because it validated your preconceived notions. That's very conservative of you.:rolleyes:
I recognize Obama's voice when I hear it - high fidelity stereo speakers. :cool:
I don't have a problem with a limit to the nationalized health service. I understand that you only should get back, what the system can afford to give. What bugs me about Obama care, is that he's lying about the cost, and underfunding it. That means the taxpayers are going to be left with the bill when it comes due - ie., more taxes, AND the quality of the care will have to be somewhat curtailed - which he's not really telling anyone now that Obama care has become so disliked.
I'm waiting for the first 68 year old man who can't get a heart by-pass, because he's too old, etc. Then we'll see how this Obama care REALLY works (or doesn't).
It's smart to keep your mouth shut about an unpopular topic, when you're in a tight reelection campaign. I understand why he's not talking about it, anymore. I wouldn't either, if I were him.
If it works - nearly flawlessly - everywhere else in the "developed" world, without having to ration care through "death panels" (i wish I could say i thought you were above relying on that tired old trope, but honestly, i didn't) killing 68 year olds - why in god's name can't we do it?
I don't actually believe that America is the "best" country in the world, or anything, by a long shot. But I DO damn well think that when America wants to do something, Americans can make it happen. If everyone else can fix their healthcare systems, so can we. We just need to stop pandering to people like you, who would rather see insurance company profit than healthy americans.
I recognize Obama's voice when I hear it - high fidelity stereo speakers. :cool:
I don't have a problem with a limit to the nationalized health service. I understand that you only should get back, what the system can afford to give. What bugs me about Obama care, is that he's lying about the cost, and underfunding it. That means the taxpayers are going to be left with the bill when it comes due - ie., more taxes, AND the quality of the care will have to be somewhat curtailed - which he's not really telling anyone now that Obama care has become so disliked.
--snip
So Obama is a liar and a cheat because of his projections about Obamacare.
But when it comes to Romney's plans, you
I don't want to quote arithmetic, because it's not a 1+1 kind of thing, when you work with the economy and the tax rates and loopholes.
--snip--
I know Paul Ryan's monetary budget plan was published, but I haven't read Romney's proposed tax plan yet. I read what he was going to do, in broad strokes, and I know it will help.
--snip--
When all the details are published, (in a bill), then we can look at the numbers, and see what does, and doesn't probably, add up. I expect Romney's numbers to be optimistic because:
1) Europe is still in an economic recession. Greece, Spain, Italy and others, are in very serious shape.
2) China's economy has been slowing down, lately.
If these two big external factors remain (and I believe #1 certainly will, and #2 will NOT stay), then I believe Romney's projections will be off. We do a lot of business with Europe, and have banking ties which directly support their banks. If they go down, we will be bailing them out, yet again.
Obama is a hammered by you for optimistic projections, but Romney is just saying it's morning in America.
Your indefensible double standard is showing.
Projections are used all the time for budgeting purposes. It has nothing to do with Bruce's snarky attitude, above. Gotta hate them rich guys, eh Bruce? Some are optimistic, some are pessimistic, with the former being much more common.
Nation-wide economic projections are seldom spot on, because the economy is so complex and variable in the controlling factors, at any given period.
--snip--
*From KNX 1070 News Radio, Los Angeles, a CBS affiliate.
Don't get angry with Obama about economic projections. Gov't and business has been using them since - roughly -- forever. ALL budgets are based on projections. Are those projections reasonable? Define "reasonable".
@BigV:
Don't get angry with me about economic projections. Gov't and business has been using them since - roughly -- forever.--snip
Anyway, ALL budgets are based on projections. Are those projections reasonable?
Define "reasonable". Because they may prove to be too optimistic (typically), but sometimes they prove to be too pessimistic.
I wouldn't put a lot of stock in these projections. --snip
Unless it's Obama's prediction. Then, different story.
more double standard follows.
I haven't spent a lot of time with the details, because --snip--
Romney's projected savings are just that - a projection, and I wouldn't be surprised if that projection was - like all economic projections - not perfect. The bottom line is, Romney's plan will cut spending in the federal gov't, cut taxes somewhat, and close some tax loopholes. His goal is to make it "neutral", so the income lost in one cut, will be matched by growth in the economy, and by closing a loophole.
I do not expect it will be exactly neutral, of course. He's smart, but he's not a Prophet. ;)
It's double standards like this that make you and your guy look bad. For thinking people, who like to see the math and are skeptical, "logic" like this is a big red flag. In my opinion, it is characteristic of intellectual laziness. You hear something you like or something from someone you like, and you accept it uncritically. Conversely, when the speaker is disliked, or the statement is at odds with your pre-existing conclusion, you're hostile to the message. Content matters Adak, for me and for you, even if you don't care about it. It is content that will affect our lives. You would do well to measure the content more closely and the label of the speaker less closely.
I support it, of course. I try and re-write it so you can grasp it, but maybe one more time, and this IS the last time:
--snip
This saddens me. I gave you every chance to retract your smear of the President, and you refused. You don't seem stupid Adak, you don't seem mean. But I can not understand why you would support your libel.
Actually, a few posts further down, a very telling remark by you helps me understand some of the factors that influence what I hear you saying. When you talk about hearing it on conservative talk radio, I had an epiphany. I, too, listen to much of that same stream, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Sean Hannity, ... I hear their programs, and also their programming. It is not a good source for knowledge, nor for quality information. There's plenty of scaremongering there, lots of slander, meanness, and especially emotionally charged opinion making. And, I have to say, lots and lots of commercials. They are, after all "obscene profit making" enterprises. They are in business to make money, and they do so by keeping you tuned in through the commercials.
Nothing wrong with that, but it's useful to know what their motivations are so that you can more clearly understand what they're saying by knowing why they're saying it. By making scandalous teasers, then breaking away for a commercial, you are likely to hang around to find out if The Donald is going to finally tear away the veil of secrecy from Obama's muslim/foreign/traitorous past.
They have an agenda, and they're implacable in the pursuit of that agenda. Promoting Romney is merely expedient for them, but they make full use of his celebrity for their own purposes. They pander even more than Romney does, but at least you can turn off the radio. With Romney, god forbid he is elected, we'll be stuck with him.
In everything he says, everything he does and perhaps more importantly, everything DOESN'T say or do, Romney has done all he can short of hitting everyone over the head with a "I Should Not Be President" stick.
I recognize Obama's voice when I hear it - high fidelity stereo speakers. :cool:
Those hi-fi speakers also give you a good earful of the hosts on those shows, which is why you're so misinformed.
If you would like to refute any point of Constitutional law with Mark Levin (former Chief of Staff to the Attorney General for Ronald Regan), and now a talk show host), PLEASE - by all means, you do that! :D
Here's a metaphor for the liberals. Say you are at a Thanksgiving Dinner and you want the ketchup.
A conservative grabs it, and pours the ketchup.
A middle of the road type, asks the Washington bureaucrat sitting nearby, to please pass him the ketchup - although it's easily in arm's reach.
A liberal wants the Washington bureaucrat at the table, to see that he needs the ketchup, and pass it to him. An email from Washington reminding him of this need, would be a nice touch.
An ultra liberal wants the Washington bureaucrat to use monitors to study his eating habits, and know automatically, when and if, he will want the ketchup passed to him - based on his previous dining habits. This will require a Ketchup department to be established in Washington, with a senior Secretary of Ketchup, a full staff, and regular updates to the President on the status of Ketchup with meals.
:D
This saddens me. I gave you every chance to retract your smear of the President, and you refused. You don't seem stupid Adak, you don't seem mean. But I can not understand why you would support your libel.
Because the President, and his appointed Secretaries, have all lied, big time, right to my face. (well, the TV).
I live fairly close to the Mexican border - I KNOW when the illegal crossing have resulted in Kidnappings, murders, and other serious crimes.
I don't appreciate Napolitano (Sec'ty of Homeland Security) coming down here and saying "the border is safe" - right after a murder by the drug cartel, of a US citizen, on a lake near the border, in broad daylight.
And I know Obama did NOTHING to save our Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi, and others. For chrissakes, they had phone calls, email, real time video from a recon drone, and military assets just a short hop away at Aviano, Italy. The attack lasted OVER 5 hours (some say up to 7 hours), and still Obama did NOTHING!
He's a damn criminal for just sitting on his ass and not trying to help them -- they were OUR people, damn it! He had us fly thousands of missions to save the people of Benghazi from Ghaddafi, but he can't even fly ONE to save our Ambassador?
WTF??
A photo was released today showing the President in the Situation Room, studying the progress of Hurricane Sandy.
Well, WHAT was Obama studying when our consulate was being attacked and overrun and our Ambassador was being killed? :mad:
Actually, a few posts further down, a very telling remark by you helps me understand some of the factors that influence what I hear you saying. When you talk about hearing it on conservative talk radio, I had an epiphany. I, too, listen to much of that same stream, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Sean Hannity, ... I hear their programs, and also their programming. It is not a good source for knowledge, nor for quality information. There's plenty of scaremongering there, lots of slander, meanness, and especially emotionally charged opinion making. And, I have to say, lots and lots of commercials. They are, after all "obscene profit making" enterprises. They are in business to make money, and they do so by keeping you tuned in through the commercials.
Nothing wrong with that, but it's useful to know what their motivations are so that you can more clearly understand what they're saying by knowing why they're saying it. By making scandalous teasers, then breaking away for a commercial, you are likely to hang around to find out if The Donald is going to finally tear away the veil of secrecy from Obama's muslim/foreign/traitorous past.
They have an agenda, and they're implacable in the pursuit of that agenda. Promoting Romney is merely expedient for them, but they make full use of his celebrity for their own purposes. They pander even more than Romney does, but at least you can turn off the radio. With Romney, god forbid he is elected, we'll be stuck with him.
As I've stated previously, i won't listen to Limbaugh anymore, because his ad hominem attacks are WAY over the top.
A little trash talk is understandable, but not NEARLY as much as Limbaugh does. Last I listened to him, it was 80% trash talk. I won't put up with that.
I do listen to Mark Levin, and Michael Medved. They are sharp thinkers. Also, Roger Hedgecock, when he is discussing politics and not personalities, is good. As the former Mayor of San Diego, he resonates well. Nobody else knows more about politics in America, and how it works, on the radio.
Far from an ideologue, I'm a pragmatic guy - if it works, I like it! If Obama care worked - had a hope of working - I'd support it. Same with all the other crazy CA and liberal policies and laws, we have.
If they only worked - but they don't, or they don't work efficiently. Efficiency is very important, because we can't just throw money at our problems - we don't have enough of it, and shouldn't be wasting it.
To be kind, they're very wasteful, and big time liars. I neither need nor want, our fed gov't to control every damn thing in my life.
Anybody remember what liberty and freedom were about?
If they only worked - but they don't, or they don't work efficiently. Efficiency is very important, because we can't just throw money at our problems - we don't have enough of it, and shouldn't be wasting it.
To be kind, they're very wasteful, and big time liars. I neither need nor want, our fed gov't to control every damn thing in my life.
Anybody remember what liberty and freedom were about?
Well, since you asked... I don't expect for a moment to change your mind, but I haven't participated in this thread so far, and your comments are as a good as an excuse as any for me to jump in with my deep insights and scintillating comments (HAH!)
I remember the days when many of my and everyone else's liberties and freedom was guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Along came 9/11 and the Republican administration then in power pushed through the so-called Patriot Acts and the creation of Homeland "Security." Not content with these atrocities, the Rebublican Gang of Four then got us into a war under false pretenses and without giving the slightest thought as to how the US was going to pay for this atrocity. Rather than following the route of fiscal responsibility by raising taxes and implementing other substancial money saving programs to pay for our adventures in Iraq, the Republicans LOWERED taxes and added insult to injury by awarding lucrative contracts to defense contracters who were in bed with the upper echelons of Republican politicians and the Department of Defense, Pentagon, Chief's of Staff, etc. Can anyone say Halliburten or Dick Chaney or Karl Rove or or or?
Ancient history,, perhaps, but it's brought us to where we are today. Oh, and let's not forget the big financial bailout of all those crooked CEOs and bankers specializing in sub prime lending instruments, etc., etc. These corporate criminals tanked the US economy and you and I had the "freedom" of paying for their get out of jail free cards. Was so much as one criminal financier called to account for his actions? Did a single one go to trial or spend time in prison for the crimes that were committed against the American people? Don't everybody all answer at once.
