The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Politics

Politics Where we learn not to think less of others who don't share our views

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-04-2013, 07:23 PM   #136
tw
Read? I only know how to write.
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adak View Post
With record deficit spending, the Republicans OF COURSE, wouldn't go along with another 70 Billion increase in spending by the feds.
Amazing how facts get ignored. We were well on the way to solving our debts when those Republicans took power. They ran up debts. Even invented a war that cost us $trillions. We are still discovering and paying for the last $1trillion created by Mission Accomplished.

What did Republicans want to do? Reduce spending by $1trillion over ten years. They forget that they joyfully massacred 5000 American servicemen in a war that had no purpose. And that costs somewhere between $2 and $3 trillion. Cut $1trillion in ten years because they spent two or three trillion in Mission Accomplished?

What happened to the government surplus? It was spent on tax cuts and welfare to the rich. And other programs that eventually created a massive 2007 recession. But somehow all that get forgotten to blame Obama.

Last edited by tw; 10-04-2013 at 08:01 PM.
tw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2013, 12:00 PM   #137
Adak
Lecturer
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 796
Quote:
Originally Posted by tw View Post
Amazing how facts get ignored. We were well on the way to solving our debts when those Republicans took power. They ran up debts. Even invented a war that cost us $trillions. We are still discovering and paying for the last $1trillion created by Mission Accomplished.

What did Republicans want to do? Reduce spending by $1trillion over ten years. They forget that they joyfully massacred 5000 American servicemen in a war that had no purpose. And that costs somewhere between $2 and $3 trillion. Cut $1trillion in ten years because they spent two or three trillion in Mission Accomplished?

What happened to the government surplus? It was spent on tax cuts and welfare to the rich. And other programs that eventually created a massive 2007 recession. But somehow all that get forgotten to blame Obama.
The war with Afghanistan was required by the oath of office of the President. Bush had no choice there.

The war with Iraq was another matter, of course. There, I believe Saddam had just made himself into a huge PITA, after invading Kuwait AND Saudi Arabia, making a 10 year war with Iran, and gassing the Kurdish towns (3 of them iirc).

Saddam's secret service had also tried to assassinate Bush Jr's dad, when he went to receive an award in Kuwait or Qatar (it failed, but hardly endeared Saddam to the Bush family).

We knew that the economy in Iraq was shot to hell. Their oil production had been falling for years, with many plants barely working at all. Plus, Saddam had rebuilt his Army to a HUGE level, calling on national fervor ad's to get recruits (it worked).

There was no doubt in anyone's mind that Saddam was going to attack a nearby country. You don't keep an Army that large, hanging around, just training do you?

No. You use it. Saddam also had a large fleet of mobile missile launchers, and a fair amount of Scuds to use, as well. They became a BIG problem for us, to find and destroy, during the war.

I believe Bush was just convinced by Cheney and Rumsfeld and the CIA, that taking out Saddam now, would be a good idea. Much better than waiting for him to attack another country in the Middle East.

People like to smear Cheney, he is not afraid to be a hawk on matters, but the truth is, Cheney is one very smart dude, and he cuts right to the chase. I don't know what all our options were at that time, but Cheney did, of course. As did Bush and Rumsfeld, and the CIA.

The fight to remove Saddam didn't go well, because Al-Qaeda and the Bath party, used it to raise a huge groundswell of support for joining them, and fighting us in guerrilla fashion. No one could have predicted how successful they would be at it. (OK, one prof. from Columbia U did predict it, and did advise the Pres about it, but nobody believed him, so !)

Our big spending problem was exacerbated by the wars - no doubt. But there are much bigger issues: Top two are Social Security, (which is slowly going broke), and Medicare (which Bush Jr. substantially increased the coverage and cost of).

The longer we wait to fix them, the worse the fixing will have to be. We know that. Everybody knows that. But we can't get enough conservatives in Washington, to get the fixing done! The Democrats won't touch it, and the RHINO's won't either, but it needs to be FIXED!