Why didn't a single Federal prosecutor bring charges against these charlatans who practically drove our country to its knees? I blame both parties for this. No high ranking politician was going to risk PAC money or other campaign contributions or the incredible goodies handed out by the lobbiests for the country's financial low lifes.
And how about the outsourcong of American jobs? Remember Apple? Remember when it was the quintensential American success story? Until it discovered China that is. Goodbye Apple and goodbye every single other American manufacturer of microchips and almost all other components used in the electronics industry.
Wanna hear what Chinese workers get paid to work for Apple? One dollar/hour. And they work 12 hour days with only one day a week off. If production falls behind, they get to work extra shifts for free until the new quotas are met. Apple workers in China are housed in dormitories of 10 stories or more. This makes it easy for them to jump from an upper floor and commit suicide when they break down under the constant criticism they are subjected to and the incredible stress of their work load.
Republicans have the incredible nerve to call this global "free enterprise." Bull shit! China is a COMMUNIST country for those of you who have forgotten. The Chinese government subsidizes Chinese industries with low or zero rate loans, free land to build their plants on, and a system of tarriffs which prevent most foreign produced goods from being competitive in the Chinese market place.
BTW, the above info on Apple comes from the book,
The Betrayal of the American Dream by Barlett and Steele, pp. 85-97.
The US joins in the party by actually giving tax breaks to US corporations who export US jobs overseas. There is no system of tariffs that has any teeth which protects American manufacturing the way Chinese products are protected. BTW, is there any American manufacturing left? I guess we still make a few car parts and your pal, Romney objects to even that.
Wake up and look at what is going on both in the US and globally. The wealthiest individuals and corporations in the US have bouht themselves a national legislature of their very own in no small part due to Citizens United. Would you like to explain to me how you or I have the "liberty" or "freedom" to run a candidate who represents the actual American people - not Goldman Sachs. Good fucking luck, sucker. Until - IF -we get campaign financing reform, our country will continue to run at a deposit as jobs continue to vanish overseas, CEO's are paid obscene salaries to dismantle American enterprise, and the war du jour will rake in billions if not trillions for the cronies of the administration who yet again, "Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war," against whatever hapless nation is discovered to have something we want.
Why in the name of the FSM are Conservatives so deliberately blind. You strain at gnats and miss the mountain one foot from your face. The defit is all the fault of the disabled and the homeless children and seniors living on $700/month. Certainly not any of those other factors I mentioned. Oh, yeah. And FEMA, too. Romney et al want to save us from the evil Fema program. Have fun all you folks who were in Sandy's path. Hope you know how to repair your own power grids single handed. And how about "safety net" programs? Romney wants to end the food stamp program. Wanna tell me what the low income children in the US are going to eat? Maybe Romney will start a canned goods program to help them out. What will happen to the low income disabled and seniors when Romeny gives us "liberty" and "freedom" from housing assistance and medical care through Medicaid (the medical program for the very poor)?
You, oh grasshopper, want efficiency in your government programs? According to the non partisen Center on
Budet and Tax Priorities the social safety net programs account for - get this - 13 percent of the entire United States budget. The most expensive programs are social security and defense - both coming in at 20 percent. Now you want to tell me that there's no waste in defense spending? Pardon me while I go find a place to die laughing - maybe I'll just join all those old people and disabled folks that were turned out to starve or die of exposure or die due to lack of medical treatment, so you and your mad hatter hosted tea party could save a a lousey 13% by killing (yes, killing) the most vulnerable members of our population. Meanwhile, Halliburten et al will be shoveling krugerands into their secret off shore accounts and people like members of the Bin Laden family will be secretly spirited away to continue their lives of wealth and priviledge, not to mention well placed campaign contributions.
I have nothing but contempt for the current crop of Republicans who can't be bothered to study even recent history, are to lazy to use common logic, and are all too eager to literally destroy thousands of their fellow citizens because they want to buy a cheap i-pad under whatever outrageous terms Apple may demand and FSM forbid that some rich bitch in a gated community have her taxes go up by even 2 cents
PS. And you think the Republicans tromping around in your bedroom is LESS intrusive government?
Well said Sam.
Adak, that ketchup analogy is deeply flawed.
The ketchup metaphor was meant to just give you a little "flavor" for the different philosophies. Doesn't suit your tastes, eh? :) :D
PS. And you think the Republicans tromping around in your bedroom is LESS intrusive government?
Sam wins. Game over.
(that wah wah wah pacman game over sound.)
The ketchup metaphor was meant to just give you a little "flavor" for the different philosophies. Doesn't suit your tastes, eh? :) :D
Just doesn't work very well as a metaphor.
Welcome, Sam!
I remember the days when many of my and everyone else's liberties and freedom was guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Along came 9/11 and the Republican administration then in power pushed through the so-called Patriot Acts and the creation of Homeland "Security." ... the Republicans LOWERED taxes and added insult to injury by awarding lucrative contracts to defense contracters who were in bed with the upper echelons of Republican politicians and the Department of Defense, Pentagon, Chief's of Staff, etc. Can anyone say Halliburten or Dick Chaney or Karl Rove or or or?
Don't think of Bush as a true conservative. He was not. And yeah, he lied badly to us about the war, but I knew that before we started it. I'm not sad to see Saddam gone (and his sons), but the lies I won't forgive Bush for - and for his over-spending, and stopping most stem cell research.
We probably needed a Homeland Security, but not the behemoth of agencies we have in it. We needed a patriot act, but not the removal of so many of our rights.
Halliburton is a tough call, because you can't get many companies to do, what Halliburton did, on such short notice, and on that massive a scale, in a country where the employees are likely to be mortared and shot at.
Lowering taxes, can also increase the velocity of money in the private sector, which can bring in MORE tax income to the gov't. I know it's non-intuitive, but it can happen. Depends on the situation.
Of course, the defense contractors were in bed with Cheney, he was the former Secretary of Defense, during Desert Storm. Nobody knew more about what the military would need in Iraq, than Cheney. Like him or not, he knew his stuff -- which Bush needed.
Ancient history,, perhaps, but it's brought us to where we are today. Oh, and let's not forget the big financial bailout of all those crooked CEOs and bankers specializing in sub prime lending instruments, etc., etc. These corporate criminals tanked the US economy and you and I had the "freedom" of paying for their get out of jail free cards. Was so much as one criminal financier called to account for his actions? Did a single one go to trial or spend time in prison for the crimes that were committed against the American people? Don't everybody all answer at once.
There were a few, but the BIGGEST figures, were politicians, and of course, they never go to jail for being stupid liars.
Why didn't a single Federal prosecutor bring charges against these charlatans who practically drove our country to its knees? I blame both parties for this. No high ranking politician was going to risk PAC money or other campaign contributions or the incredible goodies handed out by the lobbiests for the country's financial low lifes.
A few did go to jail, but the biggest impact has been the suit against the big banks. Bank of America bought out Countrywide (which was a HUGE source of sub prime mortgages), and now the feds are just beginning their suit for 1 Billion dollars, but which will extend to cover civil claims as well, apparently.
Reuters claims BofA, Countrywide and it's subsidiaries accounted for a total of 57 Billion dollars in toxic loans!!
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-bankofamerica-fraud-lawsuit-idUSBRE89N17120121024
Several banks have already settled similar suits.
And how about the outsourcong of American jobs? Remember Apple? Remember when it was the quintensential American success story? Until it discovered China that is.
Sure. All started with the Free Trade Agreement, IIRC, way back when. Trade treaties since then have extended it, like NAFTA.
It has the plus that we can buy a lot of stuff, very cheaply, but the downside is, we lose our manufacturing jobs -- gone.
Yes, it's like a work camp in the Gulag - but with high tech products.
By definition, it is free trade, but "free" means something entirely different to a Communist country.
The US joins in the party by actually giving tax breaks to US corporations who export US jobs overseas. There is no system of tariffs that has any teeth which protects American manufacturing the way Chinese products are protected. BTW, is there any American manufacturing left? I guess we still make a few car parts and your pal, Romney objects to even that.
Support your argument that Romney objects to car parts being made here. You lost it there, Sam. Simply a lie.
I agree that we need serious election reform, to remove the big $$$$'s from whether a candidate can run a successful campaign or not, for office.
I've been through several big earthquakes. FEMA was never around when you needed them. They are swamped by anything big, immediately, and pretty useless, actually.
Learn to rely on
yourself and your friends and community, in an emergency. Don't be dependent on the gov't! They won't probably be there.
You, oh grasshopper, want efficiency in your government programs? According to the non partisen Center on Budet and Tax Priorities the social safety net programs account for - get this - 13 percent of the entire United States budget. The most expensive programs are social security and defense - both coming in at 20 percent. Now you want to tell me that there's no waste in defense spending? Pardon me while I go find a place to die laughing - maybe I'll just join all those old people and disabled folks that were turned out to starve or die of exposure or die due to lack of medical treatment, so you and your mad hatter hosted tea party could save a a lousey 13% by killing (yes, killing) the most vulnerable members of our population. Meanwhile, Halliburten et al will be shoveling krugerands into their secret off shore accounts and people like members of the Bin Laden family will be secretly spirited away to continue their lives of wealth and priviledge, not to mention well placed campaign contributions.
Social safety net programs, account for 13% of our entire budget?
Really?? You're off the track again, Sam! (will cover in a subsequent post, this one is getting way too long already).
I have nothing but contempt for the current crop of Republicans who can't be bothered to study even recent history, are to lazy to use common logic, and are all too eager to literally destroy thousands of their fellow citizens because they want to buy a cheap i-pad under whatever outrageous terms Apple may demand and FSM forbid that some rich bitch in a gated community have her taxes go up by even 2 cents
PS. And you think the Republicans tromping around in your bedroom is LESS intrusive government?
A lot of Republicans aren't conservative. They are "whatever's", they need to be, to be elected, and they live in a conservative part of the country.
Both Bush Presidents were that way - not conservative, and not pragmatic in many ways. The worst was the lie to drag us into Iraq, and then to keep us supporting Iraq and Afghanistan for 10 years.
We can't afford to be doing that.
Ted Kennedy? Please- a sad case of a sad drunk who crashed his car while driving drunk, and left his date to die, while he sobered up for several hours before reporting the accident. A truly despicable man. He could give a good speech, however. Fine speaker when he was sober.
A perverse liar (ie the worst example of a politician) completely ignores the point. You again demonstrate how a Tea Party Limbaugh supporter thinks . Despicable.
Romney said he was more liberal than Ted Kennedy. Since lying to yourself, you must ignore that reality. Even take cheap shots at Kennedy.
An honest reply without a cheapshot attitude means you explain why Romney even said he was more liberal than Ted Kennedy. A liar does what a liar must do. Ignore that fact. Take cheapshots. Even call benchmark conservatives (ie Lugar) a liberal.
When do we see calls for internment camps for Muslims? We now have a new benchmark for liar. You. Or would you instead explain why Romney said he was more liberal than Ted Kennedy? I doubt it. Please prove me wrong by answering the again posted question, as any honest person would.
Welcome, Sam!
Don't think of Bush as a true conservative. He was not. And yeah, he lied badly to us about the war, but I knew that before we started it. I'm not sad to see Saddam gone (and his sons), but the lies I won't forgive Bush for - and for his over-spending, and stopping most stem cell research.
I am in complete agreement with you here!
Halliburton is a tough call, because you can't get many companies to do, what Halliburton did, on such short notice, and on that massive a scale, in a country where the employees are likely to be mortared and shot at.
What? You can't get many companies to rake in money hand over fist while taking advantage of insider favoratism?
FORTUNE Magazine – In an age of ugly symbols, a handful of companies have come to serve as shorthand for what's wrong with corporate America. In 2004, Halliburton moved to the top of the roster.
Mention its name and images flash: Vice President Dick Cheney bestowing fat, no-bid contracts on the company he once ran; a giant corporation engaged in shameless war profiteering--charging outrageous prices to provide fuel for Iraqis and meals for American troops. Halliburton became a punch line, as when Tonight Show host Jay Leno noted that Saddam Hussein was captured with $750,000 in cash on him. "They think," Leno explained, "that he was trying to buy three gallons of gas from Halliburton."
There were a few, but the BIGGEST figures, were politicians, and of course, they never go to jail for being stupid liars.
Please name names. I have studied this subject intensively and have yet to come across a report of ANYONE actually called to account for their criminal activities. I would be heartened if even one of those scoundrels had to be responsible for his actions. I eagerly await your reply. Really
Support your argument that Romney objects to car parts being made here. You lost it there, Sam. Simply a lie.
Oh?
Romney’s stance on bailing out the Ohio auto industry has been extremely controversial with each party offering different versions of Romney’s stance at the time. This is what the Washington Post had to say on the subject:
When the auto industry faced collapse, Mitt Romney turned his back. Even the conservative Detroit News criticized Romney for his “wrong-headedness” on the bailout. And now, after Romney’s false claim of Jeep outsourcing to China, Chrysler itself has refuted Romney’s lie. The truth? Jeep is adding jobs in Ohio. Mitt Romney on Ohio jobs: Wrong then. Dishonest now.
As I wrote here the other day, the Obama campaign views the auto-bailout as a stark black and white case that dramatizes one of the most basic questions voters ask themselves: Who can they really trust to fight for them and to be on their side when it matters?
Back when Ohio needed the auto industry bailed out — and Obama took the politically risky step of proceeding with the rescue — Romney took the politically easy position.
Attacking it was a good way to pander to conservatives in advance of the GOP primary. But then, when this position became problematic for him in the general election, he began to dissemble about it, falsely suggesting he’d supported government action up front when that’s simply not what happened. With time running out, Romney has run out of answers on the auto-bailout, and has now turned to the claim that it will result in American Jeep jobs getting shipped to China. That isn’t true either http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/calling-romneys-lie-what-it-is-a-lie/2012/10/29/78168b68-21fa-11e2-ac85-e669876c6a24_blog.html
I've been through several big earthquakes. FEMA was never around when you needed them. They are swamped by anything big, immediately, and pretty useless, actually.
Learn to rely on yourself and your friends and community, in an emergency. Don't be dependent on the gov't! They won't probably be there.
Honey, this ain’t my first rodeo either. My current cynicism regarding the government knows no bounds. Most of the members here know that I suffer from a disability which prevents me from working in my old profession and makes it difficult for me to train for different employment. Anyhow, I eventually had no choice but to go on SSDI disability. The amount I get is so small that I must depend on a housing voucher for my apartment and I get my medical treatment through Medicaid. And I have made some progress. But without help – well, forget it.
My case is not an isolated one. Many Americans are living in situations like mine. The private funds are just not available to help us. Churches, etc. lend what assistance they can but it’s only a bit here and there.
Now I have a question for you that I would be very interested in getting a serious thoughtful answer to. Here it is:
Take a population which is already suffering from a severe disability or illness – traumatic brain injury, advanced MS, quadriplegics, etc. Now turn those people out of their homes to deal with the elements as best they can. Imagine how a quadriplegic or a brain injured person will deal with a drunk with a knife at a homeless shelter. Imagine how quickly a person with schizophrenia will go downhill without their medication. Think about an individual who is already severely ill being faced with the specter of malnourishment and hunger on a daily basis.
Really think about such people. Imagine what they face. What do you think their ultimate fate will be? Cause and effect. Many of these people will die. They will die on the streets and allies and behind the municipal buildings in our cities.
In rural areas they will dies quickly from exposure since few shelters are available in rural America. Some will make rough camps and die there. Some will die in their cars on some lonely dirt road. I am not being dramatic. I have 2 college degrees – one in biology. I know very well what will happen to a population of deer or small mammals or lynx or whatever that is subjected to a similar situation/environment.
So, what is your value system? Does human life matter to you, or would you rather stride through America’s cities as you might those of Brasil – stepping over the sick and dying? Or do you want to look for alternative solutions? Raise taxes on the wealthy even just by 5%
Better than nothing. Get rid of wasteful defense spending. Did you know that almost every military installation both here and abroad had a well manicured golf course? Do we really need frills like that? And Halliburton was the ONLY firm chosen to bid on US defense contracts at the time of the Iraq War. Why not throw the bidding open to all? Isn’t competition what America is supposed to be all about? Might just save some money while we’re at it.
Unfortunately, I am pessimistic about many of the American people and especially our politicians of both parties. A while back a crowd at a Republican rally actually applauded at the thought of people without health insurance just being left to die. Are we headed for social Darwinism? Wouldn’t surprise me.
Meanwhile, I’ve been collecting official military manuals on survival, escape, and evasion in a variety of conditions. Interesting stuff.
Social safety net programs, account for 13% of our entire budget?
Really?? You're off the track again, Sam! (will cover in a subsequent post, this one is getting way too long already)..
The 13% figure for gov’t spending I gave is correct. Check the link provided.
Please name names. I have studied this subject intensively and have yet
to come across a report of ANYONE actually called to account for their criminal activities.
I would be heartened if even one of those scoundrels had to be responsible for his actions.
I eagerly await your reply. Really
Adek doesn't respond to this sort of request.
But here is one to warm the cockles of your heart.
[skip forward to about 0:45 and to 1:15 sec]
[YOUTUBE]YwpnH_OTZio[/YOUTUBE]
Thanks, Lamplighter. I guess that's something. But "flawed thinking"? Those financial criminals were thinking just fine - "Hey! We could rake in billions if we just fudge a few little numbers here and there and maybe over there..." And then the bastards got end of year bonuses! Incredible! :mad2:
The biggest fish in the sub prime market was Countrywide Financial Services. They were *unbelievable*.
Their founder and CEO was Angelo Mozilo, and he was fined 67.5Million by the SEC, but because of an indemnity clause in his contract, BankofAmerica (which bought Countrywide), will have to pay some part of that amount.
By agreeing to that, he avoided a trial, and they never went after him for fraud (which carries up to a long 30 year sentence in Federal law for business fraud), and a fine.
A guy in Florida went to prison (he caused the nations sixth largest bank to collapse). A few others as well are listed here:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=convicted+for+fraud+sub+prime+mortgage&oq=convicted+for+fraud+sub+prime+mortgage&gs_l=hp.3...793.11416.1.13047.24.23.0.0.0.0.360.2582.0j10j2j1.13.0.les%3Bcqn%2Crate_low%3D0-035%2Crate_high%3D0-035%2Cmin_length%3D2%2Ccconf%3D1-2%2Csecond_pass%3Dfalse%2Cnum_suggestions%3D1%2Cignore_bad_origquery%3Dtrue..0.0...1c.1.KQOWr4nisIc&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=5a788ec4e1cc4d0a&bpcl=36601534&biw=1280&bih=653
You are correct on the Fedral welfare percentage IF you don't include Social Security - which is both money that people have earned, and also money that they are receiving unearned. (or welfare ). So the percentage varies between 11% at the lowest, to about 30% at the highest, depending on what you call "Welfare".
Another thought came to me as I was looking that up: "What about the Farming subsidies?". if a farmer is paid NOT to grow a crop. Is that welfare? Technically no, but realistically, yes.
In any case, looking even at the lower figures, it's easy to see from this graph, that our percentage of welfare spending is increasing at an alarming rate. Obama care will increase that dramatically - but again, only part of it will be welfare, the rest will be paid for.
[ATTACH]41436[/ATTACH]
Good discussion Sam, but we need to keep our posts shorter. I had to edit out quite a bit, just to fit the last big post of mine, in under the forum limit.
Wait! What? A forum limit? When did that happen? I though you could just post away until anyone who chanced to glance at what you wrote fell over sideways at their desk from boredom. Or else their computer froze on the NSFW site just as the boss wandered in. But what do I know? Oh, I did learn how to build a snare for a rabbit out of my Marine Survival Handbook. Those jar heads are pretty clever. Hope I can meet up with some when the time comes. :elkgrin: Hey! We need a rabbit smilie. Guess this elk head will have to do until we get one.
My case is not an isolated one. Many Americans are living in situations like mine. The private funds are just not available to help us. Churches, etc. lend what assistance they can but it’s only a bit here and there.
That's because you aren't a Mormon.
There has always been a 10,000 character limit per post.
@SamIam: Knock off the names, or the conversation is just bull shit name calling.
This is crap, of course. This was earlier in the campaign, when all the newspapers were solidly Obama fans.
Of course they hated Romney's take on it, because it hurt the Unions, who now are the owners of GM, along with the Feds. What a surprise, eh?
A guy like Romney will want the business to go through bankruptcy, and get restructured, and come out a stronger company. I have not however, heard Romney say what his own preferences would have been for GM. Romney couldn't have any impact on it, anyway. It was Obama's decision to make.
Rescuing GM was the EASIEST political decision, ever made. That's usually the problem with these kinds of decisions. No one wants to see the anguish of doing something RIGHT, so they do the EASY, and then it winds up being a short cut - you know, like the one the Donner party took, over the Sierra Mtns. :eek: :eek:
I'm quite a fan and proud owner of GM trucks over the years, but I doubt I'll buy another one.
You want a sharp contrast? Contrast the oil and gas drilling going on in Ohio, on private land, with the oil and gas drilling in Ohio that Obama will allow, on Federal land. The US would be a bigger producer of oil and gas, than Saudi Arabia, IF Obama would quit blocking it.
That's because you aren't a Mormon.
There has always been a 10,000 character limit per post.
Yeah, I know. Members of the Mormon Church around here get all sorts of help when they need it. I was thinking of converting, but I think I have to attain the status of Celestial Being or something before I could get on the REAL goodies the Mormons hand out. Either that or become some old fart's 9th wife. Henry VIII should have had it so good.
How many pages is 10,000 characters?
Just write what you want and if it's more than 10k it will tell you, also it will tell how big it is. Then you split it into two posts and you're good to go.
@SamIam: Knock off the names, or the conversation is just bull shit name calling.
What names? Jar Heads? Bastards? Grasshopper?:confused:
Gang of Four? Crooked?
Wow! I'm really, really sorry to have used such language. The mods should have banned me by now.
Hey, wait till you read a post by Urbane Guerilla! You'll adore HIS vocabulary!
This is VERY cynical stuff. Of course human life matters to me. What a question to ask!
You can tax the rich until they're absolutely broke and destitute, and it won't allow our politicians to spend all the money they want to spend. They buy votes, by spending our money, you see. "You want a bridge to nowhere? Sure, the Feds will buy you one - but be sure to vote for me come November!"
Is that what you want? You want a monetary crisis on the US dollar? You want to see inflation (which will be coming around eventually), ripping apart everybody on fixed incomes?
Because that's where we're headed.
I don't know where you got the idea that Conservatives would have this kind of calamity for the poor and disabled, but you have it quite twisted around.
Because after the liberals spend us into oblivion, they'll be the first one's to jump freely over your lifeless corpse, as they scramble for some crust of bread to eat.
Liberals care a lot about helping the poor. Conservatives care a lot about helping people, NOT become or stay, poor.
So, what is your value system? Does human life matter to you, or would you rather stride through America’s cities as you might those of Brasil – stepping over the sick and dying? Or do you want to look for alternative solutions? Raise taxes on the wealthy even just by 5%
Better than nothing. Get rid of wasteful defense spending. Did you know that almost every military installation both here and abroad had a well manicured golf course? Do we really need frills like that? And Halliburton was the ONLY firm chosen to bid on US defense contracts at the time of the Iraq War. Why not throw the bidding open to all? Isn’t competition what America is supposed to be all about? Might just save some money while we’re at it.
Halliburton had a hard job, and they could NOT fail. As a former CEO, Cheney could make Halliburton jump through the air and do a double back flip, at the same time. He knows all the officers and the guys and gals to go to, to get things expedited RIGHT NOW.
I'm not sure any other company could have done what Halliburton did, in that same time frame, in Iraq. I don't blame Halliburton - they performed well, under trying conditions. And i don't blame Cheney, since OF COURSE, he knew exactly how to get things done with them. It was expensive, but we knew it would be. Heaven knows, you can't work in Iraq, on the cheap. We saw lots of contractors who were killed even though they had bodyguards, didn't we?
Normally, I'd say yes, it certainly should have been bid out, but in the time frame we had for Iraq, I believe it might have been necessary.
However, I am not even aware of all the services that Halliburton supplied for the military and contractor personnel in Iraq. And is there some reference point for comparing the cost of supplying those services, in a war zone like Iraq?
I don't have that info. Without it, how can anyone make a comparison? So I choose to reserve judgment on Halliburton in Iraq.