*RHINO: Republican In Name Only.
Adak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2013, 08:52 AM   #138
Griff
still says videotape
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 26,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adak View Post

There was no doubt in anyone's mind that Saddam was going to attack a nearby country. You don't keep an Army that large, hanging around, just training do you?
You've accidentally identified America's biggest problem.


Quote:
The longer we wait to fix them, the worse the fixing will have to be. We know that. Everybody knows that. But we can't get enough conservatives in Washington, to get the fixing done! The Democrats won't touch it, and the RHINO's won't either, but it needs to be FIXED!

*RHINO: Republican In Name Only.
Why do you continue to send Tea-Baggers to Washington when its conservatives you need? What we really need are fiscal realists who know the price of instability and will work across the aisle with other serious people. The more baggers you send to Washington the more comfortable the left gets sending their nutters.
__________________
If you would only recognize that life is hard, things would be so much easier for you.
- Louis D. Brandeis
Griff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2013, 09:11 AM   #139
Undertoad
Radical Centrist
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
It's just RINO, there is no H.
Undertoad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2013, 10:59 AM   #140
Adak
Lecturer
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad View Post
It's just RINO, there is no H.
Yeah, I know. I just like the H for the mental image it brings up. Also, it's how it's pronounced, with a long 'i', instead of a short one.

@Griff:

The nutters were there first - by far. Republicans and conservatives work and take care of their families and don't really have time to go nutters about issues in Washington.

Until they feel threatened. Then you get the Tea Party, Sons of Liberty, etc.

Frankly, I don't believe there's a ghost of a chance of working with the likes of Nancy "food stamps are a great stimulus to the economy" Pelosi, and Harry "sonOfABitch" Reid.

Like now, the President and Reid call for negotiations - but the pre-condition is they have to have EVERYTHING they want, before the negotiations can begin.

Can you fuckin' imagine that?

Not just everything they want for Obamacare - NO. They want the debt ceiling lifted enough for the next half a year or so, as well. (not sure of the time, but it's a long time).

Last edited by Adak; 10-07-2013 at 11:15 AM.
Adak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2013, 03:21 PM   #141
Lamplighter
Person who doesn't update the user title
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods
Posts: 6,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adak View Post
<snip>
Frankly, I don't believe there's a ghost of a chance of working with the likes
of Nancy "food stamps are a great stimulus to the economy" Pelosi, ...<snip>
I realize Pelosi drives some people nuts... maybe that's just her job
... or maybe she's the scorpion ... it's her nature, and she just cain't hep it.

In any case, Adak, you've used the epithet several times now,
so I assume you believe Pelosi's remark is not true.
But before getting too gleeful in your assumptions, there is this:

Wikipedia:
Quote:
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),[1] formerly and still popularly known as
the Food Stamp program, provides financial assistance for purchasing food
to low- and no-income people living in the U.S.<snip>

According to Keynesian economic theory, like other forms of government spending,
SNAP, by putting money into people's hands, increases aggregate demand and stimulates the economy.

In congressional testimony given in July 2008, Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody's Economy.com,
provided estimates of the one-year fiscal multiplier effect for several fiscal policy options, and found that
a temporary increase in SNAP was the most effective, with an estimated multiplier of 1.73.
[39]

In 2011, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack gave a slightly higher estimate:
"Every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy in terms of economic activity."[40]

Vilsack's estimate was based on a 2002 George W. Bush-era USDA study which found that
"Ultimately, the additional $5 billion of FSP (Food Stamp Program) expenditures triggered
an increase in total economic activity (production, sales, and value of shipments)
of $9.2 billion and an increase in jobs of 82,100," or $1.84 stimulus
for every dollar spent.[41]
>snip>
Lamplighter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2013, 05:52 PM   #142
BigV
Goon Squad Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 27,063
Hoist on their own petard

Quote:
Originally Posted by Griff View Post
Why do you continue to send Tea-Baggers to Washington when its conservatives you need? What we really need are fiscal realists who know the price of instability and will work across the aisle with other serious people. The more baggers you send to Washington the more comfortable the left gets sending their nutters.
Let me answer this.