Oh, people can use all the foul language they want, but they'll just get mostly the same from me.
So what good can come of that, really?
Oh, people can use all the foul language they want, but they'll just get mostly the same from me.
So what good can come of that, really?
But but but before you edited your post you said it was 'honey' that you considered name calling.
:lol2:
Come on schmoopy lovie-kins sweetie-pie...give me the same back. I'm starved for affection. Starved, I tell you.
I need some affection handouts.
I need some affection handouts.
And a good psychiatrist. :rolleyes:
And a good psychiatrist. :rolleyes:
Thank gawd you're here! Politician! Physician! Psychiatrist! You're the EveryProfessional!
But right now I'd really like some advice on my haircolor. I like the current color, but I'm thinking of adding some highlights. The problem is my hair grows so fast that I would have to pay all that money every 3 weeks, instead of doing it myself for ten bucks. (I mean, it's L'Oreal, and I AM worth it...)
Later, I have some etiquette issues to pick your brain about. I'm attending a Regatta Gala and I'm not sure of the appropriate attire. ;)
Oh, people can use all the foul language they want, but they'll just get mostly the same from me.
Well I don't use foul language. I simply ask why Romney once called himself more liberal that Ted Kennedy. And got a completely irrelevant relpy from you that made no sense. And that completely ignored the question. Why is Romney more liberal that Kennedy when you seem to think he is conservative? Or does Romney routinely lie?
Do you think you might stop avoiding the question? Or does the Tea Party not have an answer?
Well I don't use foul language. I simply ask why Romney once called himself more liberal that Ted Kennedy. And got a completely irrelevant relpy from you that made no sense. And that completely ignored the question. Why is Romney more liberal that Kennedy when you seem to think he is conservative? Or does Romney routinely lie?
Do you think you might stop avoiding the question? Or does the Tea Party not have an answer?
Ask Mitt, when he's in the White House. ;)
Here's a question for you:
Why did Obama ignore Ambassador Stevens request for help, and leave our Ambassador, and two CIA agents, to be killed by Al Qaeda affiliates?
This is the President you want to put your faith into for health care? He abandons an Ambassador and three decorated soldiers working for the CIA, under attack in a foreign country, and you believe he's going to give a shit about YOU? :eek::eek:
Not after election day, he won't.
Oh honey baby, it'll be OK.
PS. And you think the Republicans tromping around in your bedroom is LESS intrusive government?
You know what's funny about this? Looking back at my wild college years, not one self-professed Conservative Republican (like law students) was worth a damn shit in bed. It was like fucking a dispassionate grubworm. A couple half-hearted grunts and a "I got mine...you get yours."
No wonder I gave up on that ilk and leaned towards the bleeding heart liberal starving artists...they knew how to LIVE. :lol:
*This foul language was brought to you by the letter F and the number 47.
So liberals take "nice guys finish last" to a new level?
;)
(you all know, of course, I'm kidding. A little levity. Though, still, I can't remember any...oh never mind.)
@ Adak -
First of all I apologize for my rather bealated reply. I have been checking out winter survival gear, deciding on the purchase of a mummy sleeping bag good down to zero degrees F. - or so the label claims.
Now where was I? Oh!
This is VERY cynical stuff. Of course human life matters to me. What a question to ask!
Look here. If you are going to affiliate yourself with an organization - epecially a political one - you need to understand the values and goals espoused by groups that make up significant numbers of the members in the movement with which you have decided to support.
This would allow you to spare us your act of outraged innocence when you are questioned regarding some of the more outrageous actions carried out by your fellows.
In addition,you want to tell me to believe what you say and ignore what you do ("You" being conservatives). How can you expect that I or anyone else will be able to respond with anything EXCEPT cynicism?
I don't know where you got the idea that Conservatives would have this kind of calamity for the poor and disabled, but you have it quite twisted around.
There are endless sources which set forth the Tea Party dominated Republican Party's attitudes and plans for those programs which make up the (larely inadequate) social safety net currently in place in this country. Go read Ryan's proposed budget. Take a look at the explanations of Republican idealogy widely published all over the Internet, discussed constantly by reporters for every major news outlet, and gushing forth from Fox every time you are unfortunate enought to land your TV clicker on it channel. I'm not going to fill up this entire thread with the thousands of links to this information.
Instead, I will just mention a single incident that occurred a little over a year ago and which you would have had to be lying brain dead in a hospital bed to avoid knowing about. I refer of course to a moment from the Republican debates sponsored by the Tea Party in Septemper of 2011:
There were a zillion stories that came out about just what makes a human life valuable in the eyes of the Right wing, as well as the fate the unworthy among us should be subjected to.
Yahoo News had as good as coverage as any:
If you're uninsured and on the brink of death, that's apparently a laughing matter to some audience members at last night's tea party Republican presidential debate.
Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a doctor, was asked a hypothetical question by CNN host Wolf Blitzer about how society should respond if a healthy 30-year-old man who decided against buying health insurance suddenly goes into a coma and requires intensive care for six months. Paul--a fierce limited-government advocate-- said it shouldn't be the government's responsibility.
"That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks," Paul said and was drowned out by audience applause as he added, "this whole idea that you have to prepare to take care of everybody …"
"Are you saying that society should just let him die?" Blitzer pressed Paul. And that's when the audience got involved.
Several loud cheers of "yeah!" followed by laughter could be heard in the Expo Hall at the Florida State Fairgrounds in response to Blitzer's question.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/audience-tea-party-debate-cheers-leaving-uninsured-die-163216817.html
:reaper:
Hug and kiss Halliburten if you want. While I feel pretty disgusted by their antics, right now I am more concerned about whether I and every other low income disabled person will have our housing taken by Romney, so that the 4% of the National Budget that goes to housing vouchers can be re-directed to an already bloated defense fund which currently devours 20% of all government spending. Sounds logical to me.
Ron Paul is a nut extremist. He is a doctor, and he has some excellent comments about our Federal Reserve Banking system, BUT when it comes to anything else - He's a whack job.
And will never be elected Pres or VP, for that reason. Yes, he has his followers - in his own way he's a charismatic guy - but he's whacked. We had to put him into the primary debate, because he had enough support, in those first few states. He REALLY concentrated on them, because he knew he'd be toast afterward.
Don't even think about judging the Tea Party or Republicans, or Conservatives, by looking at guys like Ron Paul. You ignore Ron Paul, and I'll ignore your Maxine Waters, OK? :D
This is what we commonly see with the social welfare programs run by the gov't:
The authors also argue that because the definition of disability adopted in 1984 is quite broad, the DI program often functions in practice as an insurance program for unemployable workers. For example, when 130,000 DI beneficiaries whose primary impairment was drug or alcohol addiction were removed from the DI rolls in 1996, two-thirds of the terminated claimants managed to re-qualify for DI under a different impairment.
http://www.nber.org/bah/fall06/w12436.html
It's not that helping the needy is something we don't want to do, but this kind of half-assed approach that the politicians come up with, just gets played by lots of perfectly healthy people. I know two who qualified for this one, myself - nothing wrong with them. They just learned how to play the system, and the first guy, taught the second one, how to do it.
Looking at Obamacare, I see one great problem with it:
1) they allowed companies to opt out or not require it at all. So after supporting it to the skies when it was a bill, all the largest employer's have opted out of it, already, now that it's a law.
That reduces our economy of quantity considerably, and shifts the costs (including the fixed costs of starting it), onto far fewer patients.
If we're going to have a nationalized health care system (and I hope we do), we need a smarter one. Why not study the good and bad points of the other countries who have it, and use that as a template for our own?
A tax hike for that, I would support - but not for something where people are not included - that's just nuts. Everybody means everybody, and if it's not for everybody, then it should be for nobody.
[/quote]
I was beginning to seriously wonder if Adak was my older son (who is a flip-flop Republican but, honestly, I just think he wants to be on which ever team 'wins') but now I don't think he is.
My son doesn't own a truck. BUT HIS DAD DOES!
@ Adak -
First of all I apologize for my rather bealated reply. I have been checking out winter survival gear, deciding on the purchase of a mummy sleeping bag good down to zero degrees F. - or so the label claims.
I've got a mummy bag that's rated to 20 or something like that, but it starts getting uncomfortably cold when it's in the high 30s. Enough so you have trouble sleeping. So I bring a lightweight fleece blanket that I use as an extra layer inside the mummy bag. It helps considerably. Also, when it's that cold, you really need a foam pad to sleep on. An inflatable air mattress is too cold. You can always put the foam pad on top of an air mattress.
Looking at Obamacare, I see one great problem with it:
1) they allowed companies to opt out or not require it at all. So after supporting it to the skies when it was a bill, all the largest employer's have opted out of it, already, now that it's a law.
That's only one problem, there are many others from my perspective. But with the power of the Drug/Medical Appliance companies, Health Care conglomerates, AMA, and Insurance Company's, sway on K Street, great compromises had to be made or it would never happen... ever.
Hopefully, with enough push from the public, it will be improved until it's what we should have.
Yes, all the lobbyists and PAC's and such, are a significant barrier to progress. We've got to get some serious election reform underway.
Never going to see THAT from a conservative, Adak. Never.
Don't even think about judging the Tea Party or Republicans, or Conservatives, by looking at guys like Ron Paul. You ignore Ron Paul, and I'll ignore your Maxine Waters, OK?
I actually find Ron Paul rather amusing and I don't care who does or does not pay attention to Maxine Waters. I judge the Tea Party, etc. by their actions. I reserve my harshest judgments for folks like the ones who cheer for people without health insurance to be just left to die. The Tea Party did that and I hold them in the lowest possible regard with absolutely no apology for the judgments I have made about this group of sub-humans, .
This is what we commonly see with the social welfare programs run by the gov't: ~ Oh boy, here we go! I’ll paraphrase from here since I actually read Adak’s link and then the link that the first link contained and then… ~
Anyhow, in summation: Uncle Sugar is handing out goodies left and right to undeserving shirkers and whiners just as we all suspected.
Apparently this journalistic news flash was pulled off by a couple of unemployed, former auto workers whose jobs were outsourced by Bain Investments to the NO TICKEE, NO TICKEE FEVER plant located in the outer part of Inner Mongolia. Shortly after the loss of their jobs, these two patriots both lost their homes to a sub prime lending outfit which needed to give out 11 million $$$ bonuses to their CEO’s that year.
Out of desperation, our two heroes whom I shall refer to as Moe and Curly, then decided to try their luck in the field of yellow journalism. The happy go lucky folks at Tea Bag Research Services gave Moe and Curly their first big break with an assignment to write a scholarly article about why every disabled person in the US should be left to die because everyone loved the idea and thought it was hilarious. Moe and Curl’s research would be published in the Journal of Irreproducible Results, a scientific publication with a wide readership among the illiterates residing in the so-called “Red States.”
However, even with this auspicious beginning, our two aspiring writers might never have made it into the annals of literary history. Although both had plenty of mistaken information, wouldn’t have known the truth even if it were spoken to them in tongues by a blue tick hound, and both men harbored enough prejudices and resentments to fill all the sheets of a phalanx of ku klux klan members; neither Moe nor Curly could type and Moe could barely even print. How would they ever be able to place their opus before an eagerly awaiting world?
All I can say is that thank FSM, the US has yet to outsource its methamphetamine labs to China. One night a friendly if toothless chemist wandered into the bar where Moe and Curly were drinking jello shots and trying to master the Palmer method on a number of crumpled bar napkins. Upon learning of the historic task facing the two jello drinkers (and managing to avoid thinking of Jim Jones), the chemist offered them the use of his old Underwood Typewriter that he kept for a doorstop on the step of his trailer/meth production facility located a mere 5 miles from town over 27 miles of rutted, winding dirt road. Moe and Curly accepted the offer at once, pulled off three all nighters and had all but the last 2 pages of their study typed up when the meth lab blew up and left the kindly chemist disabled for life. Fortunately for him, the local sheriff slammed him in the joint before the chemist had so much as a chance of even THINKING of going on disability.
Isn’t it nice how all that goes well, ends well?
And I do have a point in writing all this drivel besides just amusing myself. I could have quoted verbatim some of the more fantastic parts of Adak’s favorite link and the link within the link. I could have pointed out a number of scientific fallacies that were presented as truth by the writers of those diatribes against the disabled and against providing us with any assistance. I could have thrown in a bunch of sociological and psychological facts and included reams of my own experience and the experiences of other disabled Americans I know whose misfortune it is to seek help from the Feds.
But the Adaks of the world already have their minds made up. And a rather large segment of US society is still simply unwilling to look honestly at what has and is unfolding in this country. Times are not the best and when you need someone to blame in bad times, why not blame people who are poor because how dare they be poor in the “land of opportunity”?
This last actual comment I will make a legitimate response to after all:
It's not that helping the needy is something we don't want to do, but this kind of half-assed approach that the politicians come up with, just gets played by lots of perfectly healthy people. I know two who qualified for this one, myself - nothing wrong with them. They just learned how to play the system, and the first guy, taught the second one, how to do it.
These comments make me want to take back everything I wrote earlier and embarque on a 20 page rebuttle complete with quotes and citations from every expert imaginable. However. I’ll try. To be. Brief.
When you read Moe and Curly's comments, it’s apparent almost immediately that they have never actually spoken to a real person in need of assistance due to a disability. They can’t even call the program by the correct acronym. It’s not DI, whatever that is. People are either awarded SSI or SSDI. SSI is much like welfare. It is a program for people who were unable to work enough quarters to qualify for SSDI (so much for Moe’s bright idea that people must work x so many years before they can qualify for help). SSDI is very much like the regular Social Security payments most people qualify for at age 66. It is considered EARNED income, paid for out of each paycheck that a worker earns until he retires or becomes disabled before retirement age.
Many people who end up on SSI are ones who suffer from a serious mental illness that prevents them from ever really being able to work. Schizophrenia is a prime example. It often seems to strike young people in high school or college. The symptoms are so profound that it is all the schizophrenic can do to merely survive – never mind hold down a job. You, Moe, and Curly need to leave the Dark Ages behind. Mental illness is very real. It can be very hard to treat. It makes the sufferer’s life almost unbearable at times. It can often prevent him from working no matter how much he may wish otherwise.
The politicians have indeed rigged the game – but not the way you’d like to think. About 70% of all applicants for disability are turned down the first time they apply. There seems to be little rhyme or reason to the decisions. Thus, the system ensures that just the cost of evaluating people will remain high – especially if you make it so you have to evaluate almost everyone twice.
I went through the entire miserable process and was turned down the first time despite the fact that Social Security’s own specialist whom I was required to consult gave me a diagnosis in no uncertain terms of complete disability with almost no chance of improvement – ever. I appealed, everybody on all sides wasted more money, time and paperwork, and when I walked into my hearing with the judge the first thing he did was look at their own doctor’s report on me. The judge read the thing twice, frowned, and told me that I shouldn’t even be here wasting his time. The system should have awarded me disability two years before. I could go home and wait for my paperwork to arrive in the mail in a couple of weeks. Why hadn’t anyone ever bothered to read that doctor’s report before? Beats me. But the mistake favored the government not me and that’s usually how it is for everyone.
I agree that some people do cheat or try to cheat the system. I always hear that , “Well, I know this guy and he’s blah, blah, blah.” I have my doubts. One, the system is actually very, very difficult to cheat. You have to have records and tests out the whazoo from different specialists and even different hospitals. You have that automatic 70% turn down rate, and we’re talking years of fighting Social Security here – not just a few weeks or months. If a person can work, it’s usually easier to just go get a job. I’m in a job training program myself and am chomping at the bit to succeed and get the hell away from the taint of the government. Don’t know if I’ll make it, but I’m trying.
Finally, people are not awarded disability for alcoholism or addiction. In fact, if you are suspected of being an addict, you entire application will be thrown out. But again, if you knew anything about modern medicine, you would know that it’s very common for a person to have a “dual diagnosis.” People who suffer from constant severe pain may get addicted to their pain meds. People who once led useful, self-supportinglives find themselves stuck in a bed or a wheel chair or are quadriplegic. This tends to be a mite depressing. Some folks drink at their depression. And you know what? I drank more alcohol than anyone should in a lifetime during the first 3 years after I was diagnosed. I didn’t even want to live. Then I got a new type of medication, different therapy and I started to feel some hope again. I quit alcohol completely. Don’t be so quick to judge until you’ve been there.
most of the alcoholics/addicts I know (plenty) are dual diagnosed. they've been self-medicating for years and get hooked. loads of bipolars, schizoid personalities...it's a real mess. my neighbor, in his late fifties, has had a lifelong seizure disorder- he's wrecked two cars driving to work. He applied for SSDI three years ago. They are having to lawyer up to fight the denials he keeps getting. he worked until he just couldn't work anymore. He's got other health problems -COPD (no, he doesn't smoke) and diabetes and his IQ is somewhere around 80.
He's been denied SSDI even though he managed to work as long as he did.
Adak must be a youngster. They never think anything bad is going to happen to them. What college are you at, Adak? And my apologies if you've already mentioned it and Imissed it
Well fucking said Sam.
Thanks, Dana! :blush:
Adak must be a youngster. They never think anything bad is going to happen to them. What college are you at, Adak? And my apologies if you've already mentioned it and Imissed it
I'm retired, and not in the best of health.
@Sam, those cheers were from Ron Paul's camp, designed to show support for Ron. You'll never hear anything like that at a Tea Party rally -- never happen.
If Ron Paul shows up at a debate, and this particular question is asked, then you'll get this chant. The moderator knew it when he asked this question. All set up of course, to make the conservatives look cruel & inhuman, to the mainstream.
Did you notice in the debates, that the moderators were ALWAYS liberals - not a single conservative one in the group? That's not a random accident.
sorry about your health, Adak.
there's a lot of people here who can relate.
Back when I was taking my first course in Infectious Diseases,
an instructor said:
"Everyone in the world has a venereal disease, except me and wife.
"And I'm not so sure about my wife."
For Adek, it's the same sort of thing.
"Everyone in the world is a liberal, except..."
So, despite my rule of not believing anything we hear in the last week before an election ...
http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/17613-uaw-charges-romney-with-profiteering-from-auto-bailout
Toledo, Ohio - Wednesday Evening October 31, 2012
For Mitt Romney, it's one scary Halloween. The Presidential candidate has just learned that tomorrow afternoon (November 1) he will be charged by the United Automobile Workers (UAW) and other public interest groups with violating the federal ethics in government law by improperly concealing his multi-million dollar windfall from the auto industry bailout.
At a press conference in Toledo, Bob King, President of the United Automobile Workers, will announce that his union and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) have filed a formal complaint with the US Office of Government Ethics in Washington stating that Gov. Romney improperly hid a profit of $15.3 million to $115.0 million in Ann Romney's so-called "blind" trust.
In what sense can a Union "charge someone"? Publicly accuse? Initiate legal proceedings?
Is it political mudslinging? Or is there a genuine offense behind this?
It's probably a political ploy to attract attention to this story
Griff posted.
Sam, I could believe you - if only my eyes could actually see what you claim to be true.
Sadly, they can't, and so I can't. But I understand - facts are horribly resistant to the change that every liberal would love them to be.
It may be difficult to get into the SSD program, but it IS being done, by people who are SO DISABLED, that they run a roofing business, on the side, etc.
How many claimants do you think are undeserving?
How many claimants do you think are undeserving?
I honestly have no idea of what the numbers are for fraud, with SSD. That's one of the problems - they have no one who checks on these claimants. Once they're approved, that's it. That is like a bear to honey.
Sam, I could believe you - if only my eyes could actually see what you claim to be true.
Sadly, those who forget basic science routinely use observation as proof. You were taught in second grade science that observation alone is junk science. Also called lies. To know something means supporting facts with hard numbers. You never provide numbers. Your post classic junk science: subjective claims supported only by your feelings.
Sadly, you will not even answer a basic question necessary to have trust. Why did Romney say he was more liberal than Kennedy? You recommend him as a 'true conservative'? Well, Romney's strongest supporters are white men with the least education. People who foolishly know only from observation. Who only believe what they are first told.
Sadly, you demonstrate why my father so loved advertising. So much fun was to manipulate those with least education. Those who know only from observation. He loved to manipulate those who only know what first told.
Sadly also called Romney's strongest supporters. You never knew Romney said he was more liberal than Ted Kennedy. You never knew that Obamacare was based in Romneycare. You never knew Romneycare was first proposed in the Heritage Foundation. They forget to tell you that. Tea Party and Romney supporters only know what first told. They did not tell you those facts. So you remain in denial.
Sadly, your facts are inventions by people, like my father, who so loved to manipulate the most naive. White men with little education. Same technique also proved Saddam had WMDs. Same technique even blamed Saddam for 11 September. Same technique even proved that Pond's has Age Defying creams and Geritol for health. Scams are so easy among those who only believe what they are told. The naive only believe what they are first told. Sadly, even think observation is sufficient to have knowledge.
Why do you avoid the question? Why did Romney claim to be more liberal than Kennedy? Because he can lie. The most naive will only believe propaganda. He can lie because you forget or ignore facts. You refuse to answer the question for one simple reason. The powers that be have not yet told you what to think. You are why my father so loved advertising. Even your knowledge is only subjective observation. Fun is to manipulate the most naive (white men with least education) with outright lies. Sadly, even forget what was taught in second grade science. You know what the propaganda machine says to think. And think observation is sufficient to know something.
If informed, you could say why Romney once called himself more liberal than Kennedy. If informed, then you can say why Romneycare is so criticized by Romney. Sadly, you cannot. Sadly, you said, "Go ask Romney". An insult because you ignore Romney the flouder. Sadly you believe a politician will a history of flip-flopping. Sadly, you believe that means trust.
Sadly, you must even forget what was taught in second grade science. Sadly, that is why Romney's strongest supporters are white men with least education. People most easily manipulated by propaganda. You did not even know that Romney called himself more liberal than Kennedy. And that Obamacare is Romneycare. Sadly, you don't know that because propaganda machine did not tell you what to think.
Romney said he was more liberal that Kennedy. If honest, you can explain that. If dishonest or an uneducated white man (who even forgets what was taught in second grade science), then you must ignore or deny hard facts.
Sadly, those who forget basic science routinely use observation as proof. You were taught in second grade science that observation alone is junk science. Also called lies. To know something means supporting facts with hard numbers. You never provide numbers. Your post classic junk science: subjective claims supported only by your feelings.
Your observations, are not just your feelings. They are factual, but not enough for a full statistical measure, since the sampling size is too small. But they are not subjective, and they are not feelings.
When you have two acquaintances on SSD, (and only know 2 people on SSD), and they're both young and healthy (and in one case, knows a trade that is in demand), it is something not to be ignored.
Drivel about something a politician said 10 years ago, is not relevant today. Not for Obama, and not for Romney.
You never knew that Obamacare was based in Romneycare.
Yes, I did know that, and Romneycare in MA has been a failure, according to Conservatives reporting on it.
You never knew Romneycare was first proposed in the Heritage Foundation. They forget to tell you that. Tea Party and Romney supporters only know what first told. They did not tell you those facts. So you remain in denial.
That was also mentioned on the Conservative talk shows. So, wrong again.
Sadly, your facts are inventions by people, like my father, who so loved to manipulate the most naive. White men with little education. Same technique also proved Saddam had WMDs. Same technique even blamed Saddam for 11 September. Same technique even proved that Pond's has Age Defying creams and Geritol for health. Scams are so easy among those who only believe what they are told. The naive only believe what they are first told. Sadly, even think observation is sufficient to have knowledge.
I've got about 4 years of college, and never believed Bush about Saddam causing 9/11. I remember Ponds and Geritol commercials. So what?
Why do you avoid the question? Why did Romney claim to be more liberal than Kennedy? Because he can lie. The most naive will only believe propaganda. He can lie because you forget or ignore facts. You refuse to answer the question for one simple reason. The powers that be have not yet told you what to think. You are why my father so loved advertising. Even your knowledge is only subjective observation. Fun is to manipulate the most naive (white men with least education) with outright lies. Sadly, even forget what was taught in second grade science. You know what the propaganda machine says to think. And think observation is sufficient to know something.
All politicians, lie - grow up. You're obsessed with this drivel of a comment from years ago.
All politicians change their minds, from time to time. Facts on the ground, change, the will of the people they represent, changes, the wording of laws, and the degree of enforcement, changes.