I believe it is because the Republican party deciders decided that they'd be better off in the long run if they could have more people in Congress. In an effort to make that possible, they used their energies to redraw Congressional districts to make as sure as possible by gerrymandering the ever-loving-f*ck out of as many districts as they could control. To be fair, this is something to be desired by weak thinkers, or thinkers of weak ideas in both parties. But the Republicans have torn that shit UP!

Because ... as a result of... it's difficult to discern cause and effect here... regardless, now we have the case that many districts are NOT COMPETITIVE. If there's no competition for the election, there's no meaningful exchange of ideas. That "compromise" that Adak pines for so loudly is irrelevant, and therefore not present.

For people with closed minds, made up minds, weak minds, this is very comfortable. And those comfortable voters are like great big steamy piles of poo for the ... they're not poo. But they're intellectually dead, because they're not taking in new ideas. And they're attractive to the carrion feeders politicians who'll eat any free lunch. Campaign money (PAC, SuperPAC, corporate) also factors heavily in this equation.

Competitive districts favor more moderate candidates, ones who are more likely to listen to the ideas of the loyal opposition, indeed, ones who are more likely to have reasonable ideas to be heard by their equally moderate opponents. Think about all the talk you've heard about the fear of being "primaried" from those in Congress. They aren't fearful of losing a fight to an opponent of the other party (unless the "other party" is the Tea Party), they're worried that they're not "conservative" enough. I use "conservative" in "quotes" because these labels are becoming less useful.

These districts are RIDICULOUS.
__________________
Be Just and Fear Not.
BigV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2013, 05:59 PM   #143
DanaC
We have to go back, Kate!
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 25,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigV View Post
Let me answer this.

I believe it is because the Republican party deciders decided that they'd be better off in the long run if they could have more people in Congress. In an effort to make that possible, they used their energies to redraw Congressional districts to make as sure as possible by gerrymandering the ever-loving-f*ck out of as many districts as they could control. To be fair, this is something to be desired by weak thinkers, or thinkers of weak ideas in both parties. But the Republicans have torn that shit UP!

Because ... as a result of... it's difficult to discern cause and effect here... regardless, now we have the case that many districts are NOT COMPETITIVE. If there's no competition for the election, there's no meaningful exchange of ideas. That "compromise" that Adak pines for so loudly is irrelevant, and therefore not present.

For people with closed minds, made up minds, weak minds, this is very comfortable. And those comfortable voters are like great big steamy piles of poo for the ... they're not poo. But they're intellectually dead, because they're not taking in new ideas. And they're attractive to the carrion feeders politicians who'll eat any free lunch. Campaign money (PAC, SuperPAC, corporate) also factors heavily in this equation.

Competitive districts favor more moderate candidates, ones who are more likely to listen to the ideas of the loyal opposition, indeed, ones who are more likely to have reasonable ideas to be heard by their equally moderate opponents. Think about all the talk you've heard about the fear of being "primaried" from those in Congress. They aren't fearful of losing a fight to an opponent of the other party (unless the "other party" is the Tea Party), they're worried that they're not "conservative" enough. I use "conservative" in "quotes" because these labels are becoming less useful.

These districts are RIDICULOUS.
I think that's the funniest thing I've read all week.
__________________
Quote:
There's only so much punishment a man can take in pursuit of punani. - Sundae
http://sites.google.com/site/danispoetry/
DanaC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2013, 06:07 PM   #144
BigV
Goon Squad Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 27,063
Good grief.

Check this one out.
__________________
Be Just and Fear Not.
BigV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2013, 11:06 AM   #145
Adak
Lecturer
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamplighter View Post
I realize Pelosi drives some people nuts... maybe that's just her job
... or maybe she's the scorpion ... it's her nature, and she just cain't hep it.

In any case, Adak, you've used the epithet several times now,
so I assume you believe Pelosi's remark is not true.
But before getting too gleeful in your assumptions, there is this:

Wikipedia:
Fortunately, you know the Keynesian model of economics, has been roundly put into the trash bin, as bunk.