Any politician who never changes their mind on issues, wouldn't be worth a damn. Their VALUES are important, and shouldn't change much, but their position on issues BETTER change, as the situation changes.
Yes, I see you are obsessed with Romney's comment. And with the adverb "sadly", which is sad, in and of itself. Get help, or get over it.
Have you ever noticed how the pictures are chosen to show who their preferred candidate is?
Can't do it every time, of course, but take a look at these two, from the BBC news:
Which candidate is shown with huge shadowed eye sockets, and a sweaty, over-exposed, glare on his forehead?
[ATTACH]41563[/ATTACH]
And here, they used an angle showing Romney with a microphone stand appearing to be a part of his mid-line.
[ATTACH]41564[/ATTACH]
You know they have zillions of pics they could use, but time after time, you'll see a real slant to their photo's.
You'd think the BBC at least, could do a much more even handed reporting job.
Tomorrow is the big day!
Good luck to both candidates - indeed, to all the candidates, in all the parties. They've all worked hard to get this far.
You can get really good deals at Taggart. I just got some awesome bath towels.
Sam, I could believe you - if only my eyes could actually see what you claim to be true.
Sadly, they can't, and so I can't. But I understand - facts are horribly resistant to the change that every liberal would love them to be.
It may be difficult to get into the SSD program, but it IS being done, by people who are SO DISABLED, that they run a roofing business, on the side, etc.
For about the 16th million time, the acronym is SSI/SSDI NOT DI and NOT SSD. If you can't even get the name right, how are we supposed to believe that you got anything else right, either?
The sleaze bag on SSI/SSDI who runs a construction business or drives huge trucks cross country on a 24/7 basis or who runs a saw mill and picks up his gov't check after putting in a good 10 hour day tossing around hundreds of tons of wooden planks is one of those urban myths that stubborningly refuses to die.
Not a single person EVER who has related such stories to me actually knew the villian involved. The story teller always knows OF the bad guy but seldom anything ABOUT him. Like, did you ever ask your buddy if he's on private disability instead of SSI/SSDI? Private is usually easier to get and it pays more. Federal takes forever and what they pay a person on SSI could barely keep a flea alive. The amount SSI recipients get currently is $680.00/mo. That's it. Period. Once you get your SSI, you may qualify to get on the wait list for a housing voucher - usually takes 2 - 5 years, and if you haven't died yet by time your name comes to the top of the list, Uncle Sugar will grudgingly hand you a voucher that allows a single person to rent a tiny one bedroom apartment - if he sticks to places on the wrong side of the tracks of course.
The payoff is just hardly ever worth the energy required to deal with the Feds and pull off really major lies to a succession of health care professionals. Oh, and you also need to get your old employers in on it with you - they have to fill out forms about the quality of your efforts back when you worked for them. In my experience, busy small business owners who I had to go back to and beg them to fill out my form got kind of irritated. They did it because they could see that I needed the help, but otherwise why should they bother?
I suggest you get a new pair of glasses - maybe 3 or 4 of them.
I honestly have no idea of what the numbers are for fraud, with SSD. That's one of the problems - they have no one who checks on these claimants. Once they're approved, that's it. That is like a bear to honey.
At this point I can only congratulate you on what is obviously a deep dedication to maintaining your belief in something which in fact has no basis in reality. It must be really hard to walk around all day with your head up your ass that way - sorry to be so blunt, but I've never read such blatent lies in quite sometime.
In fact, could you do me a little favor and call up my social security caseworker and inform her that she no longer needs to send me those recertification forms each year and that my doctors no longer have to waste their time sending her updates regarding my condition. What a relief it would be to get rid of at least some of that paperwork!
Come to think of it, I'm feeling pretty PO'ed that you never bothered to inform either me or the government of our "bear to the honey" status until just now. No! Instead, a few months ago I had to fill out a 26 page government form - one of the worst paperwork nightmares I have ever seen in my life. It took me almost a MONTH to finish that damn thing, staying up late to get just one more question finished.
I was applying to be allowed admission into a special rehabilitation program which could possibly allow me to become self supporting. The government was so indifferent to my disability status that the director of the program, Carolyn the Fed, called me 5 times - FIVE, I kid you not - LONG Distance, to grill me about the various aspects of my plan and my current abilities. The Feds have also fired off to me 3 envelopes of
more forms to be filled out, and 2 or 3 sets of detailed instructions which must be followed to the letter. Otherwise, I will get more fact finding interrogations from Carolyn the Fed. And Carolyn CARES. She cares BIG TIME!
So, in conclusion, thank you for so completely proving that your information is totally unreliable and that your comments are less trustworthy then Urbane Guerilla's - a low that it's almost impossible for anyone else to sink to, but you have done it.
By the process of
reducto ad absurdem you have nicely proved my points for me. Good job!
So, what else do you know about the Easter Bunny?
AND for anyone who is honestly curious about the amount of fraud that occurs with the Social Security Administration - including overpaying and UNDERpaying regular Social Security retirement benefits as well as overpayment and UNDERpayment in the SSI/SSDI programs, that amount comes to 2% a year TOTAL. For ALL of the SSA. This was the most recent report as of September 2012. If you enjoy reading stuff that the Government Accounting Office puts out, click on the report
here and expect to fall asleep within 5 minutes.
For about the 16th million time, the acronym is SSI/SSDI NOT DI and NOT SSD. If you can't even get the name right, how are we supposed to believe that you got anything else right, either?
The sleaze bag on SSI/SSDI who runs a construction business or drives huge trucks cross country on a 24/7 basis or who runs a saw mill and picks up his gov't check after putting in a good 10 hour day tossing around hundreds of tons of wooden planks is one of those urban myths that stubborningly refuses to die.
Not hardly. Back in the day when investigative reporting meant actually investigating, they showed the guy up working on his clients roofing. In video. He's fully disabled, but he's walking up a ladder, and installing the roofing - no problem.
Not a single person EVER who has related such stories to me actually knew the villian involved. The story teller always knows OF the bad guy but seldom anything ABOUT him. Like, did you ever ask your buddy if he's on private disability instead of SSI/SSDI? Private is usually easier to get and it pays more. Federal takes forever and what they pay a person on SSI could barely keep a flea alive. The amount SSI recipients get currently is $680.00/mo. That's it. Period. Once you get your SSI, you may qualify to get on the wait list for a housing voucher - usually takes 2 - 5 years, and if you haven't died yet by time your name comes to the top of the list, Uncle Sugar will grudgingly hand you a voucher that allows a single person to rent a tiny one bedroom apartment - if he sticks to places on the wrong side of the tracks of course.
Yes. They called it SSI or SSD, but that's what they were on, and yes, it took them a long time, but they got there - and they were young at that time. Definitely NOT private disability.
The payoff is just hardly ever worth the energy required to deal with the Feds and pull off really major lies to a succession of health care professionals. Oh, and you also need to get your old employers in on it with you - they have to fill out forms about the quality of your efforts back when you worked for them. In my experience, busy small business owners who I had to go back to and beg them to fill out my form got kind of irritated. They did it because they could see that I needed the help, but otherwise why should they bother?
I suggest you get a new pair of glasses - maybe 3 or 4 of them.
My eyesight is not what it used to be, but the initials making up the acronym are of no consequence. We're communicating.
I have factual experience, and you have the typical naive viewpoint you see in liberals.
At this point I can only congratulate you on what is obviously a deep dedication to maintaining your belief in something which in fact has no basis in reality. It must be really hard to walk around all day with your head up your ass that way - sorry to be so blunt, but I've never read such blatent lies in quite sometime.
In fact, could you do me a little favor and call up my social security caseworker and inform her that she no longer needs to send me those recertification forms each year and that my doctors no longer have to waste their time sending her updates regarding my condition. What a relief it would be to get rid of at least some of that paperwork!
Come to think of it, I'm feeling pretty PO'ed that you never bothered to inform either me or the government of our "bear to the honey" status until just now. No! Instead, a few months ago I had to fill out a 26 page government form - one of the worst paperwork nightmares I have ever seen in my life. It took me almost a MONTH to finish that damn thing, staying up late to get just one more question finished.
I was applying to be allowed admission into a special rehabilitation program which could possibly allow me to become self supporting. The government was so indifferent to my disability status that the director of the program, Carolyn the Fed, called me 5 times - FIVE, I kid you not - LONG Distance, to grill me about the various aspects of my plan and my current abilities. The Feds have also fired off to me 3 envelopes of more forms to be filled out, and 2 or 3 sets of detailed instructions which must be followed to the letter. Otherwise, I will get more fact finding interrogations from Carolyn the Fed. And Carolyn CARES. She cares BIG TIME!
So, in conclusion, thank you for so completely proving that your information is totally unreliable and that your comments are less trustworthy then Urbane Guerilla's - a low that it's almost impossible for anyone else to sink to, but you have done it.
By the process of reducto ad absurdem you have nicely proved my points for me. Good job!
So, what else do you know about the Easter Bunny?
AND for anyone who is honestly curious about the amount of fraud that occurs with the Social Security Administration - including overpaying and UNDERpaying regular Social Security retirement benefits as well as overpayment and UNDERpayment in the SSI/SSDI programs, that amount comes to 2% a year TOTAL. For ALL of the SSA. This was the most recent report as of September 2012. If you enjoy reading stuff that the Government Accounting Office puts out, click on the report here and expect to fall asleep within 5 minutes.
And you know WHY you're getting grilled big time about welfare payments now, don't you?
Way too many people have gone on some form of welfare, since the recession hit -- because Obama's policies to get our economy moving again, have been a colossal failure. :mad:
Walked right into that one, didn't you? :D
Obama's policies to get our economy moving again, have been a colossal failure. :mad:
Speaking as a European and a Brit, you have no idea how odd that sounds to me.
"we should have, as a society, a prohibition on abortion."
Mitt Romney, presidential candidate. (3:24, but watch the whole thing really)
[YOUTUBE]TxMD02zU9SE[/YOUTUBE]
Correct. Enabling a sin, makes you a part of it's commission, to the Church, and the same logic is used in law. Enabling a crime, makes you a part of it's commission, usually as an accessory.
Oh, I SO believe the Church lawyers will RIP the feds lawyers to shreds on this case. :cool:
Oh yeah? What's your opinion on Romney's stance then? It appears that he does not agree with you from a religious perspective, he only wants to make abortion illegal from a secular perspective.
See video in previous post.
Not hardly. Back in the day when investigative reporting meant actually investigating, they showed the guy up working on his clients roofing. In video. He's fully disabled, but he's walking up a ladder, and installing the roofing - no problem.
They who, white man? Wanna tell me what investigative entertainer aired this information and what entity he was affiliated with? Plus when this was reported and where?
We're communicating.
Say, WHAT?
I have factual experience, and you have the typical naive viewpoint you see in liberals.
Try reading what I and others have posted. I'll put my factual experience against your conservative view that can't get past the nose on your face any day of the week.
And you know WHY you're getting grilled big time about welfare payments now, don't you?
Yeah, as a life time recipient of welfare, it ticks me off that they don't seem to trust me anymore. I still have the same imaginary 6 kids just like always. I still never have worked a lick in my entire life and I still use my food stamps to buy me meth just like always. Last week my most recent boyfriend (lost track of some of them - there's been so many) brought me this really cool red leather jacket and matching boots that him and some friends "found" in a house in the fancy part of town.
My boyfriends always bring me nice things. A man who doesn't please his woman is no man of mine. That ain't changed either. I told him I was sick and tired of that stupid cunt assigned to my case and my boyfriend's gonna go have a nice little chat with her. I won't be getting grilled much longer once he does that!
Well, if you'll excuse me I gotta go explain to my home girls how to beat the system and get all the cool stuff I get. A lot of them girls have quit "dating" since I've shown them how much easier it is when we got a bro in the White House now. Makes me feel good that I can help out other folk too and not just be helping myself to all those goodies and not sharing or nothing.
BTW, I do believe you were the one that walked into something. What the hell is that stuff you done drug in on your shoe? Smells like a pee party in here. :p:
Your observations, are not just your feelings. They are factual, but not enough for a full statistical measure,
Total and insulting bullshit. A conclusion from observation was, at best, only a wild speculation. We were all taught about junk science in second grade. Spontaneous reproduction. Life is created by flooding a pond. Observation proves it. Only the most naive assume observation is fact.
Moldy bread breeds maggots. Also well proven by observation. Because junk science (also called lying to oneself) is knowledge from observation. This is second grade science. Must extremists be taught second grade science?
You demonstrate why propaganda and ideology are posted by you as facts. You do not even know the difference between junk science reasoning and what is required to have facts. Your fundamental problem has been identified.
How to identify anyone easily manipulated by rhetoric? He does not post numbers. Adak, you never post numbers. Your subjective reasoning is another symptom of junk science.
A classic lie: tax cuts create jobs. Even observation demonstrates that false. Why do you ignore observation when it contradicts your extremist political ideology? Observation is only valid when convenient?
Knowledge from observation is classic junk science. Observation says tax cuts destroys jobs. Why do you ignore observations when it contradicts your extremist political views? Anyone can speculate by observing your posts. And always come to the same conclusion. Extremism justified by myths is alive and well.
Total and insulting bullshit. A conclusion from observation was, at best, only a wild speculation. We were all taught about junk science in second grade. Spontaneous reproduction. Life is created by flooding a pond. Observation proves it. Only the most naive assume observation is fact.
When you watch a car drive by - did the car REALLY drive by? Yes. It is your observation, and it is also a FACT.
When you watch the traffic signal light turn red - did the light REALLY change? Yes. It is your observation, and it is also a FACT.
And if you had the common sense that God gave to geese, you'd acknowledge at least THAT much.
Moldy bread breeds maggots. Also well proven by observation.
Lordy you're pathetic! Flies drop eggs over sites they believe are favorable for their eggs to hatch and grow into maggots. The bread doesn't breed, anything. It is merely the site the eggs will mature and hatch in.
Must extremists be taught second grade science?
You must, for sure. :D :D
You demonstrate why propaganda and ideology are posted by you as facts. You do not even know the difference between junk science reasoning and what is required to have facts. Your fundamental problem has been identified.
You can't id your butt with both hands in a well-lit room, who you kidding?
How to identify anyone easily manipulated by rhetoric? He does not post numbers. Adak, you never post numbers. Your subjective reasoning is another symptom of junk science.
Next, I suppose our national debt will be "junk science" and my "subjective reasoning"? :rolleyes:
A classic lie: tax cuts create jobs. Even observation demonstrates that false. Why do you ignore observation when it contradicts your extremist political ideology? Observation is only valid when convenient?
I was around when Kennedy cut the taxes, and I was around when Reagan cut the taxes, and in both cases, the personal wealth increased, and spending by businesses (especially small businesses) and consumers increased, and the economy benefited a great deal from it.
Wrong again, Mr. Junk Science man!
Knowledge from observation is classic junk science. Observation says tax cuts destroys jobs. Why do you ignore observations when it contradicts your extremist political views? Anyone can speculate by observing your posts. And always come to the same conclusion. Extremism justified by myths is alive and well.
So I own a small restaurant, and now, because income taxes are cut, people are going to eat at home more often? Or I have a gas station, so now people with more money in their pockets, will drive less?
You really have shown no common sense at all in your arguments.Obama has started calling terrorists associated with Al Qaeda - "folks"!
He's says he's going to hunt down the "folks" who attacked the consulate in Benghazi. Twice, he refers to the most violent terrorists who killed our Ambassador and killed a few other Americans, as "folks". Like the folks you meet at school or in your neighborhood.
They're surely not "folks" to me! :eek: :eek:
If you want to hear the speeches (two of them) involved, you'll have to d/l the first hour of the Nov. 5th audio program, from here:
http://www.rogerhedgecock.com/category/228485/podcasts
(and you want h1 for the first hour).
The program is still on-air, so it won't be posted up for awhile.
Sam, this thread isn't about welfare, or about welfare fraud. If you want to dive into that subject, start another thread. The "disabled" guy who was roofing, was caught on video, but it was years ago. I watch very little TV these days, and it appears that investigative reporting is something that is rarely done on an individual claiming they're disabled.
After tomorrow, this thread will become obsolete , no matter who wins the election. To that end, this will be my last post in this thread.
Obama asks his black supporters at a rally to vote because "voting is the best revenge".
Romney asks his supporters to vote, because "you love your country".
That reflects the most basic difference in the candidates character, imo.
Romney served as a missionary for two years, overseas. Obama hung out with radicals and practiced Chicago style politics.
Romney has been a success in business, and in special projects like the Winter Olympics in 2000, which was WAY behind schedule when he took over the project.
Obama has never run a business - not even a lemonade stand.
And most damning of all, Obama left Ambassador Stevens to be killed by terrorists (which he calls "folks"), after a 6+ hour attack, despite calls for help to Washington, to the CIA (from their men who joined in Ambassador Stevens defense, and were also killed), and despite having a large Air Base, just 1 hour away. (The same air base that defended Benghazi against the slaughter that Ghaddafi had planned for them, Aviano, Italy).
There was even a recon drone overhead watching the last 2 hours of the attack, streaming live video to Washington.
And Obama watched them get taken out - and did NOTHING!
We impeached Nixon for supporting a burglary where there was very little damage done, and no one got hurt. We tried to impeach Clinton over some hanky panky in the White House.
But Obama watches a US Ambassador and three CIA agents, under attack by terrorists, urgently requesting help by phone, email, and dedicated alarm, and does NOTHING TO HELP them.
And barely a peep of Obama having done anything wrong.
And that's
VERY WRONG.
This is my last post in this thread. The campaigning by both sides is over, and it's up to us who we want for President, and MANY other political positions.
Good luck to All! :)
“The Right and the Left in this country used to fight about what to do; now the Right fights with the rest of the country about what is true.”
Case in point: Adak.
Obama has started calling terrorists associated with Al Qaeda - "folks"!
He's says he's going to hunt down the "folks" who attacked the consulate in Benghazi. Twice, he refers to the most violent terrorists who killed our Ambassador and killed a few other Americans, as "folks". Like the folks you meet at school or in your neighborhood.
They're surely not "folks" to me! :eek: :eek:
Really? That's bothering you? Because you didn't get scared enough? You must be desensitized by all the fearmongering you're used to hearing. Are they not people? What if he'd referred to them as people? Still a problem? I'll give you this, Adak, you're consistent. You *LOVE* your labels.
snip--
Sam, this thread isn't about welfare, or about welfare fraud. If you want to dive into that subject, start another thread. The "disabled" guy who was roofing, was caught on video, but it was years ago. I watch very little TV these days, and it appears that investigative reporting is something that is rarely done on an individual claiming they're disabled.
point of order, your protest is noted, but you don't get to enforce what people discuss in the threads. We have an extremely high tolerance for thread drift around here. Though, I can see how that might chafe someone who likes their stuff in the right box, and only the right box.
After tomorrow, this thread will become obsolete , no matter who wins the election. To that end, this will be my last post in this thread.
This thread will not become obsolete tomorrow, your words and their wisdom will be around for a long time, but I take your point that Mitt Romney's fifteen minutes will have long since expired.
Whether or not you make further posts in this thread remains to be seen.
Obama asks his black supporters at a rally to vote because "voting is the best revenge".
Romney asks his supporters to vote, because "you love your country".
That reflects the most basic difference in the candidates character, imo.
I voted for Obama because I love my country. What does that say about my character? Which candidate's advice have I followed?
Romney served as a missionary for two years, overseas. Obama hung out with radicals and practiced Chicago style politics.
Romney was out of the country stumping for God. Proselytizing foreigners
Obama was here, in our country, helping his fellow citizens. Helping his neighbors.
That reflects the most basic difference in the candidates' characters, imo.
Romney has been a success in business, and in special projects like the Winter Olympics in 2000, which was WAY behind schedule when he took over the project.
Using oceans of taxpayer money from the federal government, taking credit for the result for himself, coyly omitting his largesse with Other People's Money.
Obama has never run a business - not even a lemonade stand.
But, he has "run" the nation, as President of the United States of America, something his worthy opponent can't say.
And most damning of all, Obama left Ambassador Stevens to be killed by terrorists (which he calls "folks"), after a 6+ hour attack, despite calls for help to Washington, to the CIA (from their men who joined in Ambassador Stevens defense, and were also killed), and despite having a large Air Base, just 1 hour away. (The same air base that defended Benghazi against the slaughter that Ghaddafi had planned for them, Aviano, Italy).
There was even a recon drone overhead watching the last 2 hours of the attack, streaming live video to Washington.
And Obama watched them get taken out - and did NOTHING!
You are an invidious liar. I hope this *IS* your last post and libel and calumny like this is your legacy. I will not miss the constant bombardment of panicked bleatings like this by uninformed sheep who only know enough to be afraid. Not even your candidate will touch this shit, but you clearly have more conservative standards than he does.
We impeached Nixon for supporting a burglary where there was very little damage done, and no one got hurt. We tried to impeach Clinton over some hanky panky in the White House.
But Obama watches a US Ambassador and three CIA agents, under attack by terrorists, urgently requesting help by phone, email, and dedicated alarm, and does NOTHING TO HELP them.
And barely a peep of Obama having done anything wrong.
And that's VERY WRONG.
Oh yeah. It's wrong. Everything you've said about the topic is wrong. Have fun being frightened.
This is my last post in this thread. The campaigning by both sides is over, and it's up to us who we want for President, and MANY other political positions.
Good luck to All! :)
You might be over and out, but your boy, he's still campaigning even tomorrow, election day. I thought all that adrenaline was supposed to energize you through the end, but I can see you're exhausted.
See ya, liar.
Exhausted? Or doesn't get paid after today?
Really? Maybe?
I can't believe somebody could draw an assignment like, go to the cellar, stir up some shit, I'll pay you one million dollars for every scalp you collect, or whatever. His stuff never added up, and, respectfully, the getting paid theory doesn't either. Show me the merits of your ideals. Show me the math. Persuade me. Teach me. I just didn't get any of that from him, consequently, I am not persuaded.
They have plenty of campaign workers on internet duty, which doesn't prove a thing. However, his party line arguments he adhered to, despite being conclusively proven wrong by numerous links, made suspect he was a party or Mormon campaign worker. We certainly have no way to prove it, either way, and it doesn't really matter. What matters is what he posted.
That is a very interesting hypothesis. I hadn't considered such an idea. He certainly was ON POINT, all the time.
Hundreds of pastors across the country defy the law by endorsing political candidates (you guess which candidate).
About 1,600 pastors across the country violated a 58-year-old ban on political endorsements by churches in October by explicitly backing political candidates in their Sunday sermons, according to the Alliance Defending Freedom of Scottsdale, Ariz., a conservative Christian legal organization behind a campaign called Pulpit Freedom Sunday.
The 1954 law they are challenging prohibits charitable groups, including most churches, from making candidate endorsements, but doesn't bar ministers, priests, rabbis and imams from speaking out on other ballot issues, like voter initiatives, or organizing get-out-the-vote drives and education efforts around elections themselves.
The alliance is seeking to force a court showdown over the constitutionality of the law, violation of which can cost churches their tax-exempt status. Since Oct. 7, the original Pulpit Freedom Day, many pastors who participated in the protest have posted their remarks online or sent them to the Internal Revenue Service, essentially daring the agency charged with enforcing the prohibition to put up or shut up.
So far, the IRS has done the latter.
The Alliance Defending Freedom asserts that it's working to further the rights of all religious groups, but it's an explicitly Christian organization, with a heavy representation of evangelical members and leaders. One clue to its philosophy is that it made it Pulpit Freedom "Sunday" — choosing the Christian Sabbath, instead of more broadly embracing the Jewish Sabbath (Saturday) and the Muslim day of worship (Friday).
So it's no surprise that an unscientific survey of the posted endorsements indicates that they skewed overwhelmingly in favor of Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, as in these representative samples:
In a guest sermon at Calvary Chapel in Chino Hills, Calif., Wayne Gruden, a professor and theologian at Phoenix Seminary in Arizona, recommended that "all citizens" vote for Romney "and Republicans in general" (the endorsement begins at 59:58):
[YOUTUBE]8hSwazTIASw[/YOUTUBE]
Pastor Ken Redmond of Abundant Life Worship Center in Midland, Texas, told his congregation they shouldn't vote for President Barack Obama, saying, "Here is your choice: a Mormon or a Muslim" (the remarks begin at 33:17):
[YOUTUBE]AlcXxZi10Us[/YOUTUBE]
And Bishop Samuel A.L Pope Sr. told his congregation at Solid Rock Missionary Baptist Church in California City, Calif., not to vote for Obama (the statement begins at 26:54):
[YOUTUBE]o-THzKqRVvE[/YOUTUBE]
These pastors are breaking the law Adak. What do you say about that? Is that the conservative thing to do, thumb your nose at the IRS, in the name of God?