Wealth comes from adding something to our economy, that we didn't have before. Maybe a company builds a better surgical robot, maybe it's a more desirable "smart" phone. Maybe it's a better elevator.

The goal should be that people should find their way in our economy, so they don't need to rely on welfare. The gov't can assist in that endeavor! Relying on welfare is just riding on the backs of those who have been working.

Your numbers make it sound like we're getting some real benefit, but consider that for every dollar the private sector is taxed for welfare, only 60 cents or so, actually goes back out to welfare. The system is a bureaucracy, not a volunteer charity. All those social welfare workers, the people who make the stamps/cards, etc., all have to be paid.
Adak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2013, 11:09 AM   #146
Adak
Lecturer
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 796
Gerrymandering is a very old tradition in America. Each party does it. In CA, the Democrats are the big gerrymanders, virtually ensuring a victory in every state election, goes to the Democratic candidate.

Gerrymandering was used long before there even was a Republican party.
Adak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2013, 12:10 PM   #147
Lamplighter
Person who doesn't update the user title
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods
Posts: 6,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adak View Post
<snip>
Your numbers make it sound like we're getting some real benefit,...
Adak, once again you have diverted off to talking about "wealth", "goal", "taxes" etc.
That's either a debating tactic, denial, habit, O/C, or whatever ?

We started with Pelosi's comment about food stamps being a stimulus to the economy.

It's very simple...
When $ is spent on food in a local food store, it is income to the store.
When the store has income, it spends $ on employees, supplies, advertising, maintenance, and profit to the owners.
When people don't have $ to spend in the local food store, the store goes out of business.
That is the local economy.

When the government gives low income people $ 1.00, they spend it in the food store,
and it's employees and suppliers and advertising firms and contractors
and investors, each in turn spends portions of that $1 generating the $ 1.84 in the other expenditures.
That is the stimulus to both the (local and national)economy.

So, Pelosi was right... Right ?
Lamplighter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2013, 12:15 PM   #148
DanaC
We have to go back, Kate!
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 25,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adak View Post
Fortunately, you know the Keynesian model of economics, has been roundly put into the trash bin, as bunk.
By the particular school of economic thought which stood and stands in opposition to it and which created the phantom economics of the global crash.

There are many economists who still consider Keynesian economics to have value.
__________________
Quote:
There's only so much punishment a man can take in pursuit of punani. - Sundae
http://sites.google.com/site/danispoetry/
DanaC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2013, 07:03 PM   #149
Lamplighter
Person who doesn't update the user title
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods
Posts: 6,402
For those who may be wondering about the question:
Why not give individuals the same delay as businesses in signing up for Obamacare ?

Washington Post
Stephen Stromberg
10/7/13

Quote:
On Monday night, John Stewart interviewed Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius,
and he kept pressing her on why the Obama administration put a one-year hold
on the health-care law’s mandate that employers provide insurance to their workers
without offering a similar delay to the requirement that individual Americans have health coverage.
“I would feel like you are favoring big business because they lobbied you,”
Stewart also said, “but you’re not allowing individuals that same courtesy.”
Here is a very readable 1-page article that includes a link to that interview,
and explains differences between businesses and individuals under the ACA...

Quote:
The corporate mandate is mainly in place to prevent companies
that already offer insurance from taking away that coverage.


Many health-care economists aren’t too worried about this.
That is, firstly, because employers have reasons to continue compensating
their workers with health-care coverage rather than, say, higher wages.
Firms, for example, get a [35%] tax break for offering insurance.

And, secondly, because even if they did take away coverage,
their workers would still be able to go into the marketplaces
the law set up and buy insurance on good terms and with government help.

Other than history, there’s no great reason employers are part
of the health-care system at all, and the law doesn’t need to keep them in it.<snip>
Lamplighter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2013, 04:06 AM   #150
Adak
Lecturer
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 796
Quote:

Other than history, there’s no great reason employers are part
of the health-care system at all, and the law doesn’t need to keep them in it.<snip>
THAT is true!!

I'm in shock.
Adak is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:43 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.