From a Supreme Court that gave us Kelo vs New London, and Citizens United, they stand a good chance
Sam, this thread isn't about welfare, or about welfare fraud. If you want to dive into that subject, start another thread. The "disabled" guy who was roofing, was caught on video, but it was years ago. I watch very little TV these days, and it appears that investigative reporting is something that is rarely done on an individual claiming they're disabled.
To expand a little further on Big V's "point of order," Adak himself poured the fuel on this particular flame with a his comment he wrote about a million posts back:
Do you REALLY want to put your safety in the hands of these nitwits? Why? Please discuss!
Adak can't remember things he's posted here just a few hours past, but he has complete recall of some TV story shown "years ago" and probably narrated by Rod Sterling.
BTW, I don't see why any reasonable person would take comfort from the fact that Romney was a Mormon missionary once upon a time. Since in theory at least, we still have freedom of religion, the Mormons can believe anything they want, but you have to wonder about an outfit that teaches that the "chosen" will be rewarded by being sent off to become the rulers ("gods" in other words) of the various other planets throughout the universe.
Beam me up, Scotty. :tinfoil:
Oh, and just for the hell of it, I googled "Adak" and came up with a "Linked-In" hit to Tata Consulting, a huge (apparently) East Indian company which describes itself as a "customer experience measurement platform." (I need to get a life - I know) Here's their link:
http://www.tcs.com/offerings/connected-marketing-solutions/crowdwise_customer_experience_measurement_platform/Pages/default.aspx
Wonder if Adak got paid by the word or the post? Imagine a presidential campaign paying an Indian national to be their apologist for the candidate just for members of the Celler. Guess this place has arrived, huh?
But he didn't sound Indian. :haha:
You really have shown no common sense at all in your arguments.
Insulting people by even denying second grade science demonstrates Tea Party rhetoric. When a car passes, moving air is felt. It leaves a smell. It makes noise. It measures and records the movement. Does many things that confirm the observation and that are quantified. A definition of knowledge that escapes you.
But you only see a car. Ignore everything else. And are then an expert. Subjective reasoning based only in observation to deny the car really moved. Because the party told you so? Stop being insultingly dumb.
If intelligent or only informed, then answer the question. Why does the man you praise because he is conservative, instead, say he is more liberal than Ted Kennedy? You could answer that question only if you acknowledge reality. Reality is too hard to admit. If honest, then you must be critical of Romney for flip-flopping. Wacko extremists fear honesty. And that is the point. You ignore facts you do not like - as any good extremist educated by Fox News.
Stop posting insults and nonsense to avoid the question. Why did Romney say he is more liberal than Ted Kennedy? Little hint. The Economist said why. Their answer undermines your reality. So you avoid the answer? Why did Romney say he was more liberal than Kennedy? Any honest Romney supporter already knew that answer. Is reality too diffilcult to swallow? Is second grade science also too difficult? No wonder you resort to insults to avoid that question. Get out of cloud-cuckoo-land. Be an adult. Answer the question.
If not a wacko extremist, then how to obtain Party support? Even Rush Limbaugh labeled Romney a flaming liberal. Only a spectaculor politician can reframe a moderate into an extremist conservative. This above discussion demonstrates that Romney did just that. He completely reversed himself on most issues (ie woman's rights, Romneycare, military spending, immigration). And got extremists to believe him.
Are extremists that gullible? What did Romney do to get extremists (ie Adak) to believe Romney was a conservative? What did he do to get Adak ignore the Romney statement that he was more liberal than Ted Kennedy? Either that requires amazing political skills. Or extremists are that easily manipulated by hearsay, myth, and propaganda. Both may apply.
The real Mitt Romney?
Heh.
If you just lost the Presidential election, and had to scramble to write a concession speech because you were so cocksure that you’d win that you didn’t bother to write one in advance, you might have a lot on your mind. Maybe you’d take a minute to thank your tireless campaign workers. Maybe you’d say, “What the heck, let’s eat that Victory Cake; it’ll just go to waste if we don’t!”
Maybe you’d call Karl Rove at FOX News and bawl him out for not winning the election for you. Perhaps you’d call your webmaster and tell him or her to take down your pre-prepared “President-Elect Romney” website, which you’d been proudly showing off to the world even before Election Day. Maybe you’d console your wife, telling her that moving into the White House would only have been downgrading, and that public housing was really not good enough for you, anyway. Maybe, after calling the President to congratulate him on his win through gritted teeth, you’d take a minute to phone your sons and break the bad news to them personally. Maybe you’d loosen your tie, announce that those grapes were probably sour anyway, and go take a nap.
There are any number of things a losing candidate can do to wind down a long and exhausting campaign, and Mitt Romney probably did some of the things above.
Mitt Romney also made sure to cancel all Romney campaign staff business credit cards–in the middle of the night–which meant that some staffers, newly unemployed and straggling home after an emotionally devastating loss, discovered that their taxicab drivers were really pissed off because their Romney campaign credit cards were being declined.
Addictinginfo
Forbes
EsquireAt least if you're an illegal alien working for Romney or doing 'black bag' work you're fronted your expenses in cash because they can't have you on the books.;)
Let's see now... coincidence or cause and effect ?
Nov 7th (2012)
The election, and Mitt Romney lost
Nov 9th (2012)
Clear Channel radio station KBOJ in Portland (progressive radio talk shows) announces
cancellation of all talk shows, and will be broadcasting Fox Sports.
FYI: On November 16, 2006, Clear Channel announced plans to go private,
being bought out by two private-equity firms, Thomas H. Lee Partners
and Bain Capital Partners for $18.7 billion, ...<snip>
Of course Mitt Romney is not running Bain Capital anymore.
He is a "retired partner", but he still has a huge financial stake in Bain Capital.
Here's some more Real Mitt Romney for you. Are familiar with the idea of "transference"? Seeing people as you are? Projecting? I think this is what Romney's doing here in his analysis of why he lost, no, how Obama bought the election. He's saying valuable gifts to people in exchange for their votes is how elections work.
Romney: “The president’s campaign focused on giving targeted groups a big gift"
Blacks, Women, Hispanics, all their votes bought with gifts
"With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest was a big gift," Mr. Romney said. "Free contraceptives were very big with young, college-aged women. And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents' plan, and that was a big gift to young people. They turned out in large numbers, a larger share in this election even than in 2008."
"You can imagine for somebody making $25,000 or $30,000 or $35,000 a year, being told you're now going to get free health care, particularly if you don't have it, getting free health care worth, what, $10,000 per family, in perpetuity - I mean, this is huge," Mr. Romney said. "Likewise with Hispanic voters, free health care was a big plus. But in addition with regards to Hispanic voters, the amnesty for children of illegals, the so-called Dream Act kids, was a huge plus for that voting group."
This is how the Real Mitt Romney sees the world. To him, this is how people operate. I think he'd reckon that had he won, he'd be reaping the rewards of all the gifts he pledged to give, like an elimination of taxes on capital gains, like a 20% reduction on income taxes, like a giant expansion of the defense industry, etc etc. The Real Mitt Romney sees elections as quid pro quo exchanges, votes for gifts, and he was out-matched in the giving of gifts. No mention of ideals, or facts, or stuff like that. Sour fucking grapes. What a loser.
The Republican Party must decide what it wants to be. That discussed in another thread. Romney must also redefine himself. Will he become a moderate again? Or will he do what Sarah Palin was doing?
Review McCain's position. After losing to Obama, McCain (a moderate) found even his Senate seat at risk by wacko (future tea party) extremists. So McCain reframed himself as conservative. Eventually disappearing into irrelevance because he stopped being a party leader. But then, can you blame him? Some of the Party's best leaders were being driven from office by tea party extremists. They even replaced Delaware's popular Republican Senator with a witch. That witch then lost the election by one of the largest margins possible.
Many in the party know the public is misguided. Therefore the party must be more extremist. What does Romney do? Does he become a party leader? Or does he disappear into obscurity because he even had to lie about being so conservative?
Apparently Obama would like to work with Romney to solve this nation's problem. Only one of 15 some Republicans (ie Perry, Bachman, Gingrich, etc) on that stage last year, that had any grasp of reality, was Romney. Which means he will probably be deposed by the party's extremists as being too liberal. Maybe more liberal than Ted Kennedy?
Romney must now answer questions similar to what McCain answered four years ago.
Those damn people with their sense of entitlement to free stuffs, stole the election from the rightful candidate. Damnit, he was entitled to the presidency!
The Romney stars align in Google News again...
...They even replaced Delaware's popular Republican Senator with a witch. That witch then lost the election by one of the largest margins possible.
It's tough to get the witches out to vote. Mostly, they stay at home, sitrring their cauldrons of free government hand-outs like bats, newts and frog hearts. Oh, and Cheese. Loads of Government Cheese.
and B) She wasn't REALLY a witch. She only accidentally dated one. Like accidentally dating a black guy or not knowing your boyfriend Adam is Jewish. It was
accidental and even though she went along with the Satanic picnic (and mixing her metaphoric religions to boot) she only did it out of politeness.
She wasn't REALLY a witch. She only accidentally dated one. Like accidentally dating a black guy or not knowing your boyfriend Adam is Jewish. It was accidental and even though she went along with the Satanic picnic (and mixing her metaphoric religions to boot) she only did it out of politeness.
It's even worse when you marry the guy....
ST. PAUL, Minnesota — Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's husband, Todd, twice registered as a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a fierce states' rights group that wants to turn all federal lands in Alaska back to the state. Sarah Palin herself was never a member of the party, according to state officials.
Palin did address the Alaskan Independence Party's state convention by video earlier this year, welcoming the party to Fairbanks.
I'm here to officially present The Alamo Award to Adak, for manning the walls and keeping up a heck of an effort in the face of overwhelming disbelief, counterargument and contrary evidence, and keeping it relatively civil as well.
If you were a paid Republican Rep you earned every penny, and if you're just a dyed-in-the-wool enthusiast, you did all you could.
As a foreigner, I found it interesting and educational to see the Republican party line presented so tenaciously. Hard luck about the election, but don't worry too much about Obama-socialism and stuff. He's still to the right of most OECD countries today.
Id like to see Adak come back. Especially to the IotD threads.
I liked Adak. He annoyed me from time to time, but I found him engaging and interesting.
That's why he earns the big bucks. Can't buy that kind of fluency just anywhere.
I'd welcome Adak's return to regular posting as well.
Just quietly ... I'm still not sure it wasn't UG's sockpuppet.
Mature age, lives in Southern California, Naval background, excellent grammar, and the politics was about right - the libertarian rather than reactionary side of conservative. And I never saw them both posting at the same time.
Well, there's probably millions like that, so maybe not.
I don't think so, I doubt UG could avoid nuking the thread. :haha:
They're similar, true.
But UG is much more condescending, much more snobby, and compensates for goodness knows what by using really big words, cause, y'know, they're really big.
I suspect the two of them would be pleasant company for each other, but they are *not* the same person. UG doesn't have the discipline to let us all use the same vocabulary for such an extended performance.
If UT is/was Adek, I'd be very disappointed.
UT is much more engaging than a just parroting of the party line.
ut? wtf?
ug?
Ooops... thinking UG and typing UT
... once again the fingers are acting independently of the brain.
I actually like UG's posts better than I liked Adak's. UG is just so completely outrageous and his vocabulary is something else. I sometimes suspect that UG used to be intelligent before he took that 100 foot fall on his head.
Adak was all party line talking points and he lacked UG's originality. Of course, one of my fav UG comments is in my sig line, so maybe I'm prejudiced.
I sometimes suspect that UG used to be intelligent before he took that 100 foot fall on his head.
:rotflol:
I sometimes suspect that UG used to be intelligent before he took that 100 foot fall on his head.
No no, it was a
coffee cup.;)
Ooops... thinking UG and typing UT
Wow, I just had this mental picture of UG running the Cellar.......:eek::eek6::shocking::speechls:
"Ok, all of the non-liberals please join the line on the right and post on the thread titled 'Survivors'":shotgun:
