Obama-USA Prediction

[Hondo]

1. Obama begins his rule through the use of executive orders, by-passing the legislative process. Currently, this is as close to being a dictator in the USA as you can get. He has issued more executive orders, quicker, than any other president. (begin getting the people used to his all-seeing wisdom. most of the orders give the appearance of action, but have done nothing. in addition, they can be dissolved by another executive order if need be.)

2. Obama continues to stonewall the press and engages only in controlled press conferences. The reporters that will be allowed to ask questions are notified in advance, the others don't even bother to raise their hands anymore. Yet, the mass media continues to slobber all over the guy like a hungry puppy. (control the press by letting them do it for you)

3.He continues to beat the drum about the economy and climate change, urging the need to act quickly now, think about it later. (maintain that external, common enemy that endangers the people. a favorite of dictators.)

4. Meet with big business to gain their trust. Assure them that Obama realizes that only buiness can create jobs and save the economy and he needs their help. They will fawn along, forgetting all about Obama stating earlier that only government could create the jobs and stimulate the economy to pull the USA out of this slide. (wooing big business was part of the strategy of another well known and remembered dictator.)

5. Obama's Stimulus Bill has now passed the Congress on an all Democrat vote. Not a single Republican vote was registered for the bill. Although Obama promised no earmarks or pork in the bill, they are in there. This bill will not create jobs or stimulate the economy, instead it redistributes wealth mainly to the supporters of the Democratic party to strengthen the party base. A couple of billion for our buddy ACORN. If the Senate also passes the bill without any Republican "yay" votes, it may not be signed into law by Obama although, even vetoed, Pelosi could still pass it into law. That could be what Obama is counting on. That way he is clean on the deal. Democrats are going to be nervous about passing what they know to be a bogus bill on their own. They know the backlash, and there will be one, will fall entirely on them.

6. Obama extends the olive branch to Iran and wants to get out of Iraq and finish up Afghanistan. (this olive branch just reeks of the Hitler-Stalin pact.)

Predictions:

This stimulus bill and the next 2 will be geared to getting more money into the hands of people who will increase and support the party. As much as possible, executive orders will be used to ensure that whatever election process changes that need to be made to keep the party in power, will be made.

Teenagers out of high school will have to register for some sort of national service.

Quietly, the armed services will be told to explore substantially cheaper weapon systems that can be mass produced.

A treaty will be signed with Iran.

Once out of Iraq, the focus will be on al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. In reality, Afghanistan is to become a staging area with safer flanks.

Within 2 years, the USA will go to war (the quickest way to revive an economy) with Iran, staging out of Afghanistan. The national service registration roles will have already been combed through and set up for rapid conscription for the armed forces. Obama will seek and receive emergencey powers from the congress, cementing his dictatorship. Russia will have already received a tacit nod from the USA to feel free to do what it feels it needs to do in Europe, but will be made to understand that Britain and the Commonwealth are to be left alone. Europe will allow Russia to roll through because what Russia offers isn't much different from what they have now and it beats being dead.

[ShiftingGears]

Enough of the paranoia already.

[Hondo]

1 through 6 are fact.

[Roamy]

impeachNow.org

[ShiftingGears]

1 through 6 are fact.

It's little on facts and large on comparing him to dictators, no matter how vague or irrelevant the connection is.

[leopard]

Who are you going to impeach? :rolleyes: :)

He inherited a lot of problem, particularly economic and international relationship disorder, to overcome it will need clever strategy the step which can be sometimes unusual.

There will not be better options left than to olive branch enemy of the former leader. I doubt that there is ever country commit taking adverseness others without strong reason. Diplomatic is the best way in order to let the frozen relationship melted down.

As for the strict press conference, I think he has the more important job than only making speech. World already know him about being rhetoric. He might try to be slightly protective to avoid shoes being thrown over him. :)

[Rudy Tamasz]

Who are you going to impeach? :rolleyes: :)

He inherited a lot of problem, particularly economic and international relationship disorder, to overcome it will need clever strategy the step which can be sometimes unusual.


That heritage all dates back to the husband of his SecState.

[leopard]

That heritage all dates back to the husband of his SecState.
Probably, having heard of that under the baby boomer glx American reached the most advancement on economic, prosperity, and live peacefully...

[Rudy Tamasz]

I think Americans still have not realized what an utter failure Clinton's presidency was. It was him who increased the government to ridiculous proportions. It was him who inflated the economic bubble based on endless multiplication of virtual money. It was him who missed the opportunities of establishing a fairer world order despite the post-Cold War euphoria. It was him who left the Israel-Palestine and Iraq issues unresolved. It was him who dropped the ethic standard below zero. Now his spiritual successor Obama has to face these issues yet again and look what a wise team choice he has made.

Disclaimer: I am not saying that W. addressed these issues terribly well, but it is unfair to attribute their emergence to him.

[steve_spackman]

1. Obama begins his rule through the use of executive orders, by-passing the legislative process. Currently, this is as close to being a dictator in the USA as you can get. He has issued more executive orders, quicker, than any other president. (begin getting the people used to his all-seeing wisdom. most of the orders give the appearance of action, but have done nothing. in addition, they can be dissolved by another executive order if need be.)

2. Obama continues to stonewall the press and engages only in controlled press conferences. The reporters that will be allowed to ask questions are notified in advance, the others don't even bother to raise their hands anymore. Yet, the mass media continues to slobber all over the guy like a hungry puppy. (control the press by letting them do it for you)

3.He continues to beat the drum about the economy and climate change, urging the need to act quickly now, think about it later. (maintain that external, common enemy that endangers the people. a favorite of dictators.)

4. Meet with big business to gain their trust. Assure them that Obama realizes that only buiness can create jobs and save the economy and he needs their help. They will fawn along, forgetting all about Obama stating earlier that only government could create the jobs and stimulate the economy to pull the USA out of this slide. (wooing big business was part of the strategy of another well known and remembered dictator.)

5. Obama's Stimulus Bill has now passed the Congress on an all Democrat vote. Not a single Republican vote was registered for the bill. Although Obama promised no earmarks or pork in the bill, they are in there. This bill will not create jobs or stimulate the economy, instead it redistributes wealth mainly to the supporters of the Democratic party to strengthen the party base. A couple of billion for our buddy ACORN. If the Senate also passes the bill without any Republican "yay" votes, it may not be signed into law by Obama although, even vetoed, Pelosi could still pass it into law. That could be what Obama is counting on. That way he is clean on the deal. Democrats are going to be nervous about passing what they know to be a bogus bill on their own. They know the backlash, and there will be one, will fall entirely on them.

6. Obama extends the olive branch to Iran and wants to get out of Iraq and finish up Afghanistan. (this olive branch just reeks of the Hitler-Stalin pact.)

Predictions:

This stimulus bill and the next 2 will be geared to getting more money into the hands of people who will increase and support the party. As much as possible, executive orders will be used to ensure that whatever election process changes that need to be made to keep the party in power, will be made.

Teenagers out of high school will have to register for some sort of national service.

Quietly, the armed services will be told to explore substantially cheaper weapon systems that can be mass produced.

A treaty will be signed with Iran.

Once out of Iraq, the focus will be on al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. In reality, Afghanistan is to become a staging area with safer flanks.

Within 2 years, the USA will go to war (the quickest way to revive an economy) with Iran, staging out of Afghanistan. The national service registration roles will have already been combed through and set up for rapid conscription for the armed forces. Obama will seek and receive emergencey powers from the congress, cementing his dictatorship. Russia will have already received a tacit nod from the USA to feel free to do what it feels it needs to do in Europe, but will be made to understand that Britain and the Commonwealth are to be left alone. Europe will allow Russia to roll through because what Russia offers isn't much different from what they have now and it beats being dead.

you stopped taking your meds mate?? need to go get a refill ha ha

[Roamy]

Who are you going to impeach? :rolleyes: :)

He inherited a lot of problem, particularly economic and international relationship disorder, to overcome it will need clever strategy the step which can be sometimes unusual.

There will not be better options left than to olive branch enemy of the former leader. I doubt that there is ever country commit taking adverseness others without strong reason. Diplomatic is the best way in order to let the frozen relationship melted down.

As for the strict press conference, I think he has the more important job than only making speech. World already know him about being rhetoric. He might try to be slightly protective to avoid shoes being thrown over him. :)

impeach the whole fuching mess !!!!!!! If it were up to me over 50% of the congress would just be a start. Then the judicial system would look like a piece of swiss cheese at a shotgun party. I would have so many vacancies it that craphole I could stimulate the economy myself.

[Hondo]

As the press grows more suspect of Obama, the photographs that they have been showing with a lighter skin tone will begin to have a darker skin tone.

[Roamy]

As the press grows more suspect of Obama, the photographs that they have been showing with a lighter skin tone will begin to have a darker skin tone.

Oh No how long before we start hearing about Uncle Tom in the White House :eek:

[Hondo]

The media did the same thing with O.J. Simpson.

[Rollo]

5. Obama's Stimulus Bill

I have breaking news on this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23143814/

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/01/28/state_of_union/
A year later, 2008 spending bills contain more than 11,000 earmarks, a pile of pork worth nearly $17 billion.

It seems to me that the last president who was worth anything was FDR.

[Hondo]

I have breaking news on this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23143814/

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/01/28/state_of_union/
A year later, 2008 spending bills contain more than 11,000 earmarks, a pile of pork worth nearly $17 billion.

It seems to me that the last president who was worth anything was FDR.

In this day and age, the world would have thought FDR was far more evil than Bush. People on this forum would be pointing out how we left Japan no other option than to attack us after we embargoed their flow of raw materials after their invasion of China. He would be getting blasted for his violations of the Neutrality Act for sending Britain oil, food, and military equipment. He and the USA would be castigated for using the US Navy to escort convoys to the mid Atlantic and beyond, not to mention attacking the odd U-Boat now and then, before officially being in the war. His social programs along with an artificial price cap on gold along with the confiscation of gold from private citizens with his ban on private ownership of gold would have been seen as America's dangerous slide into communism.

FDR had little effect on the conditions of the "Great Depression". WW II cured the "Great Depression".

[Hondo]

This morning, for the first time in at least a year that I can remember, I heard a public service announcement (government) reminding all men from 18-25 years of age that the law requires they register with Selective Service.

For those that don't know, Selective Service is the agency that handles military conscription.

[Hondo]

Coming: Obama will use some overblown trade complaint with the EU to withdrawl the USA from NATO.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Fiero...if you think Obama is going to pull the US out of NATO then you really are smoking something good. He is radical in some views...but I don't see this one happening.

I just think Obama is going to do what he is good at. Spending your money.....

[Hondo]

Obama is manuvering himself into a position where what the US population thinks of him will make little difference. What Russia and China think of him will be important.

[Hondo]

The EU can protect themselves or increase their military spending to the point they can protect themselves. Besides, Russia isn't like the Soviet Union...lol.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Obama is manuvering himself into a position where what the US population thinks of him will make little difference. What Russia and China think of him will be important.

The Russians are just enjoying the US spending money they don't have. It makes them feel all warm and toasty to know the US meltdown may do to the US what it did for the USSR. Putin is just dancing with happiness. Of course.....we know that the US wont fly apart like an overheated car tire like the USSR did but that is besides the point.

Obama will eventually grasp some of the realities he has ignored when they slap him in the head. At some point...he may regret winning this election....

[Hondo]

Obama doesn't know what to do. His experience consists of 2 years as a senator where he did nothing exept vote "present" more often than not. He didn't pass anything, veto anything, or introduce anything.

He accidently won a job he didn't want yet. He is now beginning to savor the power attached to the job and finds it pleasing.

Putin won't laugh. He will allow a USA-EU trade war to develop and then sympathize with Obama about how the EU dictates to it's trading powers.

That will be the start.

[Jag_Warrior]

I must have missed that day in civics class when it was explained how the Speaker of the House could override a Presidential veto of a bill and pass that bill into law... without the Senate also overriding that veto by 2/3's majority. Pelosi, by herself or with every single member of the House following her, cannot pass a bill into law.

This is just basic civics. If Obama vetos this, or any bill, the only way to override that veto and make the bill into law is to secure a 2/3's majority of the members present... in each body. This "stimulus bill" didn't leave the House with 2/3's of that body in favor, so just how would any Obama veto be overridden there? Not all of the Democrats voted for the bill, and even if they did, the Democrats don't have a 2/3's majority in the House. The same is true of the Senate.

I can't say that I have great love for Executive Orders either. But they've been with us for 200+ years now, and some guy who was claimed to have chopped down a cherry tree and couldn't tell a lie issued the first one. In the modern age, as far as I know, Executive Orders have been used by every President. As for the frequency, let's look at the tally after at least a month or so. It's rather foolish to look at a tiny snapshot in time and claim that it's an indicator of anything... good or bad. I haven't seen anything totally unique or incredibly troubling about Obama's actions thus far. But I've been pretty busy this week so I haven't had time to check out Fox News or any of my favorite fringe sites.

It seems as I've looked at various sites over the past few months, there are more Nobamamaniacs than Obamamaniacs. Both can be equally annoying or irrational, but most everyone else is just saying, times are bad and getting worse, so let's see where this goes and what the final plan looks like. It's almost as if the Nobamamaniacs imagine the part of Barack Obama being played by an actor named George W. Bush... which is really kind of funny if you think about it. Yeah, I guess if one imagines Obama to be the other side of the same coin that was Bush, that would be pretty frightening. I'm thinking that's why the Nobamamaniacs seem to be so rattled right now: they're waiting with bated breath for Obama's version of the Patriot Act (to make us all safer and fight crime in Gotham City, or some such nonsense).

There's little doubt that Obama plans on getting the U.S. out of Iraq (for the most part) over the next couple of years - sooner sounds better than later, IMO. But I think we'll have some sort of military presence there for probably decades to come. What choice do we have?! Whether it's buying one share of stock or invading a country, it's never wise to get into something unless you've considered how you're going to get out. And add to that, if you have no idea what victory or success looks like, you're pretty well screwed from Day 1. We were screwed from Day 1. Mission Accomplished. :rolleyes:

I don't believe too many nations have been successful in conflicts in Afghanistan. The Soviets had to get kicked in the balls every day for about ten years to figure out that their plan wasn't exactly a good one. But because we neglected our (necessary) focus on the Taliban, so we could play nation builder in Iraq, Afghanistan is almost as much of a mess today as when Americans were dying in collapsing skyscrapers 7+ years ago. Another brilliant strategic move by the neocons. Parallel universe moment: if Cheney and Rumsfeld had gone into the woods and shot each other while hunting snipes, imagine where we would be today. Geniuses: devote our resources to the bad war and f'up the good war.

Anyway, it'll be interesting to see what happens in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran over the next couple of years. But I don't think we'll be attacking Iran... unless our little righteously indignant pals in Israel start feelin' daffy and get the urge to scratch an itch. But other than that, I don't look for us to get into anymore foolish wars anytime soon.

The only (fairly safe) prediction I have is that Harry Reid will not survive as Senate Majority Leader past the end of 2010.

But I could dream up some wild & crazy stuff too: Obama signs an Executive Order that guarantees that the Chicago Bears, Bulls and White Sox will always win their respective championships. Obama buys a horse, names it Incitatus and appoints it to his old Senate seat (after Roland Burris mysteriously retires). Obama changes his name to Baracus Augustus and declares himself President for Life. He declares Rush Limbaugh an "enemy of the state" and puts a $1 million dead or alive bounty on his head. Within 24 hours, Rush is seen strapped to the hood of a 1982 Chevy pickup truck, naked and bleeding. The two men in the pickup claim to be long time listeners, first time callers of Rush's show, and say that they're loyal Ditto Heads. When asked why they turned Rush in, their only response is, "Hey man, a million bucks is a million bucks."

[Hondo]

For a million bucks, Rush would want it that way.

[Jag_Warrior]

Heck, I bet Rush spends more than that on happy pills every year.

It seems like a man with "talent on loan from God", who "Obama fears more than the GOP", would want to have the price on his head higher than that. :D

[Rollo]

Obama buys a horse, names it Incitatus and appoints it to his old Senate seat (after Roland Burris mysteriously retires).

It would probably be held up on robbery charges anyway:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7846822.stm
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45406000/jpg/_45406867_goat.jpg
Police in Nigeria are holding a goat handed to them by a vigilante group, which said it was a car thief who had used witchcraft to change shape.

A police spokesman in Kwara State has been quoted as saying that the "armed robbery suspect" would remain in custody until investigations were over.

[Ranger]

It would probably be held up on robbery charges anyway:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7846822.stm
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45406000/jpg/_45406867_goat.jpg
Police in Nigeria are holding a goat handed to them by a vigilante group, which said it was a car thief who had used witchcraft to change shape.

A police spokesman in Kwara State has been quoted as saying that the "armed robbery suspect" would remain in custody until investigations were over.

Just look at that face... guilty! :D

[BDunnell]

The Russians are just enjoying the US spending money they don't have.

I still don't think that Russia is in any position to threaten the US militarily, because it continues to be unable to develop new military equipment and get it into service in any quantity at any speed. Its state of military readiness remains very poor, in reality. And politically we are seeing the first rumblings of discontent in Russia today.

[BDunnell]

Obama doesn't know what to do.

No-one knows what to do about the economic crisis. Gordon Brown basically admitted as much today and every economic or political analyst/expert/commentator one hears puts forward a different view. It is one reason it is proving impossible to find common ground regarding solutions within the EU.

[Hondo]

I still don't think that Russia is in any position to threaten the US militarily, because it continues to be unable to develop new military equipment and get it into service in any quantity at any speed. Its state of military readiness remains very poor, in reality. And politically we are seeing the first rumblings of discontent in Russia today.

Russia's military strength is in numbers. It doesn't require top of the line equipment to win if you can overwhelm your enemy. Todays complex, expensive weapon systems do not lend themselves to rapid mass production as was possible in WW II. A major war would be a "come as you are" affair and once your high tech stuff is used up or broken, you better have something else to go to. Ultimately, you still have to have infantry and lots of it to capture, hold, and occupy territory. Russia has more than enough infantry and a government that traditionally puts little value on human life.

Russia seeks to be equal partners with the USA, not an enemy. Russia's enemy is Europe and if they could be sure of the USA staying out of it, they could roll through Europe in no time.

[BDunnell]

Russia's military strength is in numbers. It doesn't require top of the line equipment to win if you can overwhelm your enemy. Todays complex, expensive weapon systems do not lend themselves to rapid mass production as was possible in WW II. A major war would be a "come as you are" affair and once your high tech stuff is used up or broken, you better have something else to go to. Ultimately, you still have to have infantry and lots of it to capture, hold, and occupy territory. Russia has more than enough infantry and a government that traditionally puts little value on human life.

But it still requires discipline and training, and Russia's strength in numbers means little if these elements are lacking. I still maintain that the Russian military is in a dire state.



Russia seeks to be equal partners with the USA, not an enemy. Russia's enemy is Europe and if they could be sure of the USA staying out of it, they could roll through Europe in no time.

But this is not about to happen, no matter what conspiracy theorising springs to mind about the future of NATO, etc.

[markabilly]

1 through 6 are fact.

Stop making sense and telling facts....you will make all the nut cases, bama loving, american haters crawl out of the closet and go bonkers (when they ought to be saying BINGO!!!)


you stopped taking your meds mate?? need to go get a refill ha ha

See, I told you.....


In this day and age, the world would have thought FDR was far more evil than Bush. People on this forum would be pointing out how we left Japan no other option than to attack us after we embargoed their flow of raw materials after their invasion of China. He would be getting blasted for his violations of the Neutrality Act for sending Britain oil, food, and military equipment. He and the USA would be castigated for using the US Navy to escort convoys to the mid Atlantic and beyond, not to mention attacking the odd U-Boat now and then, before officially being in the war. His social programs along with an artificial price cap on gold along with the confiscation of gold from private citizens with his ban on private ownership of gold would have been seen as America's dangerous slide into communism.

FDR had little effect on the conditions of the "Great Depression". WW II cured the "Great Depression".

Told you to stop it.......opps here comes so more stuff below...



I have breaking news on this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23143814/

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/01/28/state_of_union/
A year later, 2008 spending bills contain more than 11,000 earmarks, a pile of pork worth nearly $17 billion.

It seems to me that the last president who was worth anything was FDR.

yes, he was worth something, FDR was worth about a couple of million dollars and certainly worth more than truman and Ike, who was worth considerably less, but than along came JFK who was worth considerably more than several millions.........

[markabilly]

Russia's military strength is in numbers. It doesn't require top of the line equipment to win if you can overwhelm your enemy. Todays complex, expensive weapon systems do not lend themselves to rapid mass production as was possible in WW II. A major war would be a "come as you are" affair and once your high tech stuff is used up or broken, you better have something else to go to. Ultimately, you still have to have infantry and lots of it to capture, hold, and occupy territory. Russia has more than enough infantry and a government that traditionally puts little value on human life.

Russia seeks to be equal partners with the USA, not an enemy. Russia's enemy is Europe and if they could be sure of the USA staying out of it, they could roll through Europe in no time.


But it still requires discipline and training, and Russia's strength in numbers means little if these elements are lacking. I still maintain that the Russian military is in a dire state.



But this is not about to happen, no matter what conspiracy theorising springs to mind about the future of NATO, etc.


OPPS you are both wrong....Russia does not need its military to roll through Europe, they already got Europe by the gonads. All they need do is wait until next winter and put the really big squeeze on gas, and they will roll over like the good wife, ready for you know what....

when the riots break out, they walk in to police the situation and quell the riots, put their big brothers who are Putin's best friends (ala what happenned in Russia with big industires) in charge of key industries and coup is complete without any real heavy duty military action

Note Putin did not become Putin by having tanks roll through Moscow and such, he did it with paperwork and mafia strong arm tactics....europe would roll over far easier with just the right pressure....

[steve_spackman]

Stop making sense and telling facts....you will make all the nut cases, bama loving, american haters crawl out of the closet and go bonkers (when they ought to be saying BINGO!!!)

whenever someone does not agree with the US we are 'american haters', just like when we dont agree with Israel we hate them too..

GROW UP!!!

[Hondo]

The Russian Army, once up to the numbers it needed, had no problems pushing Nazi Germany back. Their army then had little in the way of discipline or training. What they had was a mob of well armed people more afraid of Stalin and their own officers than they were of the Nazis.

They could have Europe if they wanted it. Most of Europe would surrender.

[BDunnell]

All of this is entirely hypothetical in 2009. The genuine prospect of a war in Europe involving Russia is remote, no matter what the doom-mongers who seem to be taking over the discussion might believe. I find some of the immoderate comments here, comparing potential Obama policies to those of Hitler and so on, to be so absurd as to be laughable, and from people whose views I used to respect but have now turned into conspiracy theorists of almost a David Icke magnitude.

[Jag_Warrior]

All of this is entirely hypothetical in 2009. The genuine prospect of a war in Europe involving Russia is remote, no matter what the doom-mongers who seem to be taking over the discussion might believe. I find some of the immoderate comments here, comparing potential Obama policies to those of Hitler and so on, to be so absurd as to be laughable, and from people whose views I used to respect but have now turned into conspiracy theorists of almost a David Icke magnitude.

Sadly, what some seem to be doing is intermixing possibilities with probabilities. Is it possible that the U.S could withdraw from NATO? Yes. Is it probable? No. And if it was to be, could it be done without the approval of Congress? No. That's why if we're going to play with fantasy hypotheticals and "what if's", I'd just as soon discuss the possibility of Obama changing his name to Augustus or Caligula and renaming a horse Incitatus. It's also possible that Obama could ride the horse around the South Lawn and wear a crown of laurels as he does so. How probable is that? Well, forgetting the fact that one of his kids seems to be allergic to almost every animal under the sun, I'd still say that it's at least as improbable as Obama persuading Congress to withdraw the U.S. from NATO. I'm seeing a mix of facts, factual errors and opinions being referred to as pure "fact." That's intellectually lazy, if not dishonest. But it's cold outside, so I figure, why not have fun with it? :)

As one of my aunts says, "that's just crazy talk." If that's what we're going to do, I'd rather waste time talking about dead Romans and their horses rather than dead Germans and their tanks - our government has a LOT more in common with the Romans during the Republic than the Germans at any point prior to 1946. I don't expect people like Spackman to understand (or want to understand) how our government works. I haven't studied civics in 30+ years, but I don't think a whole heck of a lot has changed in the Constitution. So I do expect the Americans on this board to have a better understanding of how our government works, and what is and is not possible, probabilities aside.

[BDunnell]

Sadly, what some seem to be doing is intermixing possibilities with probabilities. Is it possible that the U.S could withdraw from NATO? Yes. Is it probable? No. And if it was to be, could it be done without the approval of Congress? No. That's why if we're going to play with fantasy hypotheticals and "what if's", I'd just as soon discuss the possibility of Obama changing his name to Augustus or Caligula and renaming a horse Incitatus. It's also possible that Obama could ride the horse around the South Lawn and wear a crown of laurels as he does so. How probable is that? Well, forgetting the fact that one of his kids seems to be allergic to almost every animal under the sun, I'd still say that it's at least as improbable as Obama persuading Congress to withdraw the U.S. from NATO. I'm seeing a mix of facts, factual errors and opinions being referred to as pure "fact." That's intellectually lazy, if not dishonest. But it's cold outside, so I figure, why not have fun with it? :)

As one of my aunts says, "that's just crazy talk." If that's what we're going to do, I'd rather waste time talking about dead Romans and their horses rather than dead Germans and their tanks - our government has a LOT more in common with the Romans during the Republic than the Germans at any point prior to 1946. I don't expect people like Spackman to understand (or want to understand) how our government works. I haven't studied civics in 30+ years, but I don't think a whole heck of a lot has changed in the Constitution. So I do expect the Americans on this board to have a better understanding of how our government works, and what is and is not possible, probabilities aside.

Of course, the USA could withdraw from NATO if it wanted to, but what I see in certain posts above seems like wild theorising — doom-mongering, even — about events that are highly unlikely to happen, based on scant evidence.

[Jag_Warrior]

Of course, the USA could withdraw from NATO if it wanted to, but what I see in certain posts above seems like wild theorising — doom-mongering, even — about events that are highly unlikely to happen, based on scant evidence.

There are probably more people in the U.S thinking about and working on a manned space flight to Mars than thinking about and working on getting the U.S. out of NATO.

What concerns me is that it's not healthy to have an administration that is above criticism. But if some amount of the criticism (based on the loudness of the squeaky wheels) is based on irrational theories, even legitimate criticism may get tossed in the waste pile. That is not healthy. It makes it too easy for someone who may be deserving of criticism to marginalize any criticism as coming from the lunatic fringe. IMO, the louder the rabid, fringe "Nobama" crowd gets, the easier it becomes for Obama to convince an emotionally and financially drained America that his way is the only way forward. Whether his way is the best available option right now, we don't yet know... and opinions are like certain parts of the anatomy = everybody has one. But if all the opposition can do is say, "no!", without presenting what might be better ideas and only rolling out the same tired, old ideas (even a failing Econ 101 student knows that only cutting capital gains taxes doesn't fully address demand side economic issues), people will stay with the ones they hired to correct the issues at hand.

The surest way to lose an argument is to allow yourself to be marginalized. But as we know from Bush/Cheney/Rove/Rumsfeld, the mantra of the neocons is "stay the course!"

[Mark in Oshawa]

Mmmmm I am not sure what to say to all of the last little bit of arguing except to say Obama will not pull out of NATO, Putin in 3 years will still be a jerk, and Europe will whine about what America is NOT doing while going on blissfully unaware of how vulnerable they could be to a number of threats.

As for my little nation...we are sort of stuck in the middle of it all...muddling along with no one paying much attention to us or what we think. Maybe that is ok too, because there are days I disagree with the American way of thinking and a lot of days where I think the European view is naive too. I just hope Obama quits being an idealogue at some point and does something that WORKS. So far....I am not really that impressed ya know?

[markabilly]

whenever someone does not agree with the US we are 'american haters', just like when we dont agree with Israel we hate them too..

GROW UP!!!

"you stopped taking your meds mate?? need to go get a refill ha ha"


Of course, the USA could withdraw from NATO if it wanted to, but what I see in certain posts above seems like wild theorising — doom-mongering, even — about events that are highly unlikely to happen, based on scant evidence.


No, that would be too smart, and think of the negative economic impact on Europe if we did...me, I don't understand why we keep getting our hands bitten by the people feeding from it....Like I said, Putin plays it smart and slow, Europe will whine but roll over, much like a woman who is saying, "no, no, no, please don't" while laying back......... :s mokin:

[BDunnell]

No, that would be too smart, and think of the negative economic impact on Europe if we did...me, I don't understand why we keep getting our hands bitten by the people feeding from it....

In what way exactly?

[Hondo]

As I have either been cast into the pit of the lunatic fringe or perhaps have waded at least partly in by myself, a few words are in order.

Much of what I foresee happening in the near future, I would have laughed at also a few years ago. Most of my views are based upon me being an American and as alluded to by another poster in another thread, Americans used to have an independent, pioneering, I-can-do-this attitude. Heritage? Maybe, maybe just something in the water over here. It is a mindset that Europeans won't understand at all and I don't expect them to. Older Americans made their lives on their own doings through their own labors and abhor socialism. They see it as a way for government to grow ever larger, while their liberties shrink ever smaller and those that continue to engage in irresponsible behaviour bask in a buffet of endless benefits. Younger Americans see government feeding and care from cradle to grave as an entitlement and worse, a right. Somebody owes them something because they were born. I owe them nothing beyond providing them, through taxation, the opportunity to make something of themselves and their lives. Although I have no children, in every locale I have lived where the school districts get their funding from property taxes, approved by a local vote, I have voted for the increase every time except one. The one that failed was not well put together by the school board and didn't do a good job of explaining what the money was needed for. They immediately acknowledged their fault, cleaned up the presentation with specifics, and we passed the desired rate increase a month later. No problem. I am all for funding schools well through taxation but throwing money at the education system won't improve anything except infrastructure and materials. I hear about bad teachers but in the USA most teachers have to have a college degree to teach. They can make far more money with that degree doing something else than they will make teaching school. They want to teach. The problem with education is at home, not at school. Parents (including step-parents, as I was) must take an active interest in their child's education. That means more than telling them to do their homework and waking them up in the morning to go to school. Talk to them about their day at school, look at and help them with their homework, talk to the teachers now and then, if the kid's story sounds fishy, call him on it. "No homework for a week? Really?" "Hello...Mrs. Teacher? The boy tells me you don't assign homework anymore...Oh you do? Thank you, I'll handle it here." If your kid is a problem, back the school up on it and support them. How many kids come home today and plug into a video game or the internet untill they finally drag off to bed? How many are in single parent homes and the parent is either working or out partying? How many parents feel like they pay taxes, send the kid to school, and feel like it's the school and government's job to return to them a perfectly educated, well mannered product with no further effort from themselves? A bunch. I hear it a lot.

Back to lunacy. Prior to it happening, I would have and did laugh at all those lunatics that said the USA would attack Iraq. I realize my country hasn't always been squeaky clean in all it's dealings But I never thought I'd see the day when my United States of America would attack and invade a sovereign nation before being attacked by that nation through force of arms, or suspected force of arms at the very least (The Maine). A lot of things changed for me when that happened. I began to see things about my country that I didn't want to see or believe, but it's hard to argue when it's in front of you. A whole world of you try to make this a George Bush thing. It wasn't. You non-Americans don't live here so you don't know the ins and outs of the whole package. For the most part you know what the media chooses to feed you and although the media has always had bias, it has never shown itself so openly and proudly as it has since Katrina. Bush didn't cause Katrina. The silly assed hurricane didn't even hit New Orleans. They caught the edges of it. Immediate disaster relief was, and always had been the job of local and state authorities first, not the federal government. Of course thats now changed and the feds will be held responsible for immediate disaster relief from now on. Sigh, more tax dollars. Bush didn't invade Iraq either. Damn near the entire United States government invaded Iraq. Very few voted against it. If you want to argue they were lied to, thats ok. Any or all of them could have demanded further proof and clarification. They didn't. Same as they didn't seek specifics or assurances on the first bail out bill. They were told it had to be done now to save the economy. The "idiots" like me that they represent got on the phones and emails saying don't do this, it's bs and won't change anything. They didn't care. They voted it through anyway and now $350 billion of it is gone and by law, the guy they gave it to doesn't have to tell them what he did with it.

What has been made clear to me and to all of us in this country is that our government now exists only to serve itself and means to grow ever larger and more intrusive and powerful than ever before. The difference is now the government isn't even trying to hide it. I no longer have any faith or trust in my government whatsoever. As far as my predictions go, well history has a tendency to repeat itself. It is allowed to repeat itself because no one believes it can happen again in this "day and age" until, of course, it happens.
End of rant part one.

[donKey jote]

eagerly awaiting rant part two :up:
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_3_166.gif

[race aficionado]

What has been made clear to me and to all of us in this country is that our government now exists only to serve itself and means to grow ever larger and more intrusive and powerful than ever before.

. . . excuse me, . . . . . . . all of us?????

:s mokin:

[Hondo]

Sorry. If you don't realize it, I can't help you.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Fiero nice little synopsis. I have been saying a lot of what you said in various ways obviously badly at times for the last little while.

[race aficionado]

Sorry. If you don't realize it, I can't help you.
Do you realize how patronizing and arrogant and silly you sound?

I'm not calling you ignorant, because you are not, but please don't speak for me.
:s mokin:

[BDunnell]

Sorry. If you don't realize it, I can't help you.

So everyone who does not go along with your conspiracy theorising 'needs help', do they?

[steve_spackman]

Sorry. If you don't realize it, I can't help you.

We know who the "Evil Doers" are. Here's an odd thought: "Stop selling weapons to everyone on the planet." That way the profit incentive that drives the United States to promote conflicts around the world is removed --- and perhaps, just perhaps, some actual morality could come into play. You know, like that "Do unto others" thing that Christians blather about but are clearly too profit oriented to apply. Of course, I suppose we can't expect much in the way of actual morality from a Christian nation. A philosophy based on childish superstitions is doomed to be childish, and the results speak for themselves. To paraphrase a Great American philosopher: "We have met the Axis of Evil, and they is US."

[Easy Drifter]

You mean like the Ak47's used by terrorist groups worldwide, including the Somali pirates and inummerable private armies in Africa?

[Mark in Oshawa]

How about the Katusyusha's the Hamas fighters use...

[Jag_Warrior]

Iraq has turned out to be a gigantic sh## sandwich and all of America has taken a bite... as we're the ones who are mostly paying for it (and dying for it). And I would never argue that the Congress didn't also have a hand in getting us in, while having absolutely no plan for getting us out. But let's not try to revise history and facts here: it was Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld who flew the flag of war more than anyone else. There was no great desire in Congress to go to war with Iraq. It was the team of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rove that created one of the most effective pro war propaganda campaigns since Joseph Goebbels. I was still posting on 7th Gear at that time and I joked that I was quitting my job and starting a rock band. It was going to be called Weapons of Mass Destruction. Goebbels basic strategy was, "tell a lie, make it big and tell it often." It sounds so much cooler in German, but I don't know the language well enough to properly use the term. But that's what happened here. The public bought it. And as much as some believe that the media is now fawning over Obama, the media was complicit in the WMD argument, because so many were afraid to dig deeper and expose the lies and wild exaggerations being told by the neocon war lords. As I was, you'd be told that you were an A-rab lover or not a patriotic American. That's where that whole "you're either with us or you're against us" bulls### came from. My favorite one was, "we're better off fightin' 'em over thar than over hyar!" In every debate I got in, foolish people would recite that like trained parrots - which is really what they were. Hell, why think for yourself if someone else will do it for you?!

There was a high level of fear and paranoia in the U.S. after 9/11. And approximately 45% of Americans (incorrectly) believed that one or more of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis. At one time, a majority of Americans believed that there was a link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. In fact, they hated each other. All we did was remove one of Osama's enemies and open up Iraq for his forces to have a base of operations. From the Christian Science Monitor:


Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year, attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero.
According to Mr. Kull of PIPA, there is a strong correlation between those who see the Sept. 11-Iraq connection and those who support going to war.

Bush and the neocons used ignorance and fear mongering to their advantage. The actual reasons for Bush wanting so badly to go to war with Iraq are debatable. But it has been shown time and time again that it was Bush and Cheney who most wanted war with Iraq.

All that to say that yes, Congress, the press and the public also were complicit and willfully ignorant in supporting war with Iraq. But let's not become Bush apologists and try to revise history here. Bush has already admitted that he "followed his gut" on Iraq - not the (pre-cooked) intelligence data. It's already known that the Presidential advisors were shut out, and Cheney always got the last word in.

What this has to do with the U.S. attacking Iran or leaving NATO, I have no idea. But with the kick to the groin that we were given by charging into Iraq, with no plan of exit or rebuilding, tells me (and probably most Americans and the world) that attacking Iran is about the last thing that we would do without direct (and real) provocation. The pro war neocons, Zionists and Evangelicals are currently fighting for all they're worth to maintain a voice in the GOP - I fully support that purge (I'm only sorry that we can't/don't use the same means and methods that the Romans would have). The nation has moved to the left, plus the paleo-conservatives and moderates within the GOP are pinning the blame for the November decimation on the neocons. So I hardly think that Obama, the Congress or any sane American is going to follow the example of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rove and get us into another war that has no basis or point.

[steve_spackman]

Iraq has turned out to be a gigantic sh## sandwich and all of America has taken a bite... as we're the ones who are mostly paying for it (and dying for it). And I would never argue that the Congress didn't also have a hand in getting us in, while having absolutely no plan for getting us out. But let's not try to revise history and facts here: it was Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld who flew the flag of war more than anyone else. There was no great desire in Congress to go to war with Iraq. It was the team of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rove that created one of the most effective pro war propaganda campaigns since Joseph Goebbels. I was still posting on 7th Gear at that time and I joked that I was quitting my job and starting a rock band. It was going to be called Weapons of Mass Destruction. Goebbels basic strategy was, "tell a lie, make it big and tell it often." It sounds so much cooler in German, but I don't know the language well enough to properly use the term. But that's what happened here. The public bought it. And as much as some believe that the media is now fawning over Obama, the media was complicit in the WMD argument, because so many were afraid to dig deeper and expose the lies and wild exaggerations being told by the neocon war lords. As I was, you'd be told that you were an A-rab lover or not a patriotic American. That's where that whole "you're either with us or you're against us" bulls### came from. My favorite one was, "we're better off fightin' 'em over thar than over hyar!" In every debate I got in, foolish people would recite that like trained parrots - which is really what they were. Hell, why think for yourself if someone else will do it for you?!

There was a high level of fear and paranoia in the U.S. after 9/11. And approximately 45% of Americans (incorrectly) believed that one or more of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis. At one time, a majority of Americans believed that there was a link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. In fact, they hated each other. All we did was remove one of Osama's enemies and open up Iraq for his forces to have a base of operations. From the Christian Science Monitor:


Bush and the neocons used ignorance and fear mongering to their advantage. The actual reasons for Bush wanting so badly to go to war with Iraq are debatable. But it has been shown time and time again that it was Bush and Cheney who most wanted war with Iraq.

All that to say that yes, Congress, the press and the public also were complicit and willfully ignorant in supporting war in Iraq. But let's not become Bush apologists and try to revise history here. Bush has already admitted that he "followed his gut" on Iraq - not the (pre-cooked) intelligence data. It's already known that the Presidential advisors were shut out, and Cheney got the last word in.

What this has to do with the U.S. attacking Iran or leaving NATO, I have no idea. But with the kick to the groin that we were given by charging into Iraq, with no plan of exit or rebuilding, tells me (and probably most Americans and the world) that attacking Iran is about the last thing that we would do without direct (and real) provocation. The pro war neocons, Zionists and Evangelicals are currently fighting for all they're worth to maintain a voice in the GOP - I fully support that purge (I'm only sorry that we can't/don't use the same means and methods that the Romans would have). The nation has moved to the left, plus the paleo-conservatives and moderates within the GOP are pinning the blame for the November decimation on the neocons. So I hardly think that Obama, the Congress or any sane American is going to follow the example of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rove and get us into another war that has no basis or point.

great post...

[Hondo]

Do you realize how patronizing and arrogant and silly you sound?

I'm not calling you ignorant, because you are not, but please don't speak for me.
:s mokin:
Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7
Sorry. If you don't realize it, I can't help you.


So everyone who does not go along with your conspiracy theorising 'needs help', do they?












There is nothing patronizing or arrogant about it. Even the most casual observer can see that the size and power of government has grown, while your personal liberties, rights in some cases, and privacy has decreased since 9/11. Prior to that, the same was happening as part of the "war on drugs". If the police tried to pull in the 70's what they routinely get away with now, they would have been the ones in jail. I could just see a cop in the 70's telling someone to back up to them, make them lie on the pavement, and handcuff them while they chat with them. By the time the FBI and Justice Dept got through with him, he wouldn't do it again, assuming he was even still an officer. Situations are fed to the media, allowed and encourged to swell to crisis proportion, and then the government steps up to the plate with a "if you give us this, we'll be able to stop it..." cure. Worse still, people fall for it.

[BDunnell]

Even the most casual observer can see that the size and power of government has grown, while your personal liberties, rights in some cases, and privacy has decreased since 9/11. Prior to that, the same was happening as part of the "war on drugs". If the police tried to pull in the 70's what they routinely get away with now, they would have been the ones in jail. I could just see a cop in the 70's telling someone to back up to them, make them lie on the pavement, and handcuff them while they chat with them. By the time the FBI and Justice Dept got through with him, he wouldn't do it again, assuming he was even still an officer. Situations are fed to the media, allowed and encourged to swell to crisis proportion, and then the government steps up to the plate with a "if you give us this, we'll be able to stop it..." cure. Worse still, people fall for it.

I see nothing to disagree with there — far from it, in fact. However, I do not necessarily blame the politicians for all of it. Time and again, at least in the UK, they hear or read in the more populist sections of the media that they are apparently 'out of touch' with the concerns of 'ordinary people'. More often than not, 'ordinary people' seem to feel that they are in some sort of danger, whether from knives, guns, sex offenders, terrorists or whatever. The reality is that the danger of being harmed hasn't really heightened. The fear has, though. Politicians ought to be able to respond 'Here are the figures. Get on with your lives and stop being so stupid'. However, they feel the need to be seen to be doing something, for fear of being labelled as being further 'out of touch' with these supposed 'realities', and I can understand why. Hence the amount of bad legislation and, often, the heavy-handed policing that results from it.

Your mention of '9/11' is very important here, because it has undoubtedly created a self-perpetuating fear of terrorism that is way out of proportion with the actual threat. It has thus provided the justification for much unnecessary legislation and its bad, often heavy-handed and unimaginative, enforcement under the aegis of that awful brand name, the 'war on terrorism', which I am so glad is now being disowned from all sides.

However, this heavy-handed enforcement meets with the support of a certain misguided part of the population of countries that have been targeted, and thus believe themselves to be on the 'front line' like the UK and USA — a part of the population that believes that we can and should be protected at all costs. This is plainly nonsense. Some people will be injured or killed. It is impossible to prevent this from happening in every single instance, yet many people seem to believe that it can be prevented, and that all measures possible should be taken to this end, no matter whether they constitute an assault on civil liberties. If politicians do not support such measures, they run the risk of being labelled 'soft on terrorism' by certain very influential sections of the media. The importance of this cannot be ignored, it is sad to say.

Adding to this, it seems to me that politicians can no longer present detailed intellectual arguments to much of the media and expect people to understand, so it's therefore no wonder that arguments often have to be couched in the most simplistic, least nuanced terms. If a politician's position can be paraphrased by one of the right-wing tabloids as 'X doesn't want to stop foreign terrorists from coming here and blowing us up', then it is considered unwise to put it forward, no matter how sensible that position may be when looked at in detail. A classic example was the British politician who said that she could understand why some people become suicide bombers. A perfectly innocuous remark, I'm sure you'll agree — I should think we could all understand that, whether or not we are sympathetic to their cause. But she was castigated for it in the populist press and then fired by her party. It was a disgrace, especially since much of the outrage was manufactured by Israeli government representatives in various guises.

[Hondo]

Having liberties and freedom has always and will always entail risk also. In my opinion, far too many people nowadays are unwilling to assume the risks of the unknown. They want guarantees. You will always be safe, you will always be fed, you will always be taken care of.
Possibly a poor example but one just the same, I have done reasonably well investing in the stock markets. I have been through ups and downs doing it. The investments I made are the biggest reason I'm comfortable now. When I started, although lusting equally for material toys instead, it was difficult to set money aside weekly and leave it alone. I have always used a self directed account and bought only stocks. I was never in a mutual fund or a 401k plan. I didn't have or use a financial adviser. I knew the markets would be the fastest way to grow wealth and I also knew there was the risk of losing your investment also. The condition of my portfolio now is rather putrid. I haven't actually lost any money because I haven't sold anything at a loss yet. However, the value of my holdings is way, way down from what it was before. I'm not bitching, whining, pointing fingers, or blaming anybody but me for my financial situation. I was completely aware of all the risks when I chose this method of saving/investment. Funny, I never heard anybody bitch about becoming wealthy in the markets. I never heard anybody complain about getting a higher rate of return from their investments than they received from a savings account or savings bonds. Until now. Now that things are a little grim, all of a sudden all of this is no fair.

I'm not a highly educated man, but I have and make use of common sense. Before buying the home and land that I have now, I looked at site-built houses in the city. I was totally blown away by the asking prices! At the time, I worked with a man that did real estate on the side. I told him I hoped he owned a fast horse because when people realize they paid $200,000 for a $100,00 house because of low interest rates and cutesy, gimmick loan deals, he'd need to be able to leave town fast when the values re-adjusted to what they should be and the interest rates went back up. "People will be hunting you with a rope when they find out how badly upside down they are on the note/value of the house and/or not only does their payment increase to almost double but they find out they have been building no equity either." He shrugged it off. "The terms of the financing is explained to them, nobody is holding a gun to their heads, but they sign. All they can see or want to see is them, living in this new house. You can't fight that." He's right. Job losses aside, there are alot of people in this country facing hard times because they got themselves in way over their heads on debt. They may look wealthy, but at the end of the month after paying the payments, they have $100 or less cash left, then they go spend that. Any signifigant price increases will and have blown them completely out of the water.

Call me arrogant if you wish, but there are a good many people that did it right, that put off "having it now", that saved and invested money instead of spending every last dime that deeply resent their tax money being used to bail out the impatient, ignorant, and spoiled.

[Hondo]

Obama, through experts has been in discreet talks with Iran and Syria for months,

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.93cd29fb2714a7b91e94a5dcabcde60 6.1b1&show_article=1

Mind you, he has been President for less than a month.

Well kiss my "paranoid" a$$. It sounds like the man really wants a treaty with Iran. Trust me, he wants that treaty. Even if on the surface it looks like a bad deal for the USA.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Obama, through experts has been in discreet talks with Iran and Syria for months,

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.93cd29fb2714a7b91e94a5dcabcde60 6.1b1&show_article=1

Mind you, he has been President for less than a month.

Well kiss my "paranoid" a$$. It sounds like the man really wants a treaty with Iran. Trust me, he wants that treaty. Even if on the surface it looks like a bad deal for the USA.


I guess representing the government of the US before taking the oath of President is ok if you are Obama. Never mind it is a violation of the US Constitution which states the executive branch is the only part of the US gov't allowed to negotiate with foreign entities. Since Obama wasn't elected yet...he was skirting the law.

What bothers me he doesn't learn. Peace at on our terms was a statement that Neville Chamberlain of the UK used in 38. Look where THAT got him. Obama should be REALLY careful agreeing to anything with Syria, Iran and any other nation in that part of the world. It isn't that I don't believe in the man but his instincts are to roll over and blame the US for all the ills and there is a lot of people in the Middle East who wont look in the mirror for the faults of the situation in the Middle East.

[Hondo]

Another cute move, compliments of our government.

Via RedState

The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (”LCCR&#8221 ;) is a far left interest group.

The group opposed conservative judges. The group agitates for card check. The group is in favor of the Fairness Doctrine. It is chiefly an agitator for affirmative action programs and tries to pressure banks into giving high risk loans like those that caused the housing crisis. If you oppose them, they label you a racist.

LCCR operates like ACORN. And the Senate Democrats are about to give the $90 million of your money.

Under the cover of the digital television conversion delay, the Senate Democrats want to give the LCCR $90 million.

On page 38 of the Senate version of the stimulus, under the section “Digital-to-Analog Converter Program”, the Senate carves out “$90,000,000.00 . . . for education and out-reach, including grants to organizations for programs to educate vulnerable populations, including senior citizens, minority communities, people with disabilities, low-income individuals, and people living in rural areas, about the transition.”

Sounds innocuous. Here’s the catch:

The program is managed by the Department of Commerce. The program is managed by the Department of Commerce. And the Department of Commerce gave access to the DTV education money to only two groups exclusively: the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging (N4A) and the LCCR’s Education Fund.: the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging (N4A) and the LCCR’s Education Fund.

Here’s where it gets funny. Each group is now only getting about $2 million.

[Hondo]

Mark, Mark, Mark,,,,

This is one of the things that me branded as a lunatic.

I have already said Obama means to sign a treaty with Iran, pull out of Iraq, and build up in Afighanistan to go after al-Qaeda. In fact, I believe Afghanistan is actually to be the staging area for an invasion of Iran. Just like Hitler needed a treaty with Stalin until he was ready to move, Obama needs a treaty with Iran for the same reasons.

As far as the US not doing anything like that, I used to think the same thing about invading Iraq before we up and did it. We already have a military presence in Afghanistan. It is the perfect staging area for a direct invasion of Iran. Obama will sign whatever he needs to sign to put Iran to sleep, even if it allows them to gloat for a year or two.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Fiero...if Obama invades Iran, first off I will think it is a HUGE mistake and secondly it means he has fortitude and gonads I never knew he was capable of. That and the whole radical left will have a conniption....they didn't want Bush to go after Al Qaeda after all, since 9/11 was an inside job and all....

[Hondo]

If people don't want to believe the USA would invade Iran, I've got no problem with that.

It's of little consequence to me if people want to laugh at some or all of my predictions. I'm not a mystic, what I believe may happen is based on common sense, the study of human nature, and our failure to understand the importance of history, which, like fashion, repeats it's self. With human beings, similar situations often bring similar results within the limits of the technologies at the time.

[Jag_Warrior]

It's being made to sound as if a future treaty with Iran and this so called staging base in Afghanistan are part of a preplanned strategy intent on invading Iran... as if that's something important to Obama. Where does this theory come from? :confused:

I'm not calling anyone here a lunatic. And I'm sorry if I offended anyone by using the term "lunatic fringe" to describe the rather "fantasic" things I've read here (and other places) lately. So, let's just say that as some people come to grips with having Barack Obama as the President of the United States, they have begun to employ rather uh... creative and vivid imaginations... based on what, I can't yet figure out. But I'd love to hear it.

[Hondo]

I have no problems coming to grips with Obama as president. It has little to do with creative or vivid imaginations either. My perceptions of Obama stem from the the truth about him, his associates, his actual experience, and his politics, virtually all of which was ignored by the mainstream media before he was elected. It is still ignored or minimized now and the press still rolls over like a dog for the man. My other perceptions are based on what he has done, or in some cases, appears to have done, since he's been in office. For instance, all his blather about "his" current bail out bill. It was "his" until the "buy American" clauses turned up, in violation of various trade agreements. At that point it became obvious he didn't have a clue in this world what was in "his" bill. Never even read it. In his 2 years as a senator he never wrote a bill, endorsed a bill, spoke out on the record against a bill, and the only thing he introduced was himself at social functions.

Quite a few people make fun of Sarah P on here. A large part of that is based on the perception of her that the media presented. The only reason the media went after her so savagely was because she was the only honest to god threat to Obama. Much mirth was made of her experience level but in fact she had more real, hands on experience with both government and family life than Obama. Don't kid yourself, Sarah P was and remains a threat to Obama.

As for Iran, prior to Iraq, I wouldn't believe we'd do it either. Our invasion of Iraq opened a new chapter in the book for this country. However, right now Iran is not popular with anybody but Hamas, Chavez, and Syria. Syria plays nice because they don't want Iran coming after them. Syria knows the chances of them getting aid from anybody else is slim to none if Iran decided to thump them. Bush is not and was not the complete idiot he is made out to be. Whatever the real situation is in Iran, Obama is aware of it now via his security briefings that began upon his election. We are not aware of it. It is now out that Obama began talks with Iran before taking office. Why the rush? Our military forces are already in Afghanistan and we've been talking about increasing them for some time now. Additional forces pouring into Afghanistan is not going to alarm anyone. Afghanistan allows for direct land invasion of Iran with flanks secured by former Soviet states and a "friendly" Pakistan to the south. It requires the cooperation of no other Arab country. Additional naval action can be done via the Sea of Arabia. The Arab countries are not eager to see a non-Arab nation become a power in their neighborhood. Iranians will quickly tell you they are Persians, not arabs, and therefore superior. It addition to what ever is really going on now, Obama will also be able to use a nifty little war to really jumpstart the economy, especially if it involves the mass production of cheaper, more conventional weapon systems and the USA taking the Iranian oil fields. If people and the media don't wake up and start paying attention to the real Obama, by the time he invades, he may not need approval of the congress or senate. Coldhearted as it might sound, when you have massive unemployment it generally means that you have more people than you have jobs. You either have to create more jobs which, sooner or later, you'll reach a finite level or eliminate a bunch of people. Economies boomed after WW II because anyone that wanted a job could get one. We were fresh out of people.

I may be a lunatic, but I can easily see an invasion of Iran, done with the tacit support of everyone but Eki.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Fiero.......going to war with Iran is the LAST thing Obama wants. He I think is from the Neville Chamberlain school.

As for your assessment of his inexperience, you are BANG on the money. This guy has never actually done anything concrete that is to be held up to scrutiny. He has dodged making a decision as often as possible as a politician as his votes of "present" in the Illinois legislature have proven. I dearly wanted to believe there is something real in this guy but the only thing real about him was this quest to be President. I think the only notions of what he will do with it will begin to fail when he realizes the job is a lot tougher than he thought.

I am however from "Missouri" on him invading Iran. The man is your typical left wing libreal on this sort of thing. Eki would go to war before Obama would...

[Hondo]

Obama has arrogance and ego. He is now the commander in chief of the most technologically advanced, powerful fighting force in the world. So far, he has been trying to pattern himself after historical figures.

You really think he's going to be pushed around by a guy that, in this country, would be lucky to be working the night shift at a Circle K market?

[Hondo]

Everybody is looking at the Iran thing from what we see on the surface. I believe something very important or dangerous is known to be going on by the powers that be. Whatever it is, Obama felt it was important enough to begin discreet negotiations with Iran before he even took office. You can bet this was going on with the knowledge and approval of the Bush administration. I don't think Obama is real keen on invading, but I think it is viewed as something that they feel may have to be done. A treaty might lull Iran into a false sense of security until forces can be built up to an acceptable level. There's a reason Obama wants the troops out of Iraq faster than his generals are recommending and shifted to Afghanistan.

[BDunnell]

Quite a few people make fun of Sarah P on here. A large part of that is based on the perception of her that the media presented. The only reason the media went after her so savagely was because she was the only honest to god threat to Obama. Much mirth was made of her experience level but in fact she had more real, hands on experience with both government and family life than Obama. Don't kid yourself, Sarah P was and remains a threat to Obama.

The perception of her came about by virtue of the fact that she said certain things. No-one else said them - she said them. The mirth that was made of her struck a chord with people. I found it both funny and accurate, and would have done so without any help from this anti-Palin bias that you see in the media. It was, I repeat, all down to her and no-one else. I think you credit those of us who hold this view with too little intelligence. We were perfectly able to make up our own minds about her. All she had to do was open her mouth. I don't see what is so hard to understand about this, apart from the fact that you seem to have begun to, shall we say, read an awful lot into everything.

Obama has arrogance and ego. He is now the commander in chief of the most technologically advanced, powerful fighting force in the world. So far, he has been trying to pattern himself after historical figures.


I don't buy it that trying to model himself after historical figures means he is going to invade Iran.

Unless it's Alexander the Great he's modelling himself with.

Then again, in 1997 nobody thought that Tony Blair would turn into a war-mongering neo-con crusader either, so everything is possible.

However, I think there is more chance of George W Bush converting to Islam. Or Sarah Palin joining PETA.

[Jag_Warrior]

IMO, there's a greater chance that Palin will produce another child or two than the U.S. will make an unprovoked attack on Iran. The only group that would support that would be the neocons. So am I to believe that in addition to being a secret Muslim, socialist, Black Panther member, African immigrant with a fake birth certificate... Obama is now also a double super secret neocon? Is that why Palin is a threat? In truth, they are going to wind up going for the same base of support? This is too twisted for me. My head is beginning to hurt. :arrowed:

Sorry, no offense intended (really). But most of what I've read here is just wild speculation, based on nothing of substance, as far as I can see...

I make fun of Palin probably more than anyone here. But I try to present my (non joking) views based on "here's what she did, here's what she said" - VERIFIABLE FACTS. It has nothing to do with Tina Fey, or what she might have said. It has nothing to do with what MSNBC or what some other left leaning channel might have claimed. It has to do with what Sarah Palin said or did, or didn't say and didn't know. If the sad likes of Katie Couric could make a monkey out of Palin without even trying, can you imagine what Putin or Wen would do to her?

Like I said, I really am sorry if I offended you, Fiero. There are issues on which we agree. But if there is an argument and it isn't rational or logical, yeah, I do question it... whether my terminology is overly harsh or not.

Our government was formed on the basic concepts (politically and architecturally) formed during the Roman Republic. But Jefferson also greatly admired Augustus Caesar, Rome's first emperor and a dictator. But that didn't lead Jefferson or any of the other Founding Fathers to seek to be dictators. IMO, it's not healthy to base arguments on non sequiturs.

[steve_spackman]

Fiero.......going to war with Iran is the LAST thing Obama wants. He I think is from the Neville Chamberlain school.

As for your assessment of his inexperience, you are BANG on the money. This guy has never actually done anything concrete that is to be held up to scrutiny. He has dodged making a decision as often as possible as a politician as his votes of "present" in the Illinois legislature have proven. I dearly wanted to believe there is something real in this guy but the only thing real about him was this quest to be President. I think the only notions of what he will do with it will begin to fail when he realizes the job is a lot tougher than he thought.

I am however from "Missouri" on him invading Iran. The man is your typical left wing libreal on this sort of thing. Eki would go to war before Obama would...

who here thinks that they should go to war with Iran and why?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Obama has arrogance and ego. He is now the commander in chief of the most technologically advanced, powerful fighting force in the world. So far, he has been trying to pattern himself after historical figures.

You really think he's going to be pushed around by a guy that, in this country, would be lucky to be working the night shift at a Circle K market?

First off he may have arrogance and ego, THAT I get. That said, he doesn't see the President of Iran as a possible Circle K manager. He feels his pain. He feels that he has a point. He feels that America HAS done wrong. Obama's left wing zealot supporters feel this way anyhow and they supported Obama because this agenda was going to be followed.

[quote="Fiero 5.7"]
Everybody is looking at the Iran thing from what we see on the surface. I believe something very important or dangerous is known to be going on by the powers that be. Whatever it is, Obama felt it was important enough to begin discreet negotiations with Iran before he even took office. You can bet this was going on with the knowledge and approval of the Bush administration. I don't think Obama is real keen on invading, but I think it is viewed as something that they feel may have to be done. A treaty might lull Iran into a false sense of security until forces can be built up to an acceptable level. There's a reason Obama wants the troops out of Iraq faster than his generals are recommending and shifted to Afghanistan. [quote]

He is talking to Iran in advance because he thinks he can defuse this situation by being reasonable. The same mentality Neville Chamberlain had in 1938 when he went to Munich to talk to that chap Hitler, who Neville pointed out at one point "we can do business with him". A couple of years later that business was seaside ventures taking the British Expeditionary Force off the beaches at Dunkirk.

I don't know if Iran is a viable threat past all the bluster but when the leader of a nation vows a genocidal war to wipe another nation state off the map to suit its religious views, and no one questions him in his own nation, then you start wondering if this is a sane person to try to deal with. I think the average Iranian doesn't feel the same way but I do think the Mullahs who ride hurd on this clown have no issues with his agenda AT all. This is a dictatorship with the trappings of a democracy in name only. Therefore anything negotiated has to be seen as a dangerous negotiation. If this goes wrong Obama HAS to have a few cards up his sleeve, such as a possible military action. The issue is tho, like Bill Clinton, will he play those cards? Bush played this poker but didn't heistate when it was time to fight..likely to his detriment politically. I don't want Obama to play this poker game but he has to have the implied threat of the American military. The question is, does anyone actually believe he will do it? I think Fiero your suppositions give Obama much more steel in his back than he has EVER shown. There is little evidence to support this.

Palin will have triplets before Obama uses his military to invade Iran. Furthermore, if you ARE right, the best way to invade Iran for the US Miltary would be from the sea and Iraq, NOT Afghanistan. The infrastructure there sucks, most of the population of Iran is on the west side of the nation, and you need the US Navy and its air cover to deal with the Straits of Hormuz, which the Iranians would try to shut down the second the US so much as looked at them the wrong way. Not even the neo-cons really thought Iran would be an easy fight. It would be the most foolish war the US could fight short of a nuclear conflict.

[Mark in Oshawa]

The perception of her came about by virtue of the fact that she said certain things. No-one else said them - she said them. The mirth that was made of her struck a chord with people. I found it both funny and accurate, and would have done so without any help from this anti-Palin bias that you see in the media. It was, I repeat, all down to her and no-one else. I think you credit those of us who hold this view with too little intelligence. We were perfectly able to make up our own minds about her. All she had to do was open her mouth. I don't see what is so hard to understand about this, apart from the fact that you seem to have begun to, shall we say, read an awful lot into everything.

She said some silly things a few times, but Joe Biden was saying some REALLY dumb stuff at times also and didn't take half the roasting. In fact, Biden has said some of the most silly and insenstive stuff in the last 20 YEARS and was forced to drop out of a Presidential run in 2000 when it was found he was stealing whole sections of speechs from Neil Kinnock. Now if a Republican politician such as Palin did anything this foolish, the US media would be dining out on THAT for YEARS.

You don't see the media games from the perspective over here Mr. Dunnell. If you did, a fair minded person would notice. Trust me, most Republicans AND Democrats ( a lesser number but still a majority) feel that the media in the US does have a bias and how much they pile on DOES show that bias.

[Hondo]

I wonder if Obama is ready to switch parties yet? His own Democratic party isn't doing too much for his image here lately.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I wonder if Obama is ready to switch parties yet? His own Democratic party isn't doing too much for his image here lately.


Fiero..he is a libreal. What chance would have have with the GOP?

[Hondo]

Although he hasn't managed to do anything else useful, now the Exalted Transparent One is going to settle the Kashmir problem. Bless his heart.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a545f3b0-f1f9-11dd-9678-0000779fd2ac.html

Ok world, you wanted him...now you got him. Enjoy.

[BDunnell]

In fact, Biden has said some of the most silly and insenstive stuff in the last 20 YEARS and was forced to drop out of a Presidential run in 2000 when it was found he was stealing whole sections of speechs from Neil Kinnock.

Was that really in 2000? I thought 1988.

[race aficionado]

Although he hasn't managed to do anything else useful, now the Exalted Transparent One is going to settle the Kashmir problem. Bless his heart.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a545f3b0-f1f9-11dd-9678-0000779fd2ac.html

Ok world, you wanted him...now you got him. Enjoy.

Ok, take this with a pinch of salt . . . .

but I think that those of you that voted for President Bush and that therefore were croonies in that debacle, should just sit in your hands and be observant at least for the first 100 days of the incoming president's tenure.

From the moment he took office, some of you can just not shut up and whine for whatever is out there that you don't agree on.

Give your opinions, that can never be taken away, just stop your sometimes arrogant and condescending whinning.

Hey, you had your chance, now let others take charge.

At least give him a chance.
:s mokin:

[Tomi]

Ok, take this with a pinch of salt . . . .

but I think that those of you that voted for President Bush and that therefore were croonies in that debacle, should just sit in your hands and be observant at least for the first 100 days of the incoming president's tenure.

From the moment he took office, some of you can just not shut up and whine for whatever is out there that you don't agree on.

Give your opinions, that can never be taken away, just stop your sometimes arrogant and condescending whinning.

Hey, you had your chance, now let others take charge.

At least give him a chance.
:s mokin:

Agree, after all the guy has not occupied any soverign country or started any wars yet.

[Eki]

Today on the news I heard Obama admit he screwed up in choosing some of his staff and that he tries to learn from mistakes. I think that's good and shows that he's in touch with reality.

Bush never admitted any mistakes and has the illusion that people will realize his "greatness" in the future. To me that seems like a sign of stupidity or a sign of arrogance, and those are both character traits I don't like much.

[Jag_Warrior]

Bush never admitted any mistakes and has the illusion that people will realize his "greatness" in the future. To me that seems like a sign of stupidity or a sign of arrogance, and those are both character traits I don't like much.

What are you talking about, you blasphemer, you?! You just stop your blasphemous blaspheming right now!!!

George W. Bush never made a mistake! Not the first mistake! If the American people had just continued to hitch their wagon to his policies and listened to him (and his neocon handlers), we'd be in great shape now! Don't you let these Obama worshippers tell you otherwise. I'm telling you, George had the plan... man! It was other people, bad people (kind of like "The Others" on Lost) that caused all the problems. It wasn't George.

And history will show all of that to be true. History will right the wrongs done to this great man, George W. Bush. Just like it has for Andrew Johnson, Warren G. Harding and Herbert Hoover. :rolleyes:

We don't need to wait 100 days or 100 minutes to tell us that this half A-rab, commie Nobama is going to ruin our nation! Through visions and dreams, we know that this could be the end of the Republic, if not the end of the world. A big ol' ball of fire might just fly down out of the sky and kill us all... just cause we elected "that one" as President. Good lord, we're all gonna be sorry now!!! I want my vote back! I made a mistake! John McCain would have probably suspended his Presidency for a few weeks while he pondered what to do... and then he would have asked Phil Gramm what to do. Then he would have probably croaked a year into his term. But we'd still be better off than what we've got with Nobama. What with all of that "executive experience" that Sarah Palin has, she would save us all just by incessantly winking and giggling. Her shopping trips alone would stimulate the consumer sector and increase GDP by a point or two. And I tell ya one other thing too. Sarah wouldn't be in there signing all these gosh darn Executive Orders... mainly because she wouldn't know an Executive Order from an executive washroom.

My fellow Americans, the sad day may be approaching where a man can no longer load the Board of Directors with his golfing buddies and pay himself a $10 million bonus on a $5 million salary... while his company loses $10 billion and needs $25 billion from the U.S. taxpayers. This latest Executive Order by that goshdarn commie Nobama is making me sick to my stomach. Duhbya Bush and Hank Paulson would have never let this happen. McCain and Palin would have never let this happen. It's that Nobama crowd! Gosh darn socialists!!! An executive should be able to keep profits and bonuses private, while socializing the losses. What the heck is wrong with that. If the best & brightest minds don't get enough money, they might leave Wall St. and teach school or something. I'm just sick over this. Sick, I tell ya!!!

[race aficionado]

I'm just sick over this. Sick, I tell ya!!!

Chill Jag.

Just take 4 alka zeltzers and see if the sky hasn't fallen in the mornin'.

peace dammit!
:s mokin:

[Jag_Warrior]

Chill Jag.

Just take 4 alka zeltzers and see if the sky hasn't fallen in the mornin'.

peace dammit!
:s mokin:

Yeah, you're right. Let me hit those Alka Seltzers and count to 5. I just get wound up when people start downing my man, George W. Bush - the greatest President of our time. When I think of all that W. Bush has done for the United States, no, the world, man, it just brings tears to my eyes. ;)


That old nasty Obama is just messing everything up! Everything!!! You heard that he's planning to free O.J., haven't you? Yeah, man, it's true!!! I read it on the innernut... it's GOT to be true!

Oh man, we're all gonna die... we're all gonna die! We're gonna be punished for this! Nobama is messing everything up in the first two weeks! Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh.... :bigcry:

[Easy Drifter]

Careful Jag. Eki will probably think you are serious!!!!! :uhoh: :rotflmao:

[Camelopard]

Careful Jag. Eki will probably think you are serious!!!!! :uhoh: :rotflmao:


Isn't he?




(said very much tongue in cheek....... :) )

[BDunnell]

Jag_Warrior, your posts continue to delight.

[steve_spackman]

http://www.iousathemovie.com/

[Mark in Oshawa]

Well lets see. Obama has picked three people who haven't paid their taxes including the proposed Treasury Secretary for his cabinet. He has spent a ton of political capital trying to get a stimulus package where only 10 % of nearly a trillion dollars will be spent in the next year ( by the time money is spent, the recession will either be the abyss or over). He did this by ranting on national TV.

So far...2 weeks and he already is starting to push the panic buttons. The only smart move he made was putting Hillary into the Sec. of State role.

Oh ya...cancelling the trial until he can "find the right judge" of the guy who pretty much admitted being behind the attack on the USS Cole.

You know..Y'all wanted to elect Nancy Pelosi Jag, you should have.....

[BDunnell]

Well lets see. Obama has picked three people who haven't paid their taxes including the proposed Treasury Secretary for his cabinet.

And admitted his mistake in a straightforward way, which I personally find refreshing from any politician of any persuasion.

[Jag_Warrior]

You know..Y'all wanted to elect Nancy Pelosi Jag, you should have.....

Huh? :confused:

[Mark in Oshawa]

Huh? :confused:

So far the stimulus package was pretty much written by Nancy Pelosi, and most of those he picked for the cabinet are sure as heck are not going to be opposed by Ms. Pelosi. Apparently Obama is mad at all the pork in the stimulus package but he was still out rubberhosing the Senators to pass it. Seems to me he aint wearing the pants in this relationship....

I expected more Jag. I figured when push came to shove he would reign in Congress but they are running around spending money like they can print it without penalty.

AS for his admitting error Mr. Dunnell, you wont see too much more of THAT. Shame because it sounded like he meant it. The problem is you do that too often and people wonder why they voted for you...

[Jag_Warrior]

So far the stimulus package was pretty much written by Nancy Pelosi, and most of those he picked for the cabinet are sure as heck are not going to be opposed by Ms. Pelosi. Apparently Obama is mad at all the pork in the stimulus package but he was still out rubberhosing the Senators to pass it. Seems to me he aint wearing the pants in this relationship....

I expected more Jag. I figured when push came to shove he would reign in Congress but they are running around spending money like they can print it without penalty.

Pelosi is the Speaker of the House and that's where bills begin. But Pelosi lost 11 Democrats and all the Republicans in the House with her Christmas wishlist. The House version of the bill was dead on arrival when it got to the Senate. What came out of the Senate last night was anything but what Pelosi and her minions came up with in the House. Already, 3 Republicans in the Senate have signed on to what was proposed by the Senate. The Senate will make a final vote next week, the two bodies will craft legislation that both can agree on and it will be sent to Obama for his signature... or veto. Those are the same rules (pants) that every other President has had.

Tell ya what, if Pelosi's pet contraceptive project (a free condom for every teenager, or whatever it was) is in the final bill that is presented to Obama, then maybe she does wear the pants. If it's not, then it's safe to say she may be about to lose her skirt. Reid is said to be in the hot seat, as Senate Majority Leader, over the Burris affair. Now Pelosi appears to be a weak Speaker of the House, and she may suffer the same fate. The House has always been known to have more kooks than the Senate. But Pelosi is the cream of the kook crop, IMO. Putting her in that position satisfied the feminist crowd. But it may prove to be a mistake for the Dems overall.

She's faaaaar from being some version of Tip O'Neill in a dress. I'd say Pelosi will be cast aside once her silliness costs the Dems votes/seats in 2010... and I believe it will. She has apparently already caught the eye of Obama's hitman, Rahm Emanuel. Many are saying that the Republicans' talking points on the porkulus bill, using Pelosi as a poster girl, were developed by... Rahm Emanuel. :eek: Along with Fox News, even liberal MSNBC is on that trail.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I just never have seen a guy get elected and have so many people on his own side hijacking his agenda...

Pelosi is the Speaker of the House and that's where bills begin. But Pelosi lost 11 Democrats and all the Republicans in the House with her Christmas wishlist. The House version of the bill was dead on arrival when it got to the Senate. What came out of the Senate last night was anything but what Pelosi and her minions came up with in the House. Already, 3 Republicans in the Senate have signed on to what was proposed by the Senate. The Senate will make a final vote next week, the two bodies will craft legislation that both can agree on and it will be sent to Obama for his signature... or veto. Those are the same rules (pants) that every other President has had.

Tell ya what, if Pelosi's pet contraceptive project (a free condom for every teenager, or whatever it was) is in the final bill that is presented to Obama, then maybe she does wear the pants. If it's not, then it's safe to say she may be about to lose her skirt. Reid is said to be in the hot seat, as Senate Majority Leader, over the Burris affair. Now Pelosi appears to be a weak Speaker of the House, and she may suffer the same fate. The House has always been known to have more kooks than the Senate. But Pelosi is the cream of the kook crop, IMO. Putting her in that position satisfied the feminist crowd. But it may prove to be a mistake for the Dems overall.

She's faaaaar from being some version of Tip O'Neill in a dress. I'd say Pelosi will be cast aside once her silliness costs the Dems votes/seats in 2010... and I believe it will. She has apparently already caught the eye of Obama's hitman, Rahm Emanuel. Many are saying that the Republicans' talking points on the porkulus bill, using Pelosi as a poster girl, were developed by... Rahm Emanuel. :eek: Along with Fox News, even liberal MSNBC is on that trail.

[Hondo]

After all the primaries and campaigning, the Wall Street Journal has either finally figured out Obama's press conferences are a rigged show, or is just now working up the backbone to announce it to the public.''

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123431418276770899.html

Gee, I wonder why the newspapers are dying.

[Hondo]

Senator Gregg withdrawls his nomination. It looks like another one has finally woken up to what Obama is, what he isn't, and the direction he intends to go.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96A9C8O1&show_article=1&catnum=0

Senator Gregg wants no part of it.

[chuck34]

Agree, after all the guy has not occupied any soverign country or started any wars yet.

Maybe he hasn't started any, but he is still IN TWO! And with no plans to get out, none the less. Perhaps he got into the Oval Office, heard all the REAL intel., and decided that maybe Bush wasn't so far off.

Nah, that couldn't possibly be the case. We've all been told time and time again about how much of a moron W is.

[steve_spackman]

Maybe he hasn't started any, but he is still IN TWO! And with no plans to get out, none the less. Perhaps he got into the Oval Office, heard all the REAL intel., and decided that maybe Bush wasn't so far off.

Nah, that couldn't possibly be the case. We've all been told time and time again about how much of a moron W is.

you dont think he is a moron??? What drugs you on?

[Jag_Warrior]

After placing himself in the pool for Commerce Secretary, Judd Gregg decides to jump out of the pool.

Dumb? Confused? Both?

I say both. He knew that he would have philosophical differences with the Obama Administration before he floated his name. But I believe that the situation over the upcoming census, combined with the pressure that the GOP put on Gregg for "playing for the other team" made him crack.

But IMO this was also another screwup on Obama's part, for nominating a person to head an agency that he'd once wanted to abolish. This would have been like the days of James Watt as the Secretary of the Interior. In any case, at this stage, the United States does not need a man with a weak spine in a cabinet level post. I say that Obama should give Jack Welsh a call. :up:

[Jag_Warrior]

Maybe he hasn't started any, but he is still IN TWO! And with no plans to get out, none the less. Perhaps he got into the Oval Office, heard all the REAL intel., and decided that maybe Bush wasn't so far off.

Nah, that couldn't possibly be the case. We've all been told time and time again about how much of a moron W is.

He's been in office for all of what, three weeks? How fast do you think he could get troops out of either country??? :confused:

All we've done in Iraq is make a nice staging base for the Iranians in the next 5-10 years. One of the reasons I voted for Bush in 2000 was because he said he did not believe in nation building. Well, maybe he didn't, but I guess the neocons who held his leash did... so here we are. Course, now that I think about it, he may have had that trademark dopey smirk on his face when he said that. So maybe it was my fault for misunderstanding his (true) intentions.

As for Afghanistan (the place that we did have a bone to pick), that war has been mismanaged to the point that there may no longer be a way to keep the lid from blowing off. So Bush devoted our resources to a war where we had no fight, wasted the opportunity against the Taliban and neglected the war where we did have a (legitimate) fight.

It would be hard to argue that Bush was(is) not a moron, considering the Mess in the Middle East that he got us in. In addition to never finding Big Boss Osama, W. Bush was the best recruiting tool al Qaeda ever had. I bet they miss him. I know I sure as hell don't.

[Hondo]

So much for the promise of being able to examine the "Stimulus Bill" for 48 hours before it goes to a vote.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30697

If Bush pulled or tried to pull even half the crap Obama is doing already, just 3 weeks in, people and the media would be howling. Eki wouldn't have slept since the election...he'd have been online the whole time.

[Hondo]

Obama could start pulling troops out of Iraq tomorrow. It will be no more stable 16 months from now than it is at the present time. There is too much sect\ethnic animosity in Iraq for it to ever be peaceful by ballot. Toss in the Jihadists from inside and outside and you've got a non-stop mess. Ought to go ahead and leave now.

Maybe give them George W. to run the place, it was his idea.

[chuck34]

He's been in office for all of what, three weeks? How fast do you think he could get troops out of either country??? :confused:

All we've done in Iraq is make a nice staging base for the Iranians in the next 5-10 years. One of the reasons I voted for Bush in 2000 was because he said he did not believe in nation building. Well, maybe he didn't, but I guess the neocons who held his leash did... so here we are. Course, now that I think about it, he may have had that trademark dopey smirk on his face when he said that. So maybe it was my fault for misunderstanding his (true) intentions.

As for Afghanistan (the place that we did have a bone to pick), that war has been mismanaged to the point that there may no longer be a way to keep the lid from blowing off. So Bush devoted our resources to a war where we had no fight, wasted the opportunity against the Taliban and neglected the war where we did have a (legitimate) fight.

It would be hard to argue that Bush was(is) not a moron, considering the Mess in the Middle East that he got us in. In addition to never finding Big Boss Osama, W. Bush was the best recruiting tool al Qaeda ever had. I bet they miss him. I know I sure as hell don't.

*sigh*

I didn't realize that I had stumbled on the Daily Kos site.

Yes he's only been in office for 3 weeks. So I guess that means that he has only been thinking about what to do for the past 3 weeks? No, he's been campaigning for two years. And campaigning on pulling us out of Iraq and putting more troops into Afganistan. Yet 3 weeks into office and he has NO PLAN. None, zip, ziltch, nada.

The American public needs to wake up and smell the Socialism. Do some thinking for yourself. Don't just watch the nightly news. Look into things on your own. Here's a good place to start:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs

Soylent Green anyone?

[BDunnell]

Yes he's only been in office for 3 weeks. So I guess that means that he has only been thinking about what to do for the past 3 weeks? No, he's been campaigning for two years. And campaigning on pulling us out of Iraq and putting more troops into Afganistan. Yet 3 weeks into office and he has NO PLAN. None, zip, ziltch, nada.

Nobody expected an immediate withdrawal, and I'm not sure where this notion came from. I do expect a withdrawal from Iraq, but in the first three weeks of the administration? No way. That expectation is simply absurd.



The American public needs to wake up and smell the Socialism.

Call Obama's intentions socialist? You clearly have no idea what socialism actually means (the definition is a bit more complex than 'anything that can't be classed as conservative'), just like a lot of right-wing Americans mis-use the world liberal.

[chuck34]

Nobody expected an immediate withdrawal, and I'm not sure where this notion came from. I do expect a withdrawal from Iraq, but in the first three weeks of the administration? No way. That expectation is simply absurd.



Call Obama's intentions socialist? You clearly have no idea what socialism actually means (the definition is a bit more complex than 'anything that can't be classed as conservative'), just like a lot of right-wing Americans mis-use the world liberal.

I'm not expecting an immediate withdrawal. I don't even think that an expedited withdrawal is in anyone's best interest. I'm completly on the other side on this one. All I'm saying is that this was Obama's CENTERPIECE of his campaign, and he doesn't even have a FREAKING PLAN! Even his get out in 16 months "plan" is now on hold.

Did you even read the article? Doctors being told how to treat me, old people being told to "deal with it, you're old", sick people being left out of experimental drug trials because they are too sick. I don't know what YOU would call that, but I call it too much government control of my life. If you don't like calling that socialism then how about facism?

[chuck34]

From Wikipedia, I know it's not the best source for these things, but it's fast

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal opportunities for all individuals with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation.

Fascism is an authoritarian nationalist ideology focused on solving economic, political, and social problems that its supporters see as causing national decline or decadence.

Take your pick, they both seem to fit this "stimulus" induced nationalised healthcare crap that is being forced down our throats.

[BDunnell]

Did you even read the article? Doctors being told how to treat me, old people being told to "deal with it, you're old", sick people being left out of experimental drug trials because they are too sick. I don't know what YOU would call that, but I call it too much government control of my life. If you don't like calling that socialism then how about facism?

Yes, I did read it. Are you seriously suggesting that none of those things would happen under the right-wing government you crave? If so, I fear you are labouring under a severe misapprehension. And anyone who even suggests fascism when discussing issues such as these loses all credibility in my eyes, for that is not a term to be thrown around lightly, as you do.

[Hondo]

Call Obama's intentions socialist? You clearly have no idea what socialism actually means (the definition is a bit more complex than 'anything that can't be classed as conservative'), just like a lot of right-wing Americans mis-use the world liberal.

He doesn't yet have the means. The Democrats need to get this Stimulus Bill passed to set up the departments and funding for what he wants to do. Actually, so far, Obama has had little to do with anything, He doesn't know what to do or how to go about it. The Stimulus Bill is mainly Pelosi and Reid and other influencial Democrats. When any "good" parts are discussed, it is Obama's bill, when the earmarked and pork parts are dissed, then it's the House Bill.

In three weeks Obama has had many opportunities do things he promised...

No lobbyists-at last count he had put 17 ex lobbyists on his staff.

Transparency-he still hasn't had a legtimate press conference where anyone can ask any question. In fact, he still hasn't answered most questions in a specific manner.

Time for review-he hasn't allowed the prior review time he promised, in the manner he promised, before signing any new legislation.

Those are some of the things he could have done already.

Imagine going to a good to above average English University, selecting one individual from the top 10% of the graduating class, and making them the President of the United States of America. No prior experience necessary, just here you are, you're the man.

That's basically what we've done.

[Hondo]

I forgot....there's just soooooo much. Obama was the one that promised no pork or earmarks in the stimulus bill.

[chuck34]

Yes, I did read it. Are you seriously suggesting that none of those things would happen under the right-wing government you crave? If so, I fear you are labouring under a severe misapprehension. And anyone who even suggests fascism when discussing issues such as these loses all credibility in my eyes, for that is not a term to be thrown around lightly, as you do.

You are seriously suggesting that "right-wing" politicians have been and are pushing for socialised or nationalised health care? Who has purposed such a thing? I must know.

I do not throw terms like fascism around lightly. You tell me what part of the definition I provided does not fit with what the current administration is doing.

[BDunnell]

You are seriously suggesting that "right-wing" politicians have been and are pushing for socialised or nationalised health care? Who has purposed such a thing? I must know.

You cited these two things: 'old people being told to "deal with it, you're old", sick people being left out of experimental drug trials because they are too sick'. Now tell me that neither of those things would happen under a right-wing government. You simply cannot.



I do not throw terms like fascism around lightly. You tell me what part of the definition I provided does not fit with what the current administration is doing.

Yes, you are throwing it around lightly. I stand by what I said. Anyone who describes the Obama administration as 'fascist' is being utterly absurd, unless you are genuinely comparing him to the likes of Hitler, Mussolini and Franco. I do not consider the Obama regime to be 'authoritarian'; I do not consider it to be 'nationalist'.

[chuck34]

You cited these two things: 'old people being told to "deal with it, you're old", sick people being left out of experimental drug trials because they are too sick'. Now tell me that neither of those things would happen under a right-wing government. You simply cannot.



Yes, you are throwing it around lightly. I stand by what I said. Anyone who describes the Obama administration as 'fascist' is being utterly absurd, unless you are genuinely comparing him to the likes of Hitler, Mussolini and Franco. I do not consider the Obama regime to be 'authoritarian'; I do not consider it to be 'nationalist'.

I most certainly can and will tell you that old people are not being told by the GOVERNMENT that they can not participate in drug trials. If they are left out currently that would be the drug companies making a business decision. But not one Republican congressman, senator, governer or anything else is proposing any sort of government control over health care. You are the one with the burdon of proof here. It is well known that Republicans do not favor nationalised health care, you are stating otherwise. Therefore you must back that up with something. So far you have nothing.

I am not comparing Obama to those people. But to say that his policies do not have a hint of fascism to them is being naive. And if you do not consider the Obama regime to be "autoritarian" what do you call it when the government tells your doctor how they can treat you and with what drugs?

[BDunnell]

I most certainly can and will tell you that old people are not being told by the GOVERNMENT that they can not participate in drug trials. If they are left out currently that would be the drug companies making a business decision. But not one Republican congressman, senator, governer or anything else is proposing any sort of government control over health care. You are the one with the burdon of proof here. It is well known that Republicans do not favor nationalised health care, you are stating otherwise. Therefore you must back that up with something. So far you have nothing.

I didn't actually say that the Republicans favour nationalised health care, because I know full well they do not. Where did I do so? I was referring to your specific comments, the connection of which with socialism seemed and seems vague at best.



I am not comparing Obama to those people. But to say that his policies do not have a hint of fascism to them is being naive.

No, I am not being naive at all, but those such as yourself who suggest that there is a hint of fascism to his policies are being sensationalist, scaremongering, historically inaccurate or worse.



And if you do not consider the Obama regime to be "autoritarian" what do you call it when the government tells your doctor how they can treat you and with what drugs?

It may be unwise, but it is not authoritarian.

[chuck34]

I didn't actually say that the Republicans favour nationalised health care, because I know full well they do not. Where did I do so? I was referring to your specific comments, the connection of which with socialism seemed and seems vague at best.



No, I am not being naive at all, but those such as yourself who suggest that there is a hint of fascism to his policies are being sensationalist, scaremongering, historically inaccurate or worse.



It may be unwise, but it is not authoritarian.

You're right, you did not say "Republicans favor nationalised health care", but you did say "Are you seriously suggesting that none of those things would happen under the right-wing government you crave?" To me that is pretty much the same thing. You are suggesting that a "right-wing government" (in the US that means pretty much Republican) would do the same thing as the Democrats are doing with their health care proposals. I have no idea how you can possibly think this way. It is a clear cut free market vs government control issue.

If you think I am "scaremongering" then please tell me how this proposed government health care control does not fit into the definition of fascism that I gave earlier? It most certainly is an "authoritarian nationalist ideology focused on solving economic, political, and social problems that its supporters see as causing national decline or decadence." If it doesn't fit that definition then I'll be the first to say I'm sorry. But they are trying to solve an economic crisis, they are justifying this by saying that it will save costs. Medical coverage is seen as a social problem because the poor can't afford the "gold plated" coverage that the fat cats get. And they are trying to stop decadence of the fat cats that they think is causing the national decline of the US. Fits perfectly.

How the hell do you define "authoritarian"? Again from Wiki: Authoritarianism describes a form of government characterized by an emphasis on the authority of the state in a republic or union. In this case the STATE has the AUTHORITY to tell doctors how to treat their patients. How is that not authoritarian???????

[BDunnell]

You're right, you did not say "Republicans favor nationalised health care", but you did say "Are you seriously suggesting that none of those things would happen under the right-wing government you crave?" To me that is pretty much the same thing. You are suggesting that a "right-wing government" (in the US that means pretty much Republican) would do the same thing as the Democrats are doing with their health care proposals. I have no idea how you can possibly think this way. It is a clear cut free market vs government control issue.

If you think I am "scaremongering" then please tell me how this proposed government health care control does not fit into the definition of fascism that I gave earlier? It most certainly is an "authoritarian nationalist ideology focused on solving economic, political, and social problems that its supporters see as causing national decline or decadence." If it doesn't fit that definition then I'll be the first to say I'm sorry. But they are trying to solve an economic crisis, they are justifying this by saying that it will save costs. Medical coverage is seen as a social problem because the poor can't afford the "gold plated" coverage that the fat cats get. And they are trying to stop decadence of the fat cats that they think is causing the national decline of the US. Fits perfectly.

How the hell do you define "authoritarian"? Again from Wiki: Authoritarianism describes a form of government characterized by an emphasis on the authority of the state in a republic or union. In this case the STATE has the AUTHORITY to tell doctors how to treat their patients. How is that not authoritarian???????

I would take authoritarian to be a highly negative term, as opposed to blandly descriptive.

[chuck34]

I would take authoritarian to be a highly negative term, as opposed to blandly descriptive.

Ok so take the connotations out of the words fascism, socialism, and authoritarian. Take a look at the meaning of the actual words. Then tell me these programs don't fit.

I want to be clear here for a second. I do not think that Obama is a fascist, or a socialist (in my mind there really isn't too much difference between the two, it's a blurry line IMHO), or an authoritarian. However, I very jealosly guard my freedoms. And I see some of the proposed programs starting to nip away at the freedoms Americans have enjoyed for the last 233 years. Those freedoms are what have made this a great nation, and I do not want to see that change.

[BDunnell]

Ok so take the connotations out of the words fascism, socialism, and authoritarian. Take a look at the meaning of the actual words. Then tell me these programs don't fit.

I want to be clear here for a second. I do not think that Obama is a fascist, or a socialist (in my mind there really isn't too much difference between the two, it's a blurry line IMHO), or an authoritarian. However, I very jealosly guard my freedoms. And I see some of the proposed programs starting to nip away at the freedoms Americans have enjoyed for the last 233 years. Those freedoms are what have made this a great nation, and I do not want to see that change.

We all value our freedoms, and as a European I'm afraid I do find the peculiarly American obsession with the notion hard to understand or even sometimes to stomach, because it seems to be predicated on the notion that the USA guards and seeks to uphold its freedoms in a fashion that is uniquely powerful whereas other countries don't care to such an extent. This is completely untrue. More specifically, I simply do not place socialised healthcare in this bracket, because I do not believe in the innate superiority of the private sector in delivering good service, as has been demonstrated on many occasions in the UK.

And as for those definitions, I have nothing to add to what I said before. I still find your use of language highly immoderate.

[Hondo]

Here we go...rushing the vote with no chance of examination.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashpr.htm

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30700

Yeah, I trust these people.

[Hondo]

Time for the poor Ms. Hughs 37 year old son to get off his a$$, get a job, and start earning at least part of a living. Tip of the iceberg.

[chuck34]

We all value our freedoms, and as a European I'm afraid I do find the peculiarly American obsession with the notion hard to understand or even sometimes to stomach, because it seems to be predicated on the notion that the USA guards and seeks to uphold its freedoms in a fashion that is uniquely powerful whereas other countries don't care to such an extent. This is completely untrue. More specifically, I simply do not place socialised healthcare in this bracket, because I do not believe in the innate superiority of the private sector in delivering good service, as has been demonstrated on many occasions in the UK.

And as for those definitions, I have nothing to add to what I said before. I still find your use of language highly immoderate.

I have never said that other nations do not care about their freedoms. And what does that have to do with any of this.

You don't believe in the innate superiority of the private sector in delivering goods and services, and that is fine you don't have to. Just as I don't have to believe that the government has an innate superiority in delivering goods and services. Everyone seems to think that the UK has some sort of supperior health care system. I don't see it. Perhaps their "poor" are better taken care of than ours, and I agree that something should be done here to help out the less fortunate. All I ask is please don't f-up what I've got. I have fairly good health care. Admittedly, I pay too much but I never have to wait for care, nor do I have to worry about some government entity comming in and telling my doctor that he is doing things "wrong".

Ok you find my language "highly immoderate", that's fine. A) that's sort of what I was going for. Sometimes people need to be shocked into seeing the truth. B) how would you describe these proposals?

[chuck34]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again and again. You cannot give anyone anything without first taking it from someone else.

Note: That's not actually my quote, but I don't remember who said it.

[Hondo]

Most of our representatives were lawyers in their pre -political lives.

If you went to any one of them complaining that you were screwed on a deal you had signed without reading and understanding the contract imagine how stupid they would let you know you were for signing a contract you hadn't read or reviewed.

Now they are about to do the same for hundreds of billions on dollars.

Jeeeezzzzzzz.

[BDunnell]

I have never said that other nations do not care about their freedoms. And what does that have to do with any of this.

Because you brought the 'defence of freedom' into the argument, and I do not equate Obama's health policies with any erosion of basic rights - again, I think you are being over-emotive - so I believe my comments to be relevant.



Ok you find my language "highly immoderate", that's fine. A) that's sort of what I was going for. Sometimes people need to be shocked into seeing the truth. B) how would you describe these proposals?

A) To me, you do your arguments no favours by using the language you choose to employ. B) I don't know whether they are right or wrong for dealing with the situation at hand. I have been careful not to offer a judgement on them, beyond voicing the view that they are neither fascist nor authoritarian, and I stand by that. They may either be wise or unwise. I don't know. But I do know that they do not fit what I believe to be a reasonable contexual definition of the terms you used.

[chuck34]

Because you brought the 'defence of freedom' into the argument, and I do not equate Obama's health policies with any erosion of basic rights - again, I think you are being over-emotive - so I believe my comments to be relevant.



A) To me, you do your arguments no favours by using the language you choose to employ. B) I don't know whether they are right or wrong for dealing with the situation at hand. I have been careful not to offer a judgement on them, beyond voicing the view that they are neither fascist nor authoritarian, and I stand by that. They may either be wise or unwise. I don't know. But I do know that they do not fit what I believe to be a reasonable contexual definition of the terms you used.


I still never said that Americans have the corner on the market of freedoms. I do think we have some unique freedoms that make us "special" but that doesn't necessarily mean better. And I am not being over-emotive. Government control of health care, by definition, is taking control from the private sector and giving it to the government. In my view there are very few instances where government control is a good thing. Sorry that doesn't fit with your views.

Fine my language doesn't fit with what you would like. That's ok with me. But I think it got you thinking about things, and that's the point.

I am passing judgement on this legislation. Since it directly effects me, I do not have the luxury of sitting back and seeing how things go.

[BDunnell]

I still never said that Americans have the corner on the market of freedoms. I do think we have some unique freedoms that make us "special" but that doesn't necessarily mean better. And I am not being over-emotive. Government control of health care, by definition, is taking control from the private sector and giving it to the government. In my view there are very few instances where government control is a good thing. Sorry that doesn't fit with your views.

There is no need to apologise!

[race aficionado]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again and again. You cannot give anyone anything without first taking it from someone else.

Note: That's not actually my quote, but I don't remember who said it.

That person that quoted it and you who subscribes by it, don't understand the concept of "Sharing" - and you associate it with "taking away from someone else".

No, no. The concept of sharing comes when we are aware that the majority of our human brothers and sisters are in deep trouble - and again, this awareness comes to us when we actually realize that we are in this together as one humanity that inhabits this planet Earth - which is actually not doing that well either.

. . . . . oh oh! I'm opening myself to be branded as a liberal hippy socialist, commy, dangerous, trouble making dreamer.

Whatever! :dozey:

Hold on to your pantalones chuck, Obama inherited a mess never experienced before and, like our president Barack Obama reminds us, it's going to take some bumps in the road, some mistakes - including of course some great decisions - to get us out of this gigantic crap hole.

It is indeed a bumpy ride.
:s mokin:

[chuck34]

That person that quoted it and you who subscribes by it, don't understand the concept of "Sharing" - and you associate it with "taking away from someone else".

No, no. The concept of sharing comes when we are aware that the majority of our human brothers and sisters are in deep trouble - and again, this awareness comes to us when we actually realize that we are in this together as one humanity that inhabits this planet Earth - which is actually not doing that well either.

. . . . . oh oh! I'm opening myself to be branded as a liberal hippy socialist, commy, dangerous, trouble making dreamer.

Whatever! :dozey:

Hold on to your pantalones chuck, Obama inherited a mess never experienced before and, like our president Barack Obama reminds us, it's going to take some bumps in the road, some mistakes - including of course some great decisions - to get us out of this gigantic crap hole.

It is indeed a bumpy ride.
:s mokin:

So it is sharing if the neighborhood bully comes over to you, threatens to beat you up if you don't give him your lunch money, you give it to him, then he gives it to his buddy. That is your definition of sharing?

I donate quite a bit of my money to the charities that I see can make a difference in my community. That is how I share. If I see someone in need, I tend to help them. That is how I share. I don't need the government to come in and force me to share with people I don't want to share with. The government taking my hard earned money (and I work hard for my money have no doubt about that) and wasting it away on project that have questionable "stimulative" merits is not my idea of sharing. I suppose that make me mean and evil according to you doesn't it?

If you think that the majority of our human brothers and sisters are in deep trouble then you have a completely different outlook on life than I do. In the US the unemployment rate is only 7.6%. Sure that's way too high, but it is no where near the majority.

Of course Obama inherited this mess. But does that really matter now? Bush inherited a recession as well. He got us out of it, not by grabbing all the power he could, but by allowing people to keep more of their own money. That is the problem with most "liberal types" you don't understand that it is our money, not the governments.

And are you sure that we have never experienced anything like this before? Wow I was unaware that this was worse than the Great Depression on the recession of the late 50's early 60's, or the one in the late 70's early 80's, or the one in the early 2000's. Wow we have never had a recession before, thanks for setting me straight. Oh by the way, how did we pull ourselves out of those other "non-existant" recessions?

[race aficionado]

So it is sharing if the neighborhood bully comes over to you, threatens to beat you up if you don't give him your lunch money, you give it to him, then he gives it to his buddy. That is your definition of sharing?

Say what??????


I donate quite a bit of my money to the charities that I see can make a difference in my community. That is how I share. If I see someone in need, I tend to help them. That is how I share. I don't need the government to come in and force me to share with people I don't want to share with. The government taking my hard earned money (and I work hard for my money have no doubt about that) and wasting it away on project that have questionable "stimulative" merits is not my idea of sharing. I suppose that make me mean and evil according to you doesn't it?
I called you evil????? Donating to charitable causes is a very noble endeavor.


If you think that the majority of our human brothers and sisters are in deep trouble then you have a completely different outlook on life than I do. In the US the unemployment rate is only 7.6%. Sure that's way too high, but it is no where near the majority.
Things are bad out there chuck. 7.6% is big by the way and the troubles experienced right now are more than on the unemployment front.


Of course Obama inherited this mess. But does that really matter now? Bush inherited a recession as well. He got us out of it, not by grabbing all the power he could, but by allowing people to keep more of their own money. That is the problem with most "liberal types" you don't understand that it is our money, not the governments.
Bush inherited a recession? man! I thought that after the Clinton era we had a lot of money to invest and share amongst ourselves.


And are you sure that we have never experienced anything like this before? Wow I was unaware that this was worse than the Great Depression on the recession of the late 50's early 60's, or the one in the late 70's early 80's, or the one in the early 2000's. Wow we have never had a recession before, thanks for setting me straight. Oh by the way, how did we pull ourselves out of those other "non-existant" recessions?
Wooops! You got me there. :dozey:
As I've stated always, I am no economist but I do know that what we are living right now is unlike anything else that we have lived before. What happens here affects other parts of the world as well - the world economies are intertwined and the actions of the global stock market casinos continue to cause effects when they give their "opinions" on presidential decisions when they fluctuate those up and down arrows.

Like I said, I'm no economist but I sure hope that President Obama's economists are making the right decisions.
:s mokin:

[chuck34]

1) Say what??????

2) I called you evil????? Donating to charitable causes is a very noble endeavor.

3) Things are bad out there chuck. 7.6% is big by the way and the troubles experienced right now are more than on the unemployment front.

4) Bush inherited a recession? man! I thought that after the Clinton era we had a lot of money to invest and share amongst ourselves.

5) Wooops! You got me there. :dozey:
As I've stated always, I am no economist but I do know that what we are living right now is unlike anything else that we have lived before. What happens here affects other parts of the world as well - the world economies are intertwined and the actions of the global stock market casinos continue to cause effects when they give their "opinions" on presidential decisions when they fluctuate those up and down arrows.

6) Like I said, I'm no economist but I sure hope that President Obama's economists are making the right decisions.
:s mokin:


1) It's an analogy, the bully is the government, the lunch money is your pay check, and his buddy is who ever he's giving the money to.

2) You didn't call me evil, just a bit of a saying I guess. And donating to charities is very noble. But if the gov. takes more of my money, I have less to give. You see the problem, don't you?

3) You don't have to tell me things are bad. But you said a majority of people are in deep trouble. I sure don't see a majority, a lot to be sure, but not a majority. I try to see the good side of things, I'm not always seeing the down side of things.

4) Need to read up on some things there bub. Ever hear of the internet bubble? Or the recession of 2001?

5) Again tell me how this is "unlike anything else that we have lived before". We have gone through these things before and we will again. You are absolutely right that teh stock markets give their opinions on presidential decsions. By the way how did they react after Geitner gave his "plan" the other day?

6) I am not an economist either. But I do consider myself a student of history. And so far Obama is doing everything that has failed previously. But you keep on hoping that he's doing the right thing. I'll keep hoping I'm wrong because if I'm right we're all screwed, but if I'm wrong we all win.

[BDunnell]

Bush inherited a recession as well. He got us out of it, not by grabbing all the power he could, but by allowing people to keep more of their own money. That is the problem with most "liberal types" you don't understand that it is our money, not the governments.

Was it genuinely, i.e. technically, a recession?

And clearly the economic policies of the Bush administration did not create a long-lasting economic boom, unless you are absolving all governments from responsibility for the current crisis.

[chuck34]

Was it genuinely, i.e. technically, a recession?

And clearly the economic policies of the Bush administration did not create a long-lasting economic boom, unless you are absolving all governments from responsibility for the current crisis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2000s_recession

Sorry once again for the wiki, but they are pretty good for getting quick info for a starting point.

And you are right that the Bush economic policies were not "long-lasting". But it is more complicated than just saying this economy cratered under Bush. Carter, Regan, Bush I, and Clinton all had a hand in it. Look up the Community Reinvestment act of 1977. And no one seems to want to give Bush (or McCain for that matter) any credit for seeing this comming. On at least three different occasions this "housing bubble" was brought to the attention of congress and each time they were basically laughed out of the chamber. Sure Bush and the Republicans should have pushed it harder and more often, but they did try.

Oh while you're looking stuff up, look up Mark to Market Accounting.

[Alexamateo]

And clearly the economic policies of the Bush administration did not create a long-lasting economic boom, unless you are absolving all governments from responsibility for the current crisis.

Here's a few thoughts about booms and economy and such:

First, the best thing that has happened in the past 25-30 years was Ronald Reagan reducing the top marginal rates from 70% to 50% then 33% and it eventually got as low as 28%. Nothing else did as much to encourage investment and help fuel the booms we have had.

Now, what policy does is set the framework in which the economy exists. Reagan's and Bush I's tax cuts set the table for investment which combined with revolutions in technology and internet. That created a boomtime which also coincided with some of the lowest fuel prices adjusted for inflation we have ever seen. Mix policy and outside historical forces and you get a super boom.

Now, Clinton inherits this and raises the marginal rates to 39% and we get budget surpluses. The best thing Clinton did on the economy was to stay out of the way, and he did. The raised tax rates did drag the economy some, but I cannot say they were that bad. IMO the top marginal rate should be 33% so really it's not too far off. The early 2000's recession was really caused not by policy, but the end of the tech boom, which is inevitable with the maturation of any industry.

To be honest, I think whatever taxcuts Bush has done have had minimal effect(rates are now 35%). I support them because I feel they should be lowered to 33%, and it's always good to let people spend their money as they choose.

I sell in the construction industry so I am keen on this. This boom has occurred because of the housing market, but for me it never felt quite right and in hindsight, I am gradually coming to a conclusion why. My theory is that investors were still looking for fantastic growth after the tech bubble. Hey, real estate is always good so people started looking there. Meanwhile deregulation has created all sorts of new financial products with mortgage backed securities and collateralized debt obligations to sell to people that no one really understands. On the otherhand you have congress forcing the hands of lenders to lend to folks who might otherwise not qualify for loans. Banks don't want to hold this risk so they package them up to supposedly minimize the risk into the aforementioned securutized mortgages and voila! a recipe for disaster.

Finally, I believe investors started looking to commodities to make a fast buck after the housing bubble. That finally forced the full blown recession we are in now by driving up the fuel costs. In a way, It's actually a relief because I feel like things will get back to their true value now. The biggest thing we suffer from now is irrational pessimism (In the tech boom we had irrational exhuberence) The only thing i truly hope for is that the Obama administration doesn't prolong this recession, like Roosevelt prolonged the one in the 30's. Honestly, the best thing any government can do is to set the framework so that we can succeed or fail on a more or less level playing field, and then get out of the way.

[Tazio]

Chuck I hope you haven't forgotten that our government is "by the people," and "for the people!"
When the previous administration drained our coffers, I was not happy. But as a duly designated and elected president
I acknowledged he had the right and the (and I'll use this term loosely) the will of the people of this country!
Now another man is president, and along with the Senate and Congress
have been elected "by the people", and "for the people".
The term bully is a misrepresentation of a political system addressing a problem that they believe
best benefits the people! That's the way the song goes.
Peace bro,

[Hondo]

You just have to love these idiots. Many of you may remember me stating many times that what governments say in public, is not necessarily their official position. Anybody that lets the sun shine on their head even now and then probably already knows that. Sometimes governments have to take a certain stand in public to keep the peace at home or to keep an ally happy, while through diplomatic channels they applaud or protest the action.

I have also said that once a new president is elected he becomes privy to information he never knew before and is made aware of the big picture.

Everybody is aware of the USA's alledged attacks on terrorists and anybody standing around them by unmanned, missle firing drone aircraft in Pakistan. A missle hits a target and the Pakistanian government protests and gets all kinds of angry. It has been an effective system.

Now, the new head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, idiot Senator Diane Feinstein, of California of course, let it slip out of her own lips in public that these drones have been taking off and landing from Pakistan all along. Oooops!

Nice going Diane, I'm sure the Pakistanian government appreciates the position you just put them in with that little gem. Was it you that added the $30 million to the stimulus bill to protect the salt marsh mouse in San Francisco? How many jobs is that going to create?

[Hondo]

We just spent $787 Billion Dollars on....on....well, uh.....Nobody knows because nobody has read the entire bill!

LOL! We are truly a nation of fools.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Well... you guys has a bill passed for 787 BILLION dollars that no one had the time to read because the Speaker of the House is flying to Europe for a photo op and had to have this all done for her photo op in Washington signing the bill. Nice....


Meanwhile, they are spending a whack of money in the Speaker's home district to save a MOUSE. That'll help the economy fer sure.

Man...I had hope for Obama not letting the looney tunes write his agenda but it seems he is powerless to stop them.

Why does this matter to me, a Canucklehead? Simple. If the US economy tanks, it takes my country down too.

BTW, 7.6% unemployment is bad for the US, but Canada had 6.8% it for about 4 years in a "Boom" time so it is relatively tame so far. What bothers me it could be the tip of the ice berg.

What people should look up is the fact the US economy dumped in the sewer in 1920 and the government then did virtually nothing and by 1922 the boom was back. These cycles go back to boom if you just keep your hands of the steering wheel and let the momentum carry the country through it. The worst economic screwups of the last century were in the 30's and 70's and both Canada and the US had inteventionist leaders who kept the budget in the red and both nations suffered. When Reagan was elected, by 82 the US was in full recovery mode yet Canada didn't get rid of Trudeau til the mid 80's and our economy lagged for a good portion of it. Trudeau, Like Carter, and Roosevelt in the 30's kept trying to "manage" the economy.

So I , like my friends Chuck and Fiero watch this with disdain, because while I may see a role for government, it is clear to me whether it be Obama or anyone else, they do not know the limitiations of government in being able to "stimulate" the economy and it sure aint going to happen by spending money preserving a habitat for a freaking mouse.....

[Jag_Warrior]

*sigh*

I didn't realize that I had stumbled on the Daily Kos site.

Yes he's only been in office for 3 weeks. So I guess that means that he has only been thinking about what to do for the past 3 weeks? No, he's been campaigning for two years. And campaigning on pulling us out of Iraq and putting more troops into Afganistan. Yet 3 weeks into office and he has NO PLAN. None, zip, ziltch, nada.

The American public needs to wake up and smell the Socialism. Do some thinking for yourself. Don't just watch the nightly news. Look into things on your own. Here's a good place to start:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs

Soylent Green anyone?

Take it for what it's worth, but before trying to paint everyone who doesn't agree with you or doesn't tow the neocon partyline as a "liberal", you might want to develop a more indepth understanding of the terms fascism, nationalism (hint: it's got little to do with the Fed potentially talking over BofA or Citibank ;) ), socialism and various types of authoritarian governments. Knowing how our own government functions might also be helpful. And before I threw too many darts at our European posters about their "socialism", I'd be prepared to defend the views of the average American when it comes to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid/MediCal, disability & SSI and unemployment benefits. For a people who claim to hate wealth redistribution schemes, we sure do seem to have a lot of wealth redistribution schemes, and we like them too... as long as they're called something else. I'm not saying who is right or who is wrong. But I will point out total hypocrisy when I see it.

BTW, I agree, Bloomberg is a great source of news and information. I've used their services since the days when I had a Bloomberg terminal in my office. When I have the time, I still prefer watching the Bloomberg Channel to CNBC and (especially) Fox Business News. Reuters is also a reliable source of news, IMO. As for the Daily Kos, you've apparently spent more time there than I have (since I had no idea what it was), so you'll have to tell me more about that one when time permits.

And just because I vehemently disagree with much (most!) of what the Bush/Cheney Administration did to this nation in the last 4-6 years, it doesn't mean that I agree with every proposal that Obama has made, or will make. And even when I disagree with Obama, that also doesn't mean that I'm going to buy into the GOP's (still) neocon talking points. But when the GOP makes sense, I will agree with them.

But now, any group with leaders who want to learn politically from the Taliban... well, in my book, they may be a bigger threat to the future of this nation than Obama on his worst day. The Trotsky loving neocons and Jerry Falwell/Moral Majority types were bad enough. Now they want to learn from the Taliban? :eek:

Rep. Pete Session (R-TX)

"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban," Sessions said during a meeting yesterday with [the National Review's] Hotline editors. "And that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes"...

When pressed to clarify, Sessions said he was not comparing the House Republican caucus to the Taliban, the Muslim fundamentalist group.


"I simply said one can see that there's a model out there for insurgency."

Riiiiight. I wonder how he feels about Hitler and Mussolini?

[Hondo]

Well... you guys has a bill passed for 787 BILLION dollars that no one had the time to read because the Speaker of the House is flying to Europe for a photo op and had to have this all done for her photo op in Washington signing the bill. Nice....


Meanwhile, they are spending a whack of money in the Speaker's home district to save a MOUSE. That'll help the economy fer sure.

Man...I had hope for Obama not letting the looney tunes write his agenda but it seems he is powerless to stop them.

Why does this matter to me, a Canucklehead? Simple. If the US economy tanks, it takes my country down too.

BTW, 7.6% unemployment is bad for the US, but Canada had 6.8% it for about 4 years in a "Boom" time so it is relatively tame so far. What bothers me it could be the tip of the ice berg.

What people should look up is the fact the US economy dumped in the sewer in 1920 and the government then did virtually nothing and by 1922 the boom was back. These cycles go back to boom if you just keep your hands of the steering wheel and let the momentum carry the country through it. The worst economic screwups of the last century were in the 30's and 70's and both Canada and the US had inteventionist leaders who kept the budget in the red and both nations suffered. When Reagan was elected, by 82 the US was in full recovery mode yet Canada didn't get rid of Trudeau til the mid 80's and our economy lagged for a good portion of it. Trudeau, Like Carter, and Roosevelt in the 30's kept trying to "manage" the economy.

So I , like my friends Chuck and Fiero watch this with disdain, because while I may see a role for government, it is clear to me whether it be Obama or anyone else, they do not know the limitiations of government in being able to "stimulate" the economy and it sure aint going to happen by spending money preserving a habitat for a freaking mouse.....

No Obi wan, there is another.....Obama can still veto the bill and send it back to them to remove earmarks and pork. Then Pelosi and Reid can try and pass it again over the veto, or make some changes, or forget the whole thing. If he vetos the bill it will cause a direct high noon show down between Obama and Pelosi that neither could afford to lose. If he does veto it, there's a good chance enough senators will feel safe enough to not support it on the next time around. Politically, Obama signing a reckless bill that is 100% democrat approved (except for 3 republicans) is a dangerous move. If things don't get better immediately, they will get the blame.

[Mark in Oshawa]

No Obi wan, there is another.....Obama can still veto the bill and send it back to them to remove earmarks and pork. Then Pelosi and Reid can try and pass it again over the veto, or make some changes, or forget the whole thing. If he vetos the bill it will cause a direct high noon show down between Obama and Pelosi that neither could afford to lose. If he does veto it, there's a good chance enough senators will feel safe enough to not support it on the next time around. Politically, Obama signing a reckless bill that is 100% democrat approved (except for 3 republicans) is a dangerous move. If things don't get better immediately, they will get the blame.

This is where McCain was on the money Fiero, McCain pointed out Obama doesn't have the stones to tell his own party that they are wrong where as John did it early and often.

Obama privately was said to not be happy with all the pork making this bill a harder sell to the GOP but you and I know he wont stop it.

The beauty of it all is when things are sucking wind in a year ( this one I hope I am wrong with but history will likely prove me right ) the GOP for the most part wont have their fingerprints on this mess anywhere. This was all about political cover because everyone knows that the Democrats don't do anything if they don't have some cover. Look no further than their support for the Iraq invasion that evaporated the second that the body bags started to flow. They are with you win or tie but don't tie too often and don't DARE lose. With this mess though, they pulled out the stops to try to con some poor schmiel GOP guys to buy into it.

I said it before, I will say it again, I wanted to like Obama and I wanted to believe but he is doing nothing to prove to me that he has the first clue of the mess he is driving himself and the US into. It is a damned shame because it doesn't have to be this way....

[Hondo]

Wait until the Europeans find out the "Buy American" clauses Obama promised to rectify are still in there. LOL....I'm loving it!

I am amazed the world hasn't waken up and realized Obama is a nobody, with no experience, and no solutions, no ideas at all. He just talks a line of "feel good" crap. LOL...talks right but walks left.

Putin already has Obamas's number and has crossed Obama and the USA off of his list of things to be concerned about.

[Hondo]

Obama has promised to sign the stimulus bill next week. With our luck, that will be the only promise he does keep.

I surely hope he's lying again.

[markabilly]

No Obi wan, there is another.....Obama can still veto the bill and send it back to them to remove earmarks and pork. Then Pelosi and Reid can try and pass it again over the veto, or make some changes, or forget the whole thing. If he vetos the bill it will cause a direct high noon show down between Obama and Pelosi that neither could afford to lose. If he does veto it, there's a good chance enough senators will feel safe enough to not support it on the next time around. Politically, Obama signing a reckless bill that is 100% democrat approved (except for 3 republicans) is a dangerous move. If things don't get better immediately, they will get the blame.


dream on.....peloussy shows that she is not even as smart as palin, but is on liberal side so that is ok....and at the mere cost of 233k per job, the bill will produce jobs and things will get a little bit better until the 900billion is gone and we need another fix...erre err...hit errr, eer, i mean stimulus....

[Mark in Oshawa]

I sometimes wonder if the US really wanted to make the economy go, just give everyone a check of that stimulus. Forget the programs.....of course THAT would never happen would it?

[Hondo]

I sometimes wonder if the US really wanted to make the economy go, just give everyone a check of that stimulus. Forget the programs.....of course THAT would never happen would it?

Wouldn't work. If you gave every American a check for $100,000.00 or more, most of them wouldn't bother to go to work.

[markabilly]

I sometimes wonder if the US really wanted to make the economy go, just give everyone a check of that stimulus. Forget the programs.....of course THAT would never happen would it?


Everyone? Are you joking???

Only for those special porkers at the pork barrell get a check or a second house in the Hamptons

[Mark in Oshawa]

Fiero...until the money ran out. The smart ones would either start businesses or make some very astute choices. I know it wouldn't likely work but these "programs" are just giant sinkholes that only help bureaucrats push more paper and more congressmen make their CV look better while doing nothing ( the MO of the Nancy Pelosi's of this world ) .

[Mark in Oshawa]

Everyone? Are you joking???

Only for those special porkers at the pork barrell get a check or a second house in the Hamptons

I forgot about the egaliterian nature the US of A is supposed to have....forgive me for not remember the chattering classes wouldn't accept the gauche and downtrodden they purport to want to help actually getting help that would actually DO something for them.

[markabilly]

I forgot about the egaliterian nature the US of A is supposed to have....forgive me for not remember the chattering classes wouldn't accept the gauche and downtrodden they purport to want to help actually getting help that would actually DO something for them.


Rosey Obama and pelapussy know better than to actually starting believing their own bullshyt or worse, start practicing

[Jag_Warrior]

Here's a few thoughts about booms and economy and such:

First, the best thing that has happened in the past 25-30 years was Ronald Reagan reducing the top marginal rates from 70% to 50% then 33% and it eventually got as low as 28%. Nothing else did as much to encourage investment and help fuel the booms we have had.

Now, what policy does is set the framework in which the economy exists. Reagan's and Bush I's tax cuts set the table for investment which combined with revolutions in technology and internet. That created a boomtime which also coincided with some of the lowest fuel prices adjusted for inflation we have ever seen. Mix policy and outside historical forces and you get a super boom.

Now, Clinton inherits this and raises the marginal rates to 39% and we get budget surpluses. The best thing Clinton did on the economy was to stay out of the way, and he did. The raised tax rates did drag the economy some, but I cannot say they were that bad. IMO the top marginal rate should be 33% so really it's not too far off. The early 2000's recession was really caused not by policy, but the end of the tech boom, which is inevitable with the maturation of any industry.

To be honest, I think whatever taxcuts Bush has done have had minimal effect(rates are now 35%). I support them because I feel they should be lowered to 33%, and it's always good to let people spend their money as they choose.

I sell in the construction industry so I am keen on this. This boom has occurred because of the housing market, but for me it never felt quite right and in hindsight, I am gradually coming to a conclusion why. My theory is that investors were still looking for fantastic growth after the tech bubble. Hey, real estate is always good so people started looking there. Meanwhile deregulation has created all sorts of new financial products with mortgage backed securities and collateralized debt obligations to sell to people that no one really understands. On the otherhand you have congress forcing the hands of lenders to lend to folks who might otherwise not qualify for loans. Banks don't want to hold this risk so they package them up to supposedly minimize the risk into the aforementioned securutized mortgages and voila! a recipe for disaster.

Finally, I believe investors started looking to commodities to make a fast buck after the housing bubble. That finally forced the full blown recession we are in now by driving up the fuel costs. In a way, It's actually a relief because I feel like things will get back to their true value now. The biggest thing we suffer from now is irrational pessimism (In the tech boom we had irrational exhuberence) The only thing i truly hope for is that the Obama administration doesn't prolong this recession, like Roosevelt prolonged the one in the 30's. Honestly, the best thing any government can do is to set the framework so that we can succeed or fail on a more or less level playing field, and then get out of the way.

Excellent post. I agree with the majority of it. I commend you on your understanding of the effects of macro fiscal policy. Higher taxes are just that, a tax on growth. But as taxes are cut, so must spending be cut. Otherwise you end up with growth in deficits. And increased government borrowing (eventually) puts upward pressure on real interest rates. The theory is that increased economic growth will produce more tax revenue (at the lower rates) and the budget gap will be closed, or the plan will be revenue neutral. But as with most things concerning the government, things seldom go to plan. This was the major pitfall of Reagan's economic policies. But overall, I believe that Reagan's mix of supply side and Keynesian theory was a rather good one. And we should not forget Paul Volker's role in that either. Though his tight money policy contributed to the downturn in the early 80's, his fiscally conservative style set an example that should have been followed by Greenspan... and poor clueless Bernanke.

Deregulation and privatization are generally good concepts, IMO. But just as Democrats tend to be naive when they attempt to throw money at any and all problems, Republicans tend to be equally naive in believing that deregulation and privatization can occur without some amount of (efficient) oversight. Otherwise you end up with something close to what the Russians have gotten with the collapse of the USSR: oligarchs. With the growing establishment of an "executive management class" over the past 25-30 years in the U.S., we unfortunately have something close to that, I fear. With their willingness to violate corporate governance and the interests of shareholders for their own greed, if not outright violations of the law, our mini-oligarchs are not so different from their Russian cousins (some of them are quite literally related by blood). I've been unable to find evidence that any bank was ever (truly) forced to lend to unworthy borrowers. A banking VP friend of mine tells me that his instution did not make Alt-A loans and was never pressured to do so. But the U.S. government most certainly did enable the practice of loose lending, by supporting markets that traded these vapor securities. Republican Phil Gramm contributed to this, as did Democrat Barney Frank with later legislation. And both Bill Clinton and W. Bush were complicit as well, IMO.

Apart from unsound fiscal policies, I am amazed that so few people realize the effect that Greenspan's monetary policies had in contributing to the credit and housing bubbles. Though a day late and several dollars short, to his credit, Greenspan has (finally) admitted the error of his ways on that count. Consumer spending accounts for roughly 70% of GDP. With the influx of cheap goods from Asia and Latin America, Greenspan's cheap money helped Americans satisfy their appetitie to get ahead of the Joneses. Long term, those monetary policies, along with the free (unfair) trade policies of Clinton and W. Bush, have contributed to the emasculation of the American manufacturing base. But man, look at this neat plastic gizmo that I got! I didn't need it and I don't really know what it does. But I got it on a Buy 1 Get 1 Free deal at Walmart/ChinaWorld.

But like I said, excellent post.

[Hondo]

Fiero...until the money ran out. The smart ones would either start businesses or make some very astute choices. I know it wouldn't likely work but these "programs" are just giant sinkholes that only help bureaucrats push more paper and more congressmen make their CV look better while doing nothing ( the MO of the Nancy Pelosi's of this world ) .


The fact that Obama is president at all is proof that smart ones and astute choices are no longer in the majority around here.

People say we can start voting them out in 2 years but that won't happen. Between now and the next federal elections, the money and new positions gained through the stimulus bill, will be used mostly to increase the size and voting numbers of the Democratic Party. That was the real importance of the stimulus bill. I believe I mentioned that in another post. Obama needed the funding in this bill secured before he could uncloak his actual agenda. He needed the open, broad language to allow him to create new agencies and benefits. The passage of this bill gives the Democratic Party all the tools and funding they need to hold and increase their power for a long, long time. As long as the number of people that expect the government to care for them increases, so will the power of the party.

[Alexamateo]

Thanks for your comments Jag. I also want to say I have learned a tremendous amount from your posts. Your explanation of neo-conservatives (which before I never really knew what was meant) and it's roots in socialism explain much of my frustration with the Bush administration. I like to say in an oversimplified way that neocons are just socialists who like guns. :p :

To tell the truth Obama is just taking us down the path George Bush was already leading us IMO, with the one notable exception being foreign policy.

Truly, I don't have any problem with free trade. I honestly believe outsourcing is ultimately benificial and frees up resources here to do other things.

[Hondo]

Look no further than the now famous Henrietta Hughes. Her 37 year old son won't get a job. He has a thyroid problem. can't afford a doctor or medication.

I say so what? I've got a thyroid problem too. In fact, it quit about 3 years ago. I found out about it August 2007 when I finally shuffled off to the doctor to find out why everything was going haywire at once. After checking me out and carefully questioning me about symptoms, he ordered a blood test. Cost of Doctor $160.00, cost of blood test $100.00. Paid for both out of pocket. The doctor's office called that night, yes night, and told me my thyroid had left town with no forwarding address given. He put me on replacement hormones immediately. You have to reintroduce thyroid hormones slowly, at low doses, to avoid a shock to your system that could kill you. Every 30 days I had another blood test to monitor the needed doseage increase. I'm merely providing some background info but the end result is I now have an established doseage that I must take daily for life. The cost of this name brand medication is $16.00 a month. Thats all. A generic would probably be less. There's nothing thyroid related that would keep Hughes Jr. from accepting and keeping a job.

[Jag_Warrior]

I like to say in an oversimplified way that neocons are just socialists who like guns. :p :

Or as Pat Buchanan likes to refer to them: "the late to the party, but claim they were always there" conservatives. As for guns, it seems that neocons like to pretend they like guns. But if Cheney is an example, I wouldn't walk into the woods with a neocon if his rifle or shotgun was loaded. :D

I didn't refer to myself as a Reaganite in the 80's but I was schooled on the brand of economics that he preached. One of my early econ professors was a friend and associate of Arthur Laffer. It's since been b#stardized by the neocons, but I continue to see many benefits to supply side theory. I knew nothing about neo-conservatism before 2002 or so. And after voting for Bush in 2000 and being firmly against U.S. taxpayer funded nation building, imagine my level of "happiness" after studying the Bush Doctrine from about 2003-04 on. Socialists? Yes, in my opinion they are. It's just that a neocon likes to redistribute (or enable the redistribution of) wealth to members of the executive management class, as well as to those in foreign lands. The only benefit (economically) with the neocons is that they tend not to believe in higher taxes. But they do love to spend taxpayer dollars as much or more than the most liberal Democrat. I think it's just a question of what they like to spend it on. While neocons and Bushies try to justify the $500 billion or so we've pissed away in Iraq as "necessary to remove a bad man from power and bringing democracy to a struggling people" (while Battle Hymn of the Republic plays in the background), we could have spent less than 20% of that amount and rebuilt much of the crumbling infrastructure of the U.S.


To tell the truth Obama is just taking us down the path George Bush was already leading us IMO, with the one notable exception being foreign policy.

Yes, foreign policy and also general social philosophy.



Truly, I don't have any problem with free trade. I honestly believe outsourcing is ultimately benificial and frees up resources here to do other things.

It's really not free trade that I have an issue with. For my previous company, I specialized in outsourcing and resourcing projects. It's the one way street that we're currently trapped on, which is free/unfair trade, that I object to. It's OK for the Chinese to manipulate their currency, allow intellectual property piracy and dump subsidized goods on other markets to kill the competition, but the United States is undertaking "protectionism" if we strike back. Trade wars are unhealthy, as all wars are unhealthy. But from unfettered illegal immigration from Mexico to our reliance on China for debt funding, we've become weak and are in danger of becoming nothing more than global patsies with an appetite for gadgets bought on credit.

One area where I believe Mark in Oshawa and I strongly agree with each other is that when you take two countries, with disparate standards of living, and combine them into a trading bloc, the benefits to the poorer country will generally be much greater than the benefits to the richer country. The U.S. and Canada would have been a natural team. We each brought something to the table. But other than virtual slave labor, why Mexico was brought in to share meals, I have no idea. But NAFTA most definitely benefits multinationals. Neither you nor I could really capture the benefits of doing business in Mexico (I've looked into it). So here again is a case where the executive management class was benefited, while the working class and middle class suffered.

But no matter what Obama promised on the campaign trail, I figure that genie is now out of the bottle forever. Getting those 8 babies back inside that welfare flake from California would be about as likely as really doing anything to address the unfair trade practices that do harm to our economy longer term. Like Lou Dobbs, I really don't believe there is a political party in existence in the U.S. that has the interests of the middle class at heart. The Dems have a solid base with the poor. And the GOP has been taken over by neocons, Evangelicals and the like. Those of us who are either conservative libertarians and/or fiscal conservatives really don't have a home right now.

[Hondo]

If there was such a need to rush this stimulus bill through soooooooo quickly to save the country from immediate doom, why didn't Obama stick around and sign it Friday night? Why not Saturday, Sunday, or Monday? Why can something that just had to be done NOW and was done NOW, wait until later to be finished? I think there's still a chance Obama may not sign it, especially if between now and Tuesday public opinion goes strongly against this bill. Then he can say "This isn't what I wanted...blah blah...the American people have a right...blah blah...", veto it, and avoid any backlash on himself. He'll come out looking good and Pelosi will look like an idiot, not that she needs any help with that.

[Jag_Warrior]

The bill is as good as signed right now. Take that to the bank.

Care to wager?

If I'm wrong, I'll go to the IRL race at Richmond this year and post a picture of myself wearing a Danica Patrick t-shirt. If you're wrong, you change your signature line here for a week to... let's see, "Obama: the change that I've been looking forward to!"

I can't deface the Danica t-shirt and you can't add anything else to the sig. Are ya game? :)

[Hondo]

No. I think he'll sign it too. The speculations on why he might not sign it are merely weak rationalizations to support a possible reason not to sign it.

He can't afford to go against Pelosi and lose.

The other point was all this rush-rush-speed-now crap was just that, bullcrap to get this sucker through both houses with little or no examination.

[Jag_Warrior]

You're passing up a golden opportunity here. The slightest chance to get a picture of me at an IRL race, wearing a Danica Patrick t-shirt to boot, would probably bring as much money on Ebay as a private porn tape of Obama nailin' Palin.

OK. OK. Maybe not THAT much, but still... :D

[Hondo]

You're passing up a golden opportunity here. The slightest chance to get a picture of me at an IRL race, wearing a Danica Patrick t-shirt to boot, would probably bring as much money on Ebay as a private porn tape of Obama nailin' Palin.

OK. OK. Maybe not THAT much, but still... :D

Not good enough, although an 8 by 10 glossy of Pelosi with a strap-on and Obama bent over the sofa might be entertaining.

[Jag_Warrior]

I'm sure that's probably on Nancy's Top 10 Fantasies list too. Her problem is, her hind quarters seem to be attracting the attention of one Mr. Rahm Emanuel. :eek:

And the freaky part about all this, the one who seems to be coming to save Pelosi from an Emanuel "flank assault" is Pete Sessions... dressed up like a member of the Taliban.

That's really too bad. Because I believe the best legislation would come from moderate Republicans working with moderate Democrats - brush the kooks from both parties aside. But I fear what we're going to wind up with are delays and bad legislation, caused by wingnuts like Pelosi and Sessions arguing over which one has the best looking tinfoil hat.

[Hondo]

Again, they just passed the mother of all bad legislation. The stimulus's main purpose is to finanace a huge increase in the numbers and powers of the Democratic Party. I have no doubts that Pelosi assurred all her people, reps and sens that their support would guarantee their seats for as long as they chose to keep them.

Coming soon, amnesty or some other bit of smoke and mirrors that will get the illegal immigrants on the voting rolls.

Let's have some numbers fun. If you have 2 million illegal aliens working already and then make them legal, you've just put 2 million Americans to work!! It's coming....you think I'm nuts and thats ok but Obama needs this bill to run his agenda without interference.

[chuck34]

Jag, just currious here. Why do you call me a neo-con? Is it because I don't see what W did in Iraq as wrong? Because for the life of me I can only see that as the only "neo-con" idea that I would agree with. I sure as hell don't like the nationalisation of the banking industry, that you rightfully call socialism.

Just because I have an R after my name doesn't mean that I agree with everything "my" president does. When he's wrong I'll say it. The Department of Homeland Security was and is a huge waste. It's just more beurocracy (sp?) that we don't need, the FBI and CIA should have been restructured to work more effectivly with each other. The "stimulus" we got last year was dumb, and not well thought out. And don't get me started on TARP.

This is what I don't get. "The Left" in the country has been yelling for the last year about how Bush is spending us into a Depression. And most fiscal conservatives (like me) have been saying the same thing. Now a Democrat gets into the White House, spends the same amount of money that Bush did in 8 years (at least if you look at debt loads), and now that is the way out of the recession??? I'm missing something here. I guess I'm just slow on a Monday morning.

[chuck34]

Here's another issue I have/ have been wondering about.

The President has said that he doesn't like every aspect of this bill. I ask what did you expect Mr. President? Are you too young, naive, and inexperienced to realise that you, as President, can, and should, write legislation that you want? You made no attempt what-so-ever to write or even steer this bill. If you really cared, as you say you do, about not having any pork/ear marks in this then you could have done something about it. You could have had your economic team write the bill, with input from the Dems. and Republicans, then told them to pass it without modification. That would have given you the "bi-partisan" bill with no ear marks that you wanted.

Why did you not do this? Could it possibly be that you knew exactly what Nancy was gonna put in this piece of crap bill? Could it be that that was ok with you? Could it be that by doing things this way you could get what you and Nancy wanted, but still have the political cover of saying "that's not my bill" when it all goes south in the minds of Americans?

If you really don't think this is a perfect bill, as you have said, then you have a chance here to make it "perfect". Veto the bill, send it back marked up, and tell them to pass it the way you want. Why not do this? You have a huge approval rating. Congress would not dare to go against this massive public support (maybe). So why not veto and send a marked-up bill back?

Oh yeah you really don't have a problem with the bill.

[Eki]

This is what I don't get. "The Left" in the country has been yelling for the last year about how Bush is spending us into a Depression. And most fiscal conservatives (like me) have been saying the same thing. Now a Democrat gets into the White House, spends the same amount of money that Bush did in 8 years (at least if you look at debt loads), and now that is the way out of the recession??? I'm missing something here. I guess I'm just slow on a Monday morning.
When you have dug a hole through the bottom of your boat, you have to keep shoveling harder until the leak has been fixed, or the boat will get filled with water and you sink.

[chuck34]

When you have dug a hole through the bottom of your boat, you have to keep shoveling harder until the leak has been fixed, or the boat will get filled with water and you sink.

Ok. Let me know how that works out for you then.

[Eki]

Ok. Let me know how that works out for you then.
How about this: You can't make money without spending money?

Obama will hopefully spend money more wisely than Bush did. At least he can't spend it any dumber. Maybe he will use the shovel to shovel out the water from the boat while Bush only used it to dig the hole larger.

[chuck34]

How about this: You can't make money without spending money?

Obama will hopefully spend money more wisely than Bush did. At least he can't spend it any dumber. Maybe he will use the shovel to shovel out the water from the boat while Bush only used it to dig the hole larger.

How about this: You do not become more prosperous by writing yourself a check.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/02/01/money_for_nothing_wont_grow_the_economy/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+Jeff+Jacoby+columns


Keep hoping that Obama will some how figure out a way to spend our way out of this. History keeps telling me that spending is not a good idea. But hey, maybe Obama is smarter than any one else has ever been and he'll stumble on the way to do that. I hope what he's doing will work. I have just never heard of a situation where more government spending has brought us out of a recession. Tell you what name me one time where government spending has clearly brought us out of a recession and I'll go away.

[Jag_Warrior]

Jag, just currious here. Why do you call me a neo-con? Is it because I don't see what W did in Iraq as wrong? Because for the life of me I can only see that as the only "neo-con" idea that I would agree with. I sure as hell don't like the nationalisation of the banking industry, that you rightfully call socialism.

You'll have to refresh my memory. When did I refer to you as a "neocon"? Was it this?

Take it for what it's worth, but before trying to paint everyone who doesn't agree with you or doesn't tow the neocon partyline as a "liberal", you might want to develop a more indepth understanding of the terms fascism, nationalism (hint: it's got little to do with the Fed potentially talking over BofA or Citibank ;) ), socialism and various types of authoritarian governments.

That was in response to your quip about The Daily Kos. You might find it interesting that both Pat Buchanan and I share the view that the mismanagement of the war in Iraq has put Iran in a MUCH stronger position. There was no exit strategy. There were no pre-planned goals, that I'm aware of, that would have indicated what success would look like. Do you know what success in Iraq would look like? I don't. In 2003, Bush estimated the cost of the war in Iraq to be about $50 billion. And he said it would be financed through sales of Iraqi oil. Last I checked, Iraq had about $80 billion in surplus in its own accounts and the tab to the U.S. taxpayers was around $600 billion. So we've borrowed $600 billion (+/-) from the Chinese and others, while the Iraqis are sitting on a huge pile of cash. IMO, either W. Bush was incompetent, a liar or both, as he presented that fantasy future assessement. I have not called you a neocon, but from what you've said, you don't seem to have a problem with the U.S. taxpayers being raped by the neocons on this issue. Just calling it like I see it. No offense intended.



This is what I don't get. "The Left" in the country has been yelling for the last year about how Bush is spending us into a Depression. And most fiscal conservatives (like me) have been saying the same thing. Now a Democrat gets into the White House, spends the same amount of money that Bush did in 8 years (at least if you look at debt loads), and now that is the way out of the recession??? I'm missing something here. I guess I'm just slow on a Monday morning.

Since supply side theory was pretty well thrown out the window about 20 years ago, standard Keynesian operating procedures are (loosely) followed by both parties these days. W. Bush violated Keynesian common sense because he spent like a drunken sailor (with a pocket full of borrowed money) at a wh#re house during the times he should have been building a surplus. I couldn't stand the sight of Bill Clinton. But I have to admit that Slick was more fiscally responsible than George W. Bush on his best day. Bush and the neocons took us from surplus to deficit in the blink of an eye.

As I've said here and in other threads, I had strong thoughts and opinions on what should have been done prior to entering this recession. But now that we've entered the broadest recession of my lifetime, like every other armchair quarterback, I can only offer criticisms of bits & pieces of the various stimulus concepts. In the big picture, doing nothing certainly wasn't the answer. But as far as the (exact) "right thing"... that is incredibly debatable. I have a degree in Economics and an MBA but I don't pretend to know "the right answer" on this one. Most agree that addressing housing is key to ending the downward spiral. But how does one effectively address that - and not be somewhat "socialist"? As even McCain showed during the campaign, every idea put forth thus far has some elements of what could (easily) be referred to as "socialism".

Let me ask you this. You said in a previous post, "Wake up and smell the socialism", or words to that effect. What did you think of McCain's idea to have the government purchase troubled mortgages at face value from the banks, and then reissue the debt to the homeowners after a valuation reset had been performed? Would that gap not have been a government enforced transfer of wealth from the taxpayers to the banks? What about the FDIC, when taxpayers make good on a portion of the deposits of failed banks?

I'm fine with debating economic philosophy. But I need a clearer definition of what people really mean (or intend to mean) when they say "socialism". There is the strict definition, and then (I believe) there is the definition created by many Americans. Is there "good socialism" and is there "bad socialism? Which category would these go in? Social Security, Aid For Dependent Children, food stamps, Section 8 housing, FDIC insurance, Medicare, Medicaid/MediCal, SSI & disability benefits, unemployment benefits?

I agreed in principle with Bush and was for the partial privatization of Social Security. I still am. But I feel that it should be a choice left to the individual. Let there be a maximum, say 25-40% of the amount that is withheld. If my management of that private account is good, I'll get more than the other bears when my time comes. If I lose all of my investment, I will have 25-40% less invested capital in the end, and my draw will be less than the other bears. I'm OK with that. But I can tell you right now, very, very few of the (make believe) "fiscal conservatives" in the GOP (maybe 1, if I could get him drunk enough) will stand up and agree with me... especially now... especially in the company of anyone over the age of 60.

[chuck34]

1) You'll have to refresh my memory. When did I refer to you as a "neocon"? Was it this?


2) That was in response to your quip about The Daily Kos. You might find it interesting that both Pat Buchanan and I share the view that the mismanagement of the war in Iraq has put Iran in a MUCH stronger position. There was no exit strategy. There were no pre-planned goals, that I'm aware of, that would have indicated what success would look like. Do you know what success in Iraq would look like? I don't. In 2003, Bush estimated the cost of the war in Iraq to be about $50 billion. And he said it would be financed through sales of Iraqi oil. Last I checked, Iraq had about $80 billion in surplus in its own accounts and the tab to the U.S. taxpayers was around $600 billion. So we've borrowed $600 billion (+/-) from the Chinese and others, while the Iraqis are sitting on a huge pile of cash. IMO, either W. Bush was incompetent, a liar or both, as he presented that fantasy future assessement. I have not called you a neocon, but from what you've said, you don't seem to have a problem with the U.S. taxpayers being raped by the neocons on this issue. Just calling it like I see it. No offense intended.




3) Since supply side theory was pretty well thrown out the window about 20 years ago, standard Keynesian operating procedures are (loosely) followed by both parties these days. W. Bush violated Keynesian common sense because he spent like a drunken sailor (with a pocket full of borrowed money) at a wh#re house during the times he should have been building a surplus. I couldn't stand the sight of Bill Clinton. But I have to admit that Slick was more fiscally responsible than George W. Bush on his best day. Bush and the neocons took us from surplus to deficit in the blink of an eye.

4) As I've said here and in other threads, I had strong thoughts and opinions on what should have been done prior to entering this recession. But now that we've entered the broadest recession of my lifetime, like every other armchair quarterback, I can only offer criticisms of bits & pieces of the various stimulus concepts. In the big picture, doing nothing certainly wasn't the answer. But as far as the (exact) "right thing"... that is incredibly debatable. I have a degree in Economics and an MBA but I don't pretend to know "the right answer" on this one. Most agree that addressing housing is key to ending the downward spiral. But how does one effectively address that - and not be somewhat "socialist"? As even McCain showed during the campaign, every idea put forth thus far has some elements of what could (easily) be referred to as "socialism".

5) Let me ask you this. You said in a previous post, "Wake up and smell the socialism", or words to that effect. What did you think of McCain's idea to have the government purchase troubled mortgages at face value from the banks, and then reissue the debt to the homeowners after a valuation reset had been performed? Would that gap not have been a government enforced transfer of wealth from the taxpayers to the banks? What about the FDIC, when taxpayers make good on a portion of the deposits of failed banks?

6) I'm fine with debating economic philosophy. But I need a clearer definition of what people really mean (or intend to mean) when they say "socialism". There is the strict definition, and then (I believe) there is the definition created by many Americans. Is there "good socialism" and is there "bad socialism? Which category would these go in? Social Security, Aid For Dependent Children, food stamps, Section 8 housing, FDIC insurance, Medicare, Medicaid/MediCal, SSI & disability benefits, unemployment benefits?

7) I agreed in principle with Bush and was for the partial privatization of Social Security. I still am. But I feel that it should be a choice left to the individual. Let there be a maximum, say 25-40% of the amount that is withheld. If my management of that private account is good, I'll get more than the other bears when my time comes. If I lose all of my investment, I will have 25-40% less invested capital in the end, and my draw will be less than the other bears. I'm OK with that. But I can tell you right now, very, very few of the (make believe) "fiscal conservatives" in the GOP (maybe 1, if I could get him drunk enough) will stand up and agree with me... especially now... especially in the company of anyone over the age of 60.

1) Apparently I am no longer allowed to FEEL I have been refered to in any way. If the quote you provide there is not you clearly calling me a neocon then I don't know what is. I have made the same "mistake" with others. They strongly imply that I am something or hold some belief that I do not. They then say they never said that, and go on a long rant about something different. So I guess that I should just assume that even when people are calling me things they are not.

2a) I have made a comment about the Daily Kos, you have brought it up twice now without adding anything. I was making an off the cuff remark about how much of a trash Bush thread this is, and your comment in particular, and how that is pretty much what goes on over at that notorious far left sight. That being said, I will continue on:

2b) I agree with Pat Buchannon on some things, but he's out in his own world on some things. This one I tend to agree with him, and you. Bush was so sure that we would be greeted as liberators that he never thought of any other possiblity. BTW, we were for a while before the insurgents kicked things up a notch. So yeah, Bush should have prepared "other options".

2c) My definition of success in Iraq is pretty much how Iraq is now. A fairly stable country with a framework for democracy. Is it perfect? No, but it is better than a saber ratteling idiot running the place who didn't know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em.

2d) And I do have a problem with the "U.S. taxpayers being raped by the neocons on this issue." I have no idea why Bush allowed them to run with a surplus while we were footing the whole bill. Is Obama planning on changing this? I sure haven't heard anything. Plus how can you infer that I have no problem with this when I have never made a statement on this particular issue?

3) So your argument is that since everyone for the past 20 years has not used supply side econ. that therefore it is no good? And the way I understand it, by Keynesian logic it doesn't really matter if you spend like a drunken sailor or a sober priest, spending is spending. Isn't he the guy that threw paper towels on the ground and said that was economic stimulus?

4) So this is "the broadest recession of my lifetime"? You aren't very old then. Read this one. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123457303244386495.html

5) McCain's idea wasn't that great, in my opinion. I'm not an economist, but I play one on TV :-), so you probably have a beter grasp on this. But I think that if the government had not interviened in the beginning things would be a lot better now. Back when they bailed out Lehman Bros., or who ever was first, that was the first mistake. Had that first bank/finacial firm "gone under" then my understanding is that the "good" loans would have been bought up by other banks and the "bad" loans would have defaulted. Sure there would have been some pain but it would have worked through the system much quicker. The FDIC is trickier and I'm not sure about that whole thing, could be ok, maybe not.

6) I think there is "good" and "bad" socialism. Most of what you listed is "bad". The "good" are things like the military, and interstate highways on the fed level, and things like police, fire, etc on state/local level. This is not an inclusive/exclusive list by any means. Basically, I am probably more Libertarian thinking on a lot of things, if that helps your understanding.

7) Still not sure how I feel about privitizing Social Security. It's probably the right thing to do, even after this whole market plung. But then again maybe getting rid of the whole thing is right. I really don't know enough at this point. What do you mean by "(make believe) "fiscal conservatives"". And your observation about no one making such a statement in front of a 60 year old is quite telling. We have become such a "nanny state" already that some things can't be talked about.

[Jag_Warrior]

1) Apparently I am no longer allowed to FEEL I have been refered to in any way. If the quote you provide there is not you clearly calling me a neocon then I don't know what is. I have made the same "mistake" with others. They strongly imply that I am something or hold some belief that I do not. They then say they never said that, and go on a long rant about something different. So I guess that I should just assume that even when people are calling me things they are not.

Sure, you can feel however you choose. But the reason that I would not refer to you as a "neocon" is because I don't know the full or great extent of your political views. Do you know the parable about the blind men and the elephant? 5 blind men try to describe what an elephant looks like based on their static position around the elephant. That was one troubled looking beast, depending on which one you asked. I only know what you've written here, in regard to your position on Iraq. In fact, it is the same as that held by the neocons. But I can't say that makes you a neocon. I agreed with the Bush Doctrine in regard to Afghanistan, and it certainly didn't make me a neocon. So if you feel that I've mischaracterized you, I apologize.



2a) I have made a comment about the Daily Kos, you have brought it up twice now without adding anything. I was making an off the cuff remark about how much of a trash Bush thread this is, and your comment in particular, and how that is pretty much what goes on over at that notorious far left sight. That being said, I will continue on:

What can I say? I guess Duhbya Bush has no friends on the left... and apparently not that many right of center either. :D



2b) I agree with Pat Buchannon on some things, but he's out in his own world on some things. This one I tend to agree with him, and you. Bush was so sure that we would be greeted as liberators that he never thought of any other possiblity. BTW, we were for a while before the insurgents kicked things up a notch. So yeah, Bush should have prepared "other options".

On certain foreign policy issues, I agree with Pat a fair amount. I'm not an isolationist, and I don't believe he is either. But I think we're both believers in the "Mind Your Own Business" Doctrine. But Iraq was more complicated than Bush and the GOP ever let on. McCain was in the same boat on the campaign trail. Bush and his handlers also didn't understand much at all about the various factions in Iraq and Iran. Poor ol' John never could get the Sunnis and Shias straight. It is fairly complicated. Remember when Bush went charging into Iraq? That was during the same time period when a majority of Americans believed that one or more of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis. "Hey, an A-rab is an A-rab is an A-rab. We're better off fightin' 'em over there than over here! You're either with us or against us!" Remember all of that crazy brave, armchair patriot talk? "Stay the course, by gawd! Stay the course!!!" Yeah, good times, good times... :dozey: A lot of Americans still believe that Saddam and Osama were pals and were working together. In fact, the opposite was true: Osama was a threat to Saddam's power. By knocking Saddam off his perch, we opened things up for al Qaeda and the Iranian backed Shias to come out and play. I fully admit that I don't know that much about these groups either. But I know they are not interchangeable. When we "set Iraq free", we also set free dozens of little Saddams to go for their place at the table. IMO, the entire Iraq strategy was naive at best, stupid at worst.



2c) My definition of success in Iraq is pretty much how Iraq is now. A fairly stable country with a framework for democracy. Is it perfect? No, but it is better than a saber ratteling idiot running the place who didn't know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em.

It's stable only because there is still a sizeable American military presence there. And we've paid off the major warlords to not kill our soldiers. I congratulate General Petraeus for the surge and paying off various factions in Iraq. Those two things have really helped cut down on the killing of American soldiers. But what happens when the surge becomes a withdrawal and the payments end? How much faith do you have in this so called democracy to remain in place for more than 12 months? Let me ask a different question. What happened to Rome once it stopped paying the Visigoths and the Huns?



2d) And I do have a problem with the "U.S. taxpayers being raped by the neocons on this issue." I have no idea why Bush allowed them to run with a surplus while we were footing the whole bill. Is Obama planning on changing this? I sure haven't heard anything. Plus how can you infer that I have no problem with this when I have never made a statement on this particular issue?

I'm glad to read that you feel that way. What Obama ultimately does, I don't know. His plan seems to focus on withdrawing or drawing down in Iraq and building up in Afghanistan. But I don't follow foreign policy as closely as I do economic issues, so I may be a day late and a dollar short on what the current plan is. But the more troops that are withdrawn from Iraq, the smaller the bill becomes. I don't think there will be a complete withdrawal in my lifetime though. And now that Afghanistan (and Pakistan) is getting worse, any savings gained in Iraq will probably go there. If we completely left Iraq, I think China would have to up production of Iranian flags... because there would be so many flag poles in Iraq that would be getting new Iranian banners, it wouldn't be funny. IMO, our fight in Afghanistan was right and just (with the Taliban). But we p!ssed away that opportunity and now they've rebuilt and are threatening Afghanistan and Pakistan. Smooth move, George W.! :mad:

You mentioned that you were in favor of the war. By being for this crusade, you must have known that it was going to have to be paid for, no? Possibly you believed Bush (as I did, when he told the lie about not being in favor of "nation building" in 1999) - so maybe you thought that the Iraqis were really going to be made to pay for our war against them. :confused: If so, then I apologize for saying you didn't have a problem with that. Apparently you do have a problem with it. But now, knowing that the taxpayers were lied to and raped by the neocons, do you still believe that this war was the right thing to do?


3) So your argument is that since everyone for the past 20 years has not used supply side econ. that therefore it is no good?

No, quite the opposite. I believe that, when applied correctly, supply side theory works very well. I am simply pointing out the fact that Reagan was the last President to truly embrace supply side economics. Including H.W. Bush, every President since Reagan has drifted back to the Keynesian model. As for G.W. Bush, I'm not sure that what he did for the past 6 years or so would fall under the definition of any (real) economic theory. Like many of his other actions, it appears he was just shooting from the hip... going with his gut.


And the way I understand it, by Keynesian logic it doesn't really matter if you spend like a drunken sailor or a sober priest, spending is spending. Isn't he the guy that threw paper towels on the ground and said that was economic stimulus?

There are different categories of fiscal policy under the Keynesian model just like there are different categories of fiscal policy under the supply side model. What I'm saying is, under the Keynesian model, one would attempt to build surpluses during an economic expansion. If you exhaust any previous surplus and almost immediately move to deficit spending during an expansion, what are you going to do during the next recession? Even bigger deficits, no?


4) So this is "the broadest recession of my lifetime"? You aren't very old then. Read this one. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123457303244386495.html

Old? I suppose it depends on the age of the girl I'm trying to chat up. If she's 24, then I'm probably as old as dirt. If she's 54, then I'm a mere boy toy. My mother was born just prior to the Great Depression, which is the main point of reference in your linked article. So no, I was not alive at that time. Recall that I said broader, not necessarily deeper. With business conditions across most every sector of the global economy still worsening, and the trough still not in sight, by the available data, I believe that my assessment is or will be proven accurate. Even if just talking about the U.S., the length and depth of this recession may prove to be greater than anytime since I was born (mid 60's) as well. Only time (and data) will answer that question. If it's the U.S. that is the focus, here is a reliable source for economic data.
http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

We stand at roughly 14 months into this recession and the data indicates that things are getting worse, not better. How would you call it from where we currenty are?

As far as length:

1929-33: 43 months
1910-12: 24 months
1913-14: 23 months
1920-21: 18 months
1973-75: 16 months
1980-81: 16 months
Dec. 2007-?

If it happens, it happens. Though it's not a record that I look forward to us breaking, it is what it is.

[Jag_Warrior]

5) McCain's idea wasn't that great, in my opinion. I'm not an economist, but I play one on TV :-), so you probably have a beter grasp on this. But I think that if the government had not interviened in the beginning things would be a lot better now. Back when they bailed out Lehman Bros., or who ever was first, that was the first mistake. Had that first bank/finacial firm "gone under" then my understanding is that the "good" loans would have been bought up by other banks and the "bad" loans would have defaulted. Sure there would have been some pain but it would have worked through the system much quicker. The FDIC is trickier and I'm not sure about that whole thing, could be ok, maybe not.

If the government had sat on its hands, I'd be guarding my house with my AK-47 by now. The good banks would have bought the good assets? But that's just it. Where would the good banks have gotten the money to buy the good assets? The credit markets were freezing up. One thing that led to GM having so many problems so quickly was the virtual shutdown of the commercial paper market - and consumer lending after that. Even lending between banks was drying up. The Fed let Lehman die. And I agree with that decision from a philosphical standpoint: Wall St. had to be taught that not all sinners would/could be saved from the sins of their own making. Then what did Hank Paulson do? Well, he tricked Bush and the Congress into issuing a blank check to his old banking buddies... one & all. And here we are. Considering what was happening at the time, I can't bring myself to lay the blame for that on Bush.
As for what to do now... the best analogy that I've read is of the man living next door to a drug dealer. The drug dealer's house catches on fire. If it's setting off to itself, maybe it's better not to help him put it out - just let it burn. But if it's smack dab in the middle of the block, and your house is next door, you might feel the need to grab a garden hose and use your own water... whether it turns your stomach or not.
There would have been a cost to the taxpayers whether a bank (or series of banks) failed or was rescued. If a bank fails, the FDIC (taxpayers) is on the hook. To rescue it, the government (taxpayers) is on the hook. Which way is cheaper? Which way is better? Have to hurry! No time to spare! The depositors are forming outside the doors! What do we do?! By the time you can smell the smoke... it's probably too late for simple answers. Letting AIG, Wachovia and Merrill fail may sound OK from a free market, philosophical standpoint. But would they have burned down the whole neighborhood? No one knows for sure. And right or wrong, no one was willing to take a chance and find out.


6) I think there is "good" and "bad" socialism. Most of what you listed is "bad". The "good" are things like the military, and interstate highways on the fed level, and things like police, fire, etc on state/local level. This is not an inclusive/exclusive list by any means. Basically, I am probably more Libertarian thinking on a lot of things, if that helps your understanding.
Right. I think that's how most Americans see it. The good or the bad simply depends on whether the person likes the program or not. But we can't call the bad stuff "socialism" and the good stuff "modified capitalism". Socialism is socialism. Capitalism is capitalism. I might categorize something as "bad socialism", when I believe that it encourages or enables negative or destructive social behavior: unwed pregnancies, single mothers, drug and alcohol abuse, illegal immigration, etc. But within every "good" or "bad" socialist program, there are good and bad elements. Once you begin digging, quite often it's not so easy. Just because there are those who take advantage of Social Security Disability, is it a bad program overall? I don't know. While renovating low income housing years ago, I gained a lot of experience with HUD's 203K and Section 8 programs. I saw people who I felt needed and deserved housing assistance. I saw others who clearly took advantage of it. I can see how in a way, it enables, if not encourages, those who have children that they cannot afford. I have a property in California (that I don't manage personally), and I'd say the majority of the current applicants are people of "questionable" immigration status. That greatly p!sses me off. But both the neocons and the liberal Dems seem OK with illegal immigration and us paying for them, so... :confused: But one could take a hardline approach and say, "those who can march, will make it... those who cannot march, will be left behind." Somewhere in the middle is where most Americans seem to stand now.


7) Still not sure how I feel about privitizing Social Security. It's probably the right thing to do, even after this whole market plung. But then again maybe getting rid of the whole thing is right. I really don't know enough at this point. What do you mean by "(make believe) "fiscal conservatives"". And your observation about no one making such a statement in front of a 60 year old is quite telling. We have become such a "nanny state" already that some things can't be talked about.
Make believe fiscal conservatives are those who only "found religion" after Obama was elected. Before that, they were willing to spend every cent that China would lend us.
I realize that I'm virtually alone on this one. But still, don't get me wrong - I don't want to privatize the entire SS system. That could lead to a social and economic disaster. But I don't feel that we should be forced to participate in a retirement scheme where the government has 100% say, and I have no say at all, as to the available investment options. Plus, it's full of IOU's now anyway. The government hammers private companies when their pension plans are underfunded, but Uncle Sam has removed ALL of the money from the Social Security kitty.

[chuck34]

Jag, I don't know what to say. We could go on and on for days about such a broad list of socio-economic issues. I think that we are closer together on many of these issues than you would like to let on. I see that a lot.

I am a pretty staunch Republican. NOT A NEOCON. Some may even call them Rinos. If you would have asked me a year ago, or even before that probably, I would have told you that a lot of the junk that Bush or McCain or a whole list of people were doing was wrong. But I am a Republican because that party is the only party the is viable and represents my views. I suppose that I could go be a Libertarian, but then I'd be out in the "wilderness" politically. Plus they tend to be pretty isolationist and that is just an unrealistic point of view in this day and age. So I am a Republican. I know that they are not perfect and they don't represent my views 100%, but I am trying to work from within to change that, at least locally.

So I get pretty defensive when I'm labeled a neocon just because of my view that the reasons for going to war in Iraq were right (even if some of the public justification was wrong, or just mis-understood). I know that this is not a popular position to have, but I do believe that going to war was the right thing to do. I do believe that all other options were exhausted. Saddam was "playing games" with us and the UN. It looked like he was a threat, blah, blah, blah. Bottom line, at the time it was fully justified. Now the waging of the "peace" afterword was totally botched. No argument there. But Bush did finally see the light, got rid of Rumsfeld, and things got better.

This is a bit off topic now, but I really believe that if many people would see past their (in my mind irrational) hatred of Bush then they would see that they are actually more Repulican than the Democrats they think they are.

Remember Obama won largely because he promised tax cuts.

[Roamy]

FYI Socalies and TIREs

Interesting Statistics


Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law,
St. Paul, Minnesota, points out facts of 2008 Presidential election:


Number of States won by:
Democrats: 19
Republicans: 29

Square miles of land won by:
Democrats: 580,000
Republicans: 2,427,000

Population of counties won by:
Democrats: 127 million
Republicans: 143 million

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Democrats: 13.2
Republicans: 2.1

Professor Olson adds:
"In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won by Republicans
was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.

Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in
government-owned tenements and living off various forms of
government welfare.

Professor Olson believes the United States is now somewhere
between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's
definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's
population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal
invaders called illegal's and they vote, then we can say goodbye to
the USA in fewer than five years

[Jag_Warrior]

Jag, I don't know what to say. We could go on and on for days about such a broad list of socio-economic issues. I think that we are closer together on many of these issues than you would like to let on. I see that a lot.

Chuck, despite any disagreements on particular issues, I have nothing at all against you personally. So I'm not sure why you think that I'd have an objection to being close to your position on issues where we do agree. On some issues, we agree. On others, we disagree. I think that's healthy.



I am a pretty staunch Republican. NOT A NEOCON. Some may even call them Rinos. If you would have asked me a year ago, or even before that probably, I would have told you that a lot of the junk that Bush or McCain or a whole list of people were doing was wrong. But I am a Republican because that party is the only party the is viable and represents my views. I suppose that I could go be a Libertarian, but then I'd be out in the "wilderness" politically. Plus they tend to be pretty isolationist and that is just an unrealistic point of view in this day and age. So I am a Republican. I know that they are not perfect and they don't represent my views 100%, but I am trying to work from within to change that, at least locally.

If I added up my votes on the national level since I was 18, I've probably voted for more Republicans than I have Democrats. But I'm not a Republican. The last party I actually supported was Perot's United We Stand movement. I'm an independent voter, and generally a libertarian (with a small "l") - I am not a member of the Libertarian or any other party. It seems to me that all parties use their most loyal supporters as cannon fodder or sheep. The two major parties got together to shut Ross Perot out of the Presidential debates in 1996. And it's been that way ever since. The two major parties don't want the American people to have any choice outside of what they offer. So in doing all that they legally can to shut alternative parties out, they serve themselves... not the people. It's about the money and the power, the power and the money.


So I get pretty defensive when I'm labeled a neocon just because of my view that the reasons for going to war in Iraq were right (even if some of the public justification was wrong, or just mis-understood). I know that this is not a popular position to have, but I do believe that going to war was the right thing to do. I do believe that all other options were exhausted. Saddam was "playing games" with us and the UN. It looked like he was a threat, blah, blah, blah. Bottom line, at the time it was fully justified. Now the waging of the "peace" afterword was totally botched. No argument there. But Bush did finally see the light, got rid of Rumsfeld, and things got better.

Iran is a threat and plays games with us. China is a threat and plays (the most) games with us. North Korea is a threat and plays games with us. All of those countries either have or are soon to have nuclear weapons. Pakistan is in danger of falling to the Taliban. Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Was Saddam Hussein a bad person? Yes. Give me about 15 minutes on Google and I can assemble a list of 100 or so other leaders around the globe who are bad people. But I'm not aware of the slightest bit of evidence that Saddam Hussein represented an imminent threat to the United States of America. He was not as close as the Iranians or North Koreans were to assembling a nuclear weapon. But now, because Bush and the neocons have exhausted so many of our resources (geopolitical, as well as military) waging a needless war in Iraq, we are backed into a corner with regard to Iran, Pakistan, North Korea and Russia. As for China, we are now so indebted to them that they can maniplate their currency, dump subsidized goods here, pirate the IP of U.S. companies and even sell restricted goods to Iran and others... and there's not a damn thing we can do about it! Let me know when the righteous attack on China begins, so I can finish my bomb shelter and find a pretty girl who'll live down there with me til we turn into dust.

What I see with the Bush/neocon action in Iraq is a great transfer of American wealth for something that has not benefited the American people one tiny bit. We are not the policemen of the world. From Africa to Asia to Latin America, there are dictators and regimes that violate human rights. I'm really and sincerely sorry about that. But it is not our job or our God given right to correct every wrong throughout the world. There are now 1 million street gang members in the United States. The Mexican Mafia is more powerful than ever. The violence from Mexico is spilling over into the U.S. Now that affects Americans! What's being done about that? What did Bush do about that? Oh yeah, he started building a fence in Texas so the coke shipments and child prostitutes would have to come in though San Diego. Chuck, we can't protect our own, yet we'll sacrifice the lives and limbs of 35,000 American kids to build a fake model of democracy in Iraq?! The $600 billion we've blown, that will probably be closer to $2 trillion before it's over with, is just a Chinese cherry on top (They don't really believe we're ever going to pay them back, do they? Suckers!!! :D ). I'm not for wasting money. But if it gets down to it, I'm in favor of spending $10 on Americans in the United States before I'd spend 20 cents in Iraq, Israel, or any other place.




This is a bit off topic now, but I really believe that if many people would see past their (in my mind irrational) hatred of Bush then they would see that they are actually more Repulican than the Democrats they think they are.

Remember Obama won largely because he promised tax cuts.

I hope you're not under the illusion that everyone who opposed Bush or voted for Obama is a Democrat or thinks they are a Democrat. The GOP has rudely shoved aside fiscal conservatives and conservative libertarians in favor of Evangelicals and neocons for the past 10 years. George Bush and the neocons are the ones most responsible for the election of Barack Obama. Liberals are happy. Many of the rest of us are hopeful. Just as Bush became a poster boy for al Qaeda recruitment around the world, his failed foreign and domestic policies convinced many of us that we weren't going to take a chance on McCain being anything like him - and I used to think a lot of John McCain. But with his selection of Sarah Palin as a running mate, the decision was made that much easier for some of us. I was going to vote for Bob Barr. But at the last minute, I decided that I wasn't going to take the chance that McCain/Palin would win the election by taking my state by 1 vote. I would campaign for Ralph Nader before I would see something like Sarah Palin get within a heartbeat of the United States Presidency!

So as I said, I wouldn't tell you that you are a neocon... because I don't know you that well. As I've already said, holding their view on Iraq doesn't (necessarily) make you a neocon. But I've been here for a long time, Chuck. Though I'm not as bad as I used to be, I'm not known for beating around the bush. If I actually did believe that you were a neocon, I would leave no doubt about that belief. ;)

[Roamy]

pretty good post Jag

[chuck34]

Jag, I don't think that you have anything against me personally. Sorry if I came off like I thought that. I suck at "tone" in a deal like this.

The situation you describe with Perrot is exactly why I am a Republican. The way things are, we have a two party system. Is that right? No, but it's workable. I see this as a deal where I picked the party that represents me mostly, and went with them. I can still oppose things I don't like about the party. Just because I'm a member doesn't mean I'm a "sheep". I have voted for dems before and will again. This deal where most people think that being "independent" is so great is a bunch of bunk. Grow a spine and pick a side! I don't direct this at you Jag, I think you have well thought out reasons for being independent, but a lot of people just think that it's "cool" to be "independent".

I've heard all those arguments before. They get tiresome to me. North Korea is the best example. They do something stupid, like say launch a missle, or build a "nuke". We tell them to stop. They say no. We say you better or else. So they stop and fall in line. They know how to play the game. With Saddam we told him to let us into any site we wanted, whenever we wanted. He said I'll let you in this place when I say so. We say you will do as we say, and you signed off on back on '91 remember? He says ok you get two places. On and on. He never knew when to fold 'em.

The other example is Lybia. You don't hear much from them anymore do you? That's because once they saw we weren't messing around anymore they gave up. Sometimes you have to be willing to call someones bluff. I know it probably isn't a great explaination, but it's the best I can do without spending a few pages, and a boat load of time. But I suspect most people have already made up their minds anyway, so some no one on a motorsports forum will change their minds.

Iraq shure did bennift Americans. I've argued this before, and it's getting old to me and probably to all of you. At the time I do believe that many people in the inteligence community thought that there was a real threat of Iraq attacking either their own people or others in the region. Que all the "reports" from people that dispute this. Been there done that (I know a boat load of people think that Bush and Cheney cooked all this up so that Halliburton could make a buck, and I just can not buy that for one second). Of course there was minority opinion. What would have happend had Bush done nothing. Then long about 2005, Iraq gasses the Kurds again, or attacks Iran, or Kuwait? It's fine to sit here now and second guess things but look at it in the time. Again we're back to my boredom and most people's unwillingness to have their minds changed by an internet forum.

Of course we should protect our boarders. Do you think Obama is gonna do anything different than Bush?

So we've spend somewhere between 600B and 2T in Iraq. That's a lot of money, but it was spent over 6 years. We just spent 790B (over 1T after interest) in one day! Mostly on programs that will do nothing to stimulate the economy! Look at it this way, in one day we spent so much money that if you spent one million dollars a day since the day Crist was born, you still would not have spent the same amount. This argument that I keep hearing about how much money Bush spent so we get to spend a bunch too, is just ridiculus.

In the same breath as people condemn Bush for spending so much money that our economy has tanked, they say the only way out is to spend a bunch more. I fail to see the logic in that.

I sure don't think that everyone that voted for Obama is a Dem. I do think that most of them voted against Bush and the Republicans. It wouldn't have mattered if Mickey Mouse was running as a Democrat, he would have won. What I am saying is that if people stopped and looked at the actual issues and not the party affiliation in the 2008 election that the results would have been much different. Bob Barr probably would have won (maybe Ron Paul, but he wasn't in all the states), and I would put a wager on Obama being last. But I don't have any data on that so please forgive me for making a general statement on that.

Spare me with the Sarah Palin crap. Name one thing that she actually said, not something from SNL or the internet, that makes you feel so over the top about her. *Not that I think she's perfect, but she shure got one heck of a bad rap this last year.


Sorry for such a long post. And again Jag, don't take any of this personally. I may be venting some of my frustration with many of the uninformed onto you. You seem to have very well thought out opinions, dead wrong, but well thought out :-)

[Jag_Warrior]

By choosing not to be a loyal follower of either major party, I require both parties to work for my vote. IMO, if more people were like that, the parties would have a harder time covering their lies... because they'd have to tell so many more lies to so many more factions.

Since both parties bonded together long enough to shut out alternative parties, that tells me that the fix is in. Do you think they did that for the good of the country or for the good of their own interests?

As for Saddam, he was in no position to attack anyone outside of Iraq. After the beating he took in Desert Storm, who was he going to attack? He rattled his saber and did play games with the U.N. So what? What if Saddam had gassed the Kurds again? I don't mean to sound cruel, but what does that have to do with the United States? And if he had attacked some other country, well, let the ass kicking begin again. North Korea and Iran have been doing the same thing. Do you want the U.S. to attack them? Even if we wanted to, we can't now. After having our face rubbed in the mud in Iraq, every two bit, strong man, thug leader in the world knows that we don't have the support or the muscle to undertake anymore wars without being directly attacked, or having one of our primary interests (Israel) attacked. Libya? Reagan didn't go to war with Libya. He launched air attacks and blew up Qaddafi's family with a missile... and that was that. We didn't spend money to rebuild Libya or get involved with their human rights issues. Libya and Qaddafi became weaker internationally after that and we moved on. The way I see it, a lot of Americans want to meddle in the affairs of others, when it has not the first thing to do with us. Fix the issues here first. We need to worry about our own affairs for a change. And if we have some spare coin and time to help someone who asks for or really needs help, we should do what we can.

Palin. Don't get me started on that one. No, my knowledge of Simple Sarah :s pinhead: didn't come from SNL. I have an entire thread about her. Some of it is opinion. Some of it is satire. But my strongest (and harshest) opinions on Palin are based on facts. I won't bore everyone by reposting my thoughts about her here.

I'll just say again that if McCain was determined to have a female running mate, he could/should have picked someone like Kay Bailey Hutchinson.

Here's a fairly recent post.
http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=583660&postcount=109

Here's the entire thread if you want to pour through it.
http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=130261

All I can say for Sarah is, if ya liked Bush, you'll love Sarah.

[Jag_Warrior]

So we've spend somewhere between 600B and 2T in Iraq. That's a lot of money, but it was spent over 6 years. We just spent 790B (over 1T after interest) in one day!

Sorry, I missed this one.

If we just spent $790 billion in one day with the bill that was just signed into law, there will be a pair of airline and race tickets waiting for you and your significant other at JFK this May. Enjoy the Monaco Grand Prix weekend on me.

That money isn't spent until it's spent. The same is true of the money spent in Iraq: they're cumulative figures.

[chuck34]

Sorry, I missed this one.

If we just spent $790 billion in one day with the bill that was just signed into law, there will be a pair of airline and race tickets waiting for you and your significant other at JFK this May. Enjoy the Monaco Grand Prix weekend on me.

That money isn't spent until it's spent. The same is true of the money spent in Iraq: they're cumulative figures.

That money is spent. Do you honestly believe that now that it has been promised out that the number has any chance of getting smaller????

Save your money tho, times is tough all 'round. :-)

[chuck34]

As for the political parties. Of course the fix is in. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. I prefer working from the inside to change the way "my party" works. That way I have a chance, however slim it may be, of changing things. There is basically no chance of changing things from the outside. All the proof you need of this is good 'ole Ross. With his virtually unlimited resources and pretty large amount of support (he got something like 19% of the vote in '92), he couldn't get things changed.

So yeah let candidates work for your votes. That's what primaries are for. But if "your guy" doesn't win in said primary don't be afraid to vote for the "other guy" in the general. I'm sure not.

As for Qaddafi, Regan did beat him up pretty bad. But he was making a lot of noise again in the late '90s early '00s. After we invaded Iraq we were able to call his bluff, he stopped all the stupidity, and now they are off the state sponsor of terror list.

Who exactly have Iran and N Korea attacked lately? I know Iran is meddeling in Israel through Syria, but that is hard to prove. And honestly, I'm not sure why we aren't/haven't been tougher on Iran anyway. But N Korea are just the neighborhood bully, fairly harmless when you get right down to it. But I would like to see something done about the human rights stuff going on there.

So you wouldn't have cared if Saddam had gassed the Kurds again? I think you're pretty much in the minority on that one. Hypethetical here: Lets say that in '02 Bush is told what he was told, that Iraq likely has WMD, Saddam is threatening to use them, but Bush decides to ignore this as "faulty inteligence". Then in '05 Saddam gasses the Kurds. Who do you think would be the first in line calling for his impeachment? That's right the same people calling for it now. It was a no-win situation for the guy.

And make no mistake, if the US REALLY had to do something militarily we don't need anyone else to come along at this point. Sure it would be nice, and I would want some international support. But say if China got dumb and attacked Pearl Harbor or something, do you really think we couldn't handle that? We have a lot of troops a lot of places that could be "re-taked" PDQ. Don't worry about that.

[Jag_Warrior]

That money is spent. Do you honestly believe that now that it has been promised out that the number has any chance of getting smaller????

Save your money tho, times is tough all 'round. :-)

The amount in question has nothing to do with whether it's "spent" or not. The signing of this bill into law simply approved that amount to be spent. As best I recall, the expenditures will take place over 2-3 years time.

Think about it this way. You're building a house. The bank approves you for a construction loan to be paid out in draws. Are you going to pay interest on the entire approval amount on the day you sign the papers, or on the balance drawn out, as it's drawn out?

I'm just pointing out the fact that there was not an expenditure today of $790 billion based on the signing of this bill.

[Jag_Warrior]

As for the political parties. Of course the fix is in. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. I prefer working from the inside to change the way "my party" works. That way I have a chance, however slim it may be, of changing things. There is basically no chance of changing things from the outside. All the proof you need of this is good 'ole Ross. With his virtually unlimited resources and pretty large amount of support (he got something like 19% of the vote in '92), he couldn't get things changed.

The neocons and Evangelicals call the shots in the GOP (for right now). If Pat Buchanan, Chris Buckley, Colin Powell and Jonathan Bush (George's cousin) no longer have a seat at the big boys' table in the GOP, I can only wish you the best of luck in changing them before they change you.

How soon we forget... Perot's polling numbers were in the 30's during the campaign. In some polls, he was leading Clinton and Bush. Perot dropped out of the race, came back and still got 19%! Many believe that he would have won had he remained fully committed, and not fallen for the false threat concerning his daughter, delivered by Scott Barnes. But name me another candidate that has accomplished what Perot did in modern times. Perot changed a great deal. At the very least, he forced the Dems and the Repubs to the center on many issues. For once, the middle class was listened to, if just for a brief time. Then the neocons and moral majority types took over the GOP and the Dems drifted back to the left. And here we are.



So yeah let candidates work for your votes. That's what primaries are for. But if "your guy" doesn't win in said primary don't be afraid to vote for the "other guy" in the general. I'm sure not.

I'm not sure what you mean here.



Who exactly have Iran and N Korea attacked lately?

Iran was shipping arms and giving support to the insurgents in Iraq last year, and still are as far as I know. But as you say, who had Iraq attacked when we invaded?



I know Iran is meddeling in Israel through Syria, but that is hard to prove. And honestly, I'm not sure why we aren't/haven't been tougher on Iran anyway. But N Korea are just the neighborhood bully, fairly harmless when you get right down to it.

Proof? We don't need no stinkin' proof! Just make up some Powerpoints and doctor up some intelligence reports and call up the 101st. Hey, it worked the first time. :D

North Korea is fairly harmless, eh? North Korea is further along with a nuclear weapons program than Iraq ever was. And they have designed a missile that should be able to reach Alaska once fully developed. I believe they're in the process of testing it now. So a country that will be able to hit the United States with a nuclear weapon does not represent an imminent threat to our security. But some thug, who didn't have anything more than some mustard gas canisters strapped to some primitive rockets, that did well to hit a target +/- 50 miles... he was an imminent threat to the American people??? I love it!



But I would like to see something done about the human rights stuff going on there.

Well, me too... North Korea, Darfur, Peru, Colombia, Sri Lanka, etc., etc., etc. How about what the Chinese commies do to the Falun Gong? It's not right. It's really not. But...

I'd love to change the world. But I don't know what to do. So I'll leave it up to you.
---Ten Years After



So you wouldn't have cared if Saddam had gassed the Kurds again?

Sure, I'd care. I care about the girls in Colombia being stripped naked and branded between their legs with red hot bayonets for not abiding by the wishes of FARC rebels too. I was engaged to a girl from Peru who had her childhood friend murdered by Shining Path guerillas because she came from a wealthy family. I care about what's going on in Darfur. I care about a whole host of things. But I'm not Barney Fife. No one has pinned a badge on me or Uncle Sam to roam around the world and dispense (our brand of) justice.



Hypethetical here: Lets say that in '02 Bush is told what he was told, that Iraq likely has WMD, Saddam is threatening to use them, but Bush decides to ignore this as "faulty inteligence". Then in '05 Saddam gasses the Kurds. Who do you think would be the first in line calling for his impeachment? That's right the same people calling for it now. It was a no-win situation for the guy.

What if, what if, what if... The problem is that war was based on nothing but vague "what if's". Hussein's air force was parked in Iran. He was so scared of being blown up in his sleep, he was staying at different palaces nightly. Iraq didn't attack anyone. Iraq wasn't poised to attack anyone. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq was not in league with the forces that did undertake 9/11. Iraq was not a threat to the United States of America.



And make no mistake, if the US REALLY had to do something militarily we don't need anyone else to come along at this point. Sure it would be nice, and I would want some international support. But say if China got dumb and attacked Pearl Harbor or something, do you really think we couldn't handle that? We have a lot of troops a lot of places that could be "re-taked" PDQ. Don't worry about that.

Sure, between us and the Chinese, we can destroy the planet with nukes... several times over. I'm not talking about what I already said would be a clear cut case of aggression against the U.S. or its interests. But as was shown with Bush's war in Iraq, what little support we actually got from our "allies" was tiny and rather meaningless. If we asked for international help on another vague expedition, you might get a few soldiers of fortune and a wounded camel to come along. We don't need anyone else? So just how bad should we allow our international position to become? Hey, I've got it... let's also start a trade war. Why would we want to wound ourselves like that??? Be careful, Chuck. I'm detecting some of the neocons' "you're either with us or you're against us... we're better off fightin' 'em over there than over here... stay the course... New World Order!!!" in what you're saying. Step back from the light, Chuck. Step back quickly! :D

I have the greatest fascination with ancient Rome. But I'm under no illusion that we have entered (or need to enter) a new age of Romanesque empire/nation building in the U.S. You want to invade Iraq and take their oil? No? So we're going to pay for them, like a new welfare state (like Israel) until the end of time? Do you want to march around the world, spend our money and kill our kids building nations, while America goes bankrupt? Why???

Chuck, I sincerely ask you, why are you so worried about issues outside the borders of this nation, when there are more than enough issues here to work on? Why do you want to create hypothetical circumstances to justify and rationalize needless actions in foreign lands, when we could get in a car and drive to Laredo, Texas and get smacked in the face by our own reality?

[Roamy]

real nice Bitch !!



Remember the big flap about Sarah Palin's dress?

Americans! Where are you? Are you awake?

We haven't heard any comment on "Queen Madam" Pelosi's snit about having to ride home in the small private, economy jet that comes with the Speaker's job. Remember how Madame Peelo was so aggravated that this little jet had to refuel while transporting her to California every week? Remember that she insisted on a luxurious 200 seat jet to fly her to California nonstop, instead?
Hello Folks! Are you awake? Can you muster even a little indignation?

Washington legislators who observed the Madam's Big Fat jet grinned with glee as Joe informed everyone that Nancy's luxury Jet will require hard working American tax payers, to buy thousands of gallons of expensive jet fuel every week. She only works 3 days a week but her gas guzzler luxury jet flights home, to California , costs taxpayers $60,000 one way! As Joe noted, 'Unfortunately we have to pay to bring her back on Monday night,' so there goes another $60,000.

Folks, that is $480,000 per month or an annual cost to taxpayers of $5,760,000. And she complains about the cost of the war? She could take the smaller jet which she says would cramp her style -- but since her flying in style takes precedence over war costs -- what the hell, eh?

Military families in this country do without while this woman, who heads up the most do-nothing Congress in the history of our country, spends lavishly to fly herself and associates to and from California every week. That burns me!! How about you?

Madame Peelo expects you and I to conserve our carbon footprint by driving smaller cars and buying a bicycle pump to over-inflate our tires for better economy while she and her hypocrite cohorts waste tax payer dollars. Ticks me off mightily! How about you?

[leopard]

This seems that US changes their paradigm on their foreign affairs by selecting different region as the first visit of the secretaries of state instead of Europe like the former administrations used to do.

This could be a good sign to initiate tightened relationship between the US and countries in the regions which can be reconciled with modernity, democracy and economic development, coupled with equality.

The visit will obviously give benefit either to country visited and the US itself, or Ms Hillary as personal. She would be enjoying the visit, some musictaintments asked her the good fortune for being the guest star...

[chuck34]

The amount in question has nothing to do with whether it's "spent" or not. The signing of this bill into law simply approved that amount to be spent. As best I recall, the expenditures will take place over 2-3 years time.

Think about it this way. You're building a house. The bank approves you for a construction loan to be paid out in draws. Are you going to pay interest on the entire approval amount on the day you sign the papers, or on the balance drawn out, as it's drawn out?

I'm just pointing out the fact that there was not an expenditure today of $790 billion based on the signing of this bill.

Semantics. You can argue all you want, but that money is spent. There is NO CHANCE that it will not be spent. Sure it will take a couple of years (one of my arguments why this is NOT an emergency stimulus), but it is gone.

[chuck34]

(snip)

Chuck, I sincerely ask you, why are you so worried about issues outside the borders of this nation, when there are more than enough issues here to work on? Why do you want to create hypothetical circumstances to justify and rationalize needless actions in foreign lands, when we could get in a car and drive to Laredo, Texas and get smacked in the face by our own reality?

All the other stuff we can go 'round and 'round about. Honestly, I'm bored and most people are probably sick of me by now. As far as the what if's, that's all we have. "you all" are playing with what if's too. "You all" keep saying what if we would have not invaded Iraq, well we did, so let's make the best of it. Blah, blah, blah, I'm getting drawn back in again. I'll stop now.

As to the question you pose above. I hate to say it, but issues outside our borders DO have an effect on this nation. In this day and age nothing is beyond our "sphere of influence". Of course we have issues here to work on as well. Sure we should secure our borders. But we can not do that while ignoring things going on "out there". Let's face it, until we live in some sort of "Star Trek" world, there will always be issues within our borders, no matter how much money we throw at the problems.

[Jag_Warrior]

Semantics. You can argue all you want, but that money is spent. There is NO CHANCE that it will not be spent. Sure it will take a couple of years (one of my arguments why this is NOT an emergency stimulus), but it is gone.

Chuck, you're taking something extremely simple and making it difficult. I'm just explaining the most basic of accounting rules. But if you believe that money is "spent" when it is "allocated", all I can say is, have someone else go with you to the bank if you ever present a business plan. If you're unable to explain to the banker when the spending is going to take place, I doubt you'll get very far. Either that or you're going to wind up paying interest on funds that you've not yet drawn down.

[Jag_Warrior]

All the other stuff we can go 'round and 'round about. Honestly, I'm bored and most people are probably sick of me by now. As far as the what if's, that's all we have. "you all" are playing with what if's too. "You all" keep saying what if we would have not invaded Iraq, well we did, so let's make the best of it. Blah, blah, blah, I'm getting drawn back in again. I'll stop now.

No, I'm saying it was a truly boneheaded move to invade Iraq. And we should be careful not to elect another President who would lie about his true foreign policy beliefs = no neocons, ever again. So if the GOP (or the Dems) brings forth another one that believes in nation building, that says to me there would be more Wizard of Oz, make believe wars for nothing. But we did a great thing for Iran with American blood and money in Iraq. So I hope they'll thank us by being a little more cooperative in the future.




As to the question you pose above. I hate to say it, but issues outside our borders DO have an effect on this nation. In this day and age nothing is beyond our "sphere of influence". Of course we have issues here to work on as well. Sure we should secure our borders. But we can not do that while ignoring things going on "out there". Let's face it, until we live in some sort of "Star Trek" world, there will always be issues within our borders, no matter how much money we throw at the problems.

I believe that some issues outside of our borders affect us. But 100% of the issues within the U.S. affect us. My father said many a time: "charity starts at home." America doesn't have much of a future if the dominant view is to take from Americans and give it away to others.

[donKey jote]

But we did a great thing for Iran with American blood and money in Iraq. So I hope they'll thank us by being a little more cooperative in the future.
There's an interesting series showing on the BBC at the moment called "Iran and the West"... it's hard not to see how they might be a little wary of the "West", after "we" did not so great things for Iran with the Iraqi's blood and backing of Saddam. Basically, all "we" have done now is get rid of the devil "we" had previously unleashed against them. :s
However, if Khatami (Iran's Obama ;) :p : ) gets reelected in place of the current demagog (Iran's neocon :vader: ) , there could well be a renewed climate of hope on both sides.

[chuck34]

Chuck, you're taking something extremely simple and making it difficult. I'm just explaining the most basic of accounting rules. But if you believe that money is "spent" when it is "allocated", all I can say is, have someone else go with you to the bank if you ever present a business plan. If you're unable to explain to the banker when the spending is going to take place, I doubt you'll get very far. Either that or you're going to wind up paying interest on funds that you've not yet drawn down.

It is you who is taking something simple and making it difficult. That money will be spent! No ifs, ands, or buts about it! I don't see the difference in saying that the GOVERNMENT has spent the money today, or that the GOVERNMENT has allocated it today. The money is gone. We are committed to it, it will not change. We will borrow it and pay it to people. It is spent. I don't know how you don't see that.

A business situation is quite a bit different. You go to the banker and tell them that I need X amount of money for this project, and I'll spend it on this now, that over there, and this in a bit. Plus it will boost my profit by this amount. But in the mean time I'm still going to be making a profit of this so I'll be able to pay it off by Y date. But if I make some more profit than I'm figuring I'll pay it off by Z date, so that will be a win-win for us both.

The government WILL spend this money. There is no way that it will ever change. And there is really fairly little chance for a ROI on this deal (in my opinion anyway). So if I'm the banker I'd tell the government to go F' off. BTW what happens if China (our banker) tells us to go F' off?


And even if I meet you half way and say it won't be spent for 2-3 years then my original point still stands. The Iraq war spend less money (600B) in more time (6 years) than this deal spends (790B) in a shorter amount of time (3 years). So either way you slice it, I'm still right.

[Jag_Warrior]

There's an interesting series showing on the BBC at the moment called "Iran and the West"... it's hard not to see how they might be a little wary of the "West", after "we" did not so great things for Iran with the Iraqi's blood and backing of Saddam. Basically, all "we" have done now is get rid of the devil "we" had previously unleashed against them. :s
However, if Khatami (Iran's Obama ;) :p : ) gets reelected in place of the current demagog (Iran's neocon :vader: ) , there could well be a renewed climate of hope on both sides.

Right you are! Isn't it convenient how easily some people forget who helped Saddam build his WMD program in the first place??? "Saddam... he was good before he was bad." The U.S. government doesn't know if it's batting or pitching half the time:"The Taliban... when they were the 'Mujahideen', they were the good guys." Doncha love it?! Course, now that the neocons in the GOP say that they want to build their anti-Obama (if not anti-American) model based on the Taliban, maybe the Taliban are supposed to be the good guys now too. Who knows with those guys & gals? A neocon is a strange and dangerous animal. :s pinhead:

I'd like to see that series. I get BBC America, so I'll look for it there. The only other channel that I get, that doesn't seem to go through Tel Aviv for censor approval before Americans can see it, is Link TV. I think Link has some BBC originated programming as well.

[chuck34]

Right you are! Isn't it convenient how easily some people forget who helped Saddam build his WMD program in the first place??? "Saddam... he was good before he was bad." The U.S. government doesn't know if it's batting or pitching half the time:"The Taliban... when they were the 'Mujahideen', they were the good guys." Doncha love it?! Course, now that the neocons in the GOP say that they want to build their anti-Obama (if not anti-American) model based on the Taliban, maybe the Taliban are supposed to be the good guys now too. Who knows with those guys & gals? A neocon is a strange and dangerous animal. :s pinhead:

I'd like to see that series. I get BBC America, so I'll look for it there. The only other channel that I get, that doesn't seem to go through Tel Aviv for censor approval before Americans can see it, is Link TV. I think Link has some BBC originated programming as well.

The Mujahideen were the good guys before we left them with their d!cks in the wind. Bonehead move by Regan/Bush and the boys, I must admit that. Ever see Charlie Wilson's War, or read anything about him? He knew this was gonna happen back then.

Saddam was also a dumb idea. Why we ever needed to set that guy up is beyond me. But then again he was sort of a "good" guy before we pulled his funding too!

Anyone see a pattern here? Maybe somebody should clue Obama in on this before he yanks the funding from the tribal leaders in Iraq too early.

[Jag_Warrior]

It is you who is taking something simple and making it difficult. That money will be spent! No ifs, ands, or buts about it! I don't see the difference in saying that the GOVERNMENT has spent the money today, or that the GOVERNMENT has allocated it today. The money is gone. We are committed to it, it will not change. We will borrow it and pay it to people. It is spent. I don't know how you don't see that.

A business situation is quite a bit different. You go to the banker and tell them that I need X amount of money for this project, and I'll spend it on this now, that over there, and this in a bit. Plus it will boost my profit by this amount. But in the mean time I'm still going to be making a profit of this so I'll be able to pay it off by Y date. But if I make some more profit than I'm figuring I'll pay it off by Z date, so that will be a win-win for us both.

The government WILL spend this money. There is no way that it will ever change. And there is really fairly little chance for a ROI on this deal (in my opinion anyway). So if I'm the banker I'd tell the government to go F' off. BTW what happens if China (our banker) tells us to go F' off?


And even if I meet you half way and say it won't be spent for 2-3 years then my original point still stands. The Iraq war spend less money (600B) in more time (6 years) than this deal spends (790B) in a shorter amount of time (3 years). So either way you slice it, I'm still right.

Chuck, if you don't know the difference between "spent" and what will be spent, I really can't help you. That's high school level accounting. You don't need to meet me half way because what I am saying is a simple fact. I can't believe we are even discussing something so basic.

Maybe it's the way that you are attempting to (re)define words. I don't know. Will the money approved in the bill be spent? Yes, most likely it will all be spent over some period of time - which is not one day! Was the entire amount "spent" on the day that the bill was signed into law? <deep sigh> No, it was not. Even under "Enron accounting methods", it wouldn't work that way. Why are you having problems understanding this?

Basic accounting is just basic accounting. As far as profits and who shot John and ROI and whether you spend it on building supplies or hookers & booze, that has not the first thing to do with this basic, fundamental rule of accounting.

If you attempted to calculate an IRR involving borowed funds based on what you're saying, you'd have one helluva time getting untangled from your underwear. It would make no sense whatsoever, and it would be completely invalid.

Look it up, take a 101 level accounting class or call H&R Block. I clearly can't help you with this. This is why I stopped teaching business statistics in my spare time several years ago.

[chuck34]

Chuck, if you don't know the difference between "spent" and what will be spent, I really can't help you. That's high school level accounting. You don't need to meet me half way because what I am saying is a simple fact. I can't believe we are even discussing something so basic.

Maybe it's the way that you are attempting to (re)define words. I don't know. Will the money approved in the bill be spent? Yes, most likely it will all be spent over some period of time - which is not one day! Was the entire amount "spent" on the day that the bill was signed into law? <deep sigh> No, it was not. Even under "Enron accounting methods", it wouldn't work that way. Why are you having problems understanding this?

Basic accounting is just basic accounting. As far as profits and who shot John and ROI and whether you spend it on building supplies or hookers & booze, that has not the first thing to do with this basic, fundamental rule of accounting.

If you attempted to calculate an IRR involving borowed funds based on what you're saying, you'd have one helluva time getting untangled from your underwear. It would make no sense whatsoever, and it would be completely invalid.

Look it up, take a 101 level accounting class or call H&R Block. I clearly can't help you with this. This is why I stopped teaching business statistics in my spare time several years ago.

Fine, I don't care. The money is GOING to be spent, but it hasn't yet. Does that make you happy?

Now what about the original point. You claimed Bush screwed the nation by spending $600B in 6 years (or at least something to that effect, I'm sure you will use sematics to wiggle your way out of it). I'm saying that Obama is spending $790B in 3 years on things that are just as wastefull, if not more so. How can you say that this is now a good thing?

Look Bush didn't start off saying that he was going to spend $600B. The cost ballooned up to that. Does that make it right? Of course not. It is what it is. Government spending ALWAYS goes up. Do you think this $790B is going to go up or down?

[Jag_Warrior]

The Mujahideen were the good guys before we left them with their d!cks in the wind. Bonehead move by Regan/Bush and the boys, I must admit that. Ever see Charlie Wilson's War, or read anything about him? He knew this was gonna happen back then.

Saddam was also a dumb idea. Why we ever needed to set that guy up is beyond me. But then again he was sort of a "good" guy before we pulled his funding too!

Anyone see a pattern here? Maybe somebody should clue Obama in on this before he yanks the funding from the tribal leaders in Iraq too early.

The story about Charlie Wilson is a very interesting one. Quite a fellow all the way around.

Saddam was a ruthless dictator in the 80's and he remained a ruthless dictator. The difference being that at one time, he was "our" ruthless dictator. But we relied on the childish principle of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" for too long.

As for the Mujahideen, they believed in the exact same thing back in the 80's that they believe in right now: militant Islamic fundamentalism. What we shared in common with them in the 80's was seeing the Russians getting kicked in the nads and leaving Afghanistan - and that was it. Those people had no desire to adopt American culture or American democracy.

Hopefully what Obama learns is that you don't turn your back on a mean dog, even if he licks your hand when you're feeding him.

[BDunnell]

Saddam was a ruthless dictator in the 80's and he remained a ruthless dictator. The difference being that at one time, he was "our" ruthless dictator. But we relied on the childish principle of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" for too long.

Very good point. I hope that short-termism doesn't prevail.

By the way, I find it rather ironic that certain people here who presumably supported Reagan don't know how to spell his name.

[chuck34]

Very good point. I hope that short-termism doesn't prevail.

By the way, I find it rather ironic that certain people here who presumably supported Reagan don't know how to spell his name.

So I can't spell or type, does that make any of my points less valid?

[BDunnell]

So I can't spell or type, does that make any of my points less valid?

Not at all — and I certainly wouldn't say that you 'can't spell or type'.

[chuck34]

Not at all — and I certainly wouldn't say that you 'can't spell or type'.

*Sigh, I never said what I said, Sigh*

[BDunnell]

*Sigh, I never said what I said, Sigh*

I was referring to one word only. I honestly do not think that you 'can't spell or type'.

[Jag_Warrior]

Fine, I don't care. The money is GOING to be spent, but it hasn't yet. Does that make you happy?
*
Actually, if I already know the answer to something, it doesn't really affect me one way or the other. I just didn't see why you were hanging onto that for so long. Look, no harm, no foul.
*</P>



Now what about the original point. You claimed Bush screwed the nation by spending $600B in 6 years (or at least something to that effect, I'm sure you will use sematics to wiggle your way out of it). I'm saying that Obama is spending $790B in 3 years on things that are just as wastefull, if not more so. How can you say that this is now a good thing?
*
Semantics? I think I was pretty clear when I said:

I'm not for wasting money. But if it gets down to it, I'm in favor of spending $10 on Americans in the United States before I'd spend 20 cents in Iraq, Israel, or any other place.

*</P>


*

Look Bush didn't start off saying that he was going to spend $600B. The cost ballooned up to that. Does that make it right? Of course not. It is what it is. Government spending ALWAYS goes up. Do you think this $790B is going to go up or down?</P>


You're exactly right. Bush originally said Iraq would cost $50 billion and would be largely paid for out of Iraqi oil sales. Taking "largely" to be the majority, let's knock that cost down by say $26 billion to $24 billion. Hmm, $24 billion versus $600 billion (before interest) - and the Iraqis are banking the oil money (up to $80 billion, last I heard). Me? I wouldn't p!ss in a bucket and pour it on a fire in Iraq. Bridges were falling down in the U.S. and that S.O.B. Bush was pouring American lives and money into that miserable hole in the sand! That boy was wearing our jersey, but he was the best player the other team had.</P>


What do I think of the current figure, $790 billion? I don't think the wave of unregulated and largely unknown Credit Default Swaps and CDO's have fully hit the banks and financial markets yet. I believe there's between $50-$60 trillion (with a "t") of those little time bombs floating around. If the Fed's monetary actions and the fiscal stimulus backstops the current slide in underlying asset values, maybe they won't (all) blow up. If they do... $790 billion to bail out a $14 trillion economy (GDP) won't mean anything. If we get out of this with $790 billion, I'd consider it a bargain... but I think it's going to cost more.</P>


</P>


*</P>


EDIT: What the hell??????????^^^^^^^^^^^^

[donKey jote]

jag can spell but can't type :laugh: :p :
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_3_166.gif

[chuck34]

*
Actually, if I already know the answer to something, it doesn't really affect me one way or the other. I just didn't see why you were hanging onto that for so long. Look, no harm, no foul.
*</P>



*
Semantics? I think I was pretty clear when I said:

*</P>


*
</P>


You're exactly right. Bush originally said Iraq would cost $50 billion and would be largely paid for out of Iraqi oil sales. Taking "largely" to be the majority, let's knock that cost down by say $26 billion to $24 billion. Hmm, $24 billion versus $600 billion (before interest) - and the Iraqis are banking the oil money (up to $80 billion, last I heard). Me? I wouldn't p!ss in a bucket and pour it on a fire in Iraq. Bridges were falling down in the U.S. and that S.O.B. Bush was pouring American lives and money into that miserable hole in the sand! That boy was wearing our jersey, but he was the best player the other team had.</P>


What do I think of the current figure, $790 billion? I don't think the wave of unregulated and largely unknown Credit Default Swaps and CDO's have fully hit the banks and financial markets yet. I believe there's between $50-$60 trillion (with a "t") of those little time bombs floating around. If the Fed's monetary actions and the fiscal stimulus backstops the current slide in underlying asset values, maybe they won't (all) blow up. If they do... $790 billion to bail out a $14 trillion economy (GDP) won't mean anything. If we get out of this with $790 billion, I'd consider it a bargain... but I think it's going to cost more.</P>


</P>


*</P>


EDIT: What the hell??????????^^^^^^^^^^^^


I guess all I was trying to say (probably badly) was that the $790B was on the ledger in the expences column. That means there is $790B that we can't use for anything else. That means there is another $790B that we have to pay back some day. That's all I was saying. You seemed to be arguing that the money hasn't been spent yet, so it really wasn't "on the books yet". Anyway either way it doesn't matter. It's a boat load of money that you, me, our kids, and probably our grand kids will have to fork over.

We've already been over the "Iraq is going to pay the load" argument. We agree, Iraq should pay (at least I think we agree on that?). My question is where does Obama stand on that? I think, so far at least, he's right there with "the evil one" Bush.

Ah the old "Bridges are falling down here" argument. That bridge was going to fall down at some point. It was a design flaw from the '60s. No amount of maintenance would change that. The only thing that could have changed things is if they would have done a complete engineering re-evaluation. That is what they did post failure. Throwing money at problems doesn't always fix things. This is a perfect example. Had the Minnesota highway department been given more money for maintenance that bridge still would have fallen down. It would have had a fresh coat of paint on it, but it would still be at the bottom of the Mississippi.


I really do hope that you are right and $790B will stop all this mess. That sure would be nice. But I wouldn't count on it. Hell even the Obama team are already talking about a stimulus II!!!! Where in the world are we going to get THAT money?

[donKey jote]

We agree, Iraq should pay (at least I think we agree on that?).

Iraq should pay what to whom for what ? :confused:

or was that more a rhetorical "they should pay for what they made us do" :s

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_3_166.gif

[chuck34]

Iraq should pay what to whom for what ? :confused:

or was that more a rhetorical "they should pay for what they made us do" :s

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_3_166.gif

Read the rest of the thread.

Pay us with some of their surpus.

[Jag_Warrior]

We've already been over the "Iraq is going to pay the load" argument. We agree, Iraq should pay (at least I think we agree on that?). My question is where does Obama stand on that? I think, so far at least, he's right there with "the evil one" Bush.

That ship has sailed, Chuck. I have no idea when Bush realized (if he ever did) that we wouldn't be raiding the Iraqi treasury, but that's off the table now. The U.S. taxpayers are on the hook for Iraq and will remain on the hook for Iraq.



Ah the old "Bridges are falling down here" argument. That bridge was going to fall down at some point. It was a design flaw from the '60s. No amount of maintenance would change that. The only thing that could have changed things is if they would have done a complete engineering re-evaluation. That is what they did post failure. Throwing money at problems doesn't always fix things. This is a perfect example. Had the Minnesota highway department been given more money for maintenance that bridge still would have fallen down. It would have had a fresh coat of paint on it, but it would still be at the bottom of the Mississippi.

Bridges have fallen and others are in danger of falling. Highway projects weren't being funded. Schools weren't being built. The FDA was/is understaffed and inefficient. But just on the bridge issue:
"More than 70,000 bridges across America are rated structurally deficient like the span that collapsed in Minneapolis, and engineers estimate repairing them all would take at least a generation and cost more than $188 billion (€137.59 billion).
That works out to at least $9.4 billion (€6.88 billion) a year over 20 years, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers."
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/02/america/NA-GEN-US-Bridge-Safety.php

All I can say is, if it's not right to "throw money" at problems in America, it's sure as hell not right to throw money at problems in foreign lands.



I really do hope that you are right and $790B will stop all this mess. That sure would be nice. But I wouldn't count on it. Hell even the Obama team are already talking about a stimulus II!!!! Where in the world are we going to get THAT money?

I'm not saying that this package (alone) will do the trick. I have no idea - neither does anyone else. If Larry Summers and Alan Greenspan don't know, lil ol' me sure don't know. As I said, if the economy doesn't turn the corner with this bump, more will likely be required. Where are we going to get the money? Same place we're going to get the money for Iraq, and everything else we're spending money on: we'll borrow what we can and print the rest.

When I go long and the equity goes up or I go short and the equity goes down... that kind of "being right" makes me happy, Chuck. Seeing this thing likely hitting 17 months and setting a post war record is hardly something I want to be right about. Trust me.

[chuck34]

we'll borrow what we can and print the rest.


You're the economist, so you're going to have to tell me how THAT is a good idea. Especially when NO ONE can tell us that we are spending the money on the right things. What happens when China or whoever stops lending us money? You say we start printing it right? So now inflation is a good thing?

Please don't come at me with the Iraq argument. You fall into the same old thing we keep going over and over. "He did something bad so I get to too". It's bad logic.

Someone needs to sell me on this whole "stimulus" on its own merits.

[Jag_Warrior]

You're the economist, so you're going to have to tell me how THAT is a good idea. Especially when NO ONE can tell us that we are spending the money on the right things. What happens when China or whoever stops lending us money? You say we start printing it right? So now inflation is a good thing?

It has nothing to do with it being a good or bad, I'm simply stating where the money will come from - the same places it's ALWAYS come from. When a surplus no longer exists, you borrow or print. In the housing market, we're experiencing deflation. In that particular market, yes, inflation (or "reflation", as some might say) would be preferable to deflation. Broad deflation throughout the economy would be disasterous, because deflation is generally much harder to address than inflation. That's what the U.S. had in the 1930's and it's very hard to cure, as opposed to inflation.

Is this the exact right thing to do? Economists are still arguing about FDR's New Deal and Reagan's supply side policies. If you expected broad agreement on this bill... :wave:



Please don't come at me with the Iraq argument. You fall into the same old thing we keep going over and over. "He did something bad so I get to too". It's bad logic.

Chuck. Chuck. Chuck. Why be disingenuous? Review the threads where we were discussing Iraq and Bush. We were discussing foreign policy and your objections to being thought of as a neocon. If you can find a post where I've suggested that since Bush was a rolling joke, Obama can be one too... you can still get that free trip to Monaco. That has not been the basis for any argument that I've made here. You must have watched "Lost" last night and you're now seeing things that don't exist. "Cholly! Where's the baaabee, Cholly? Where's the baaabee?!" :D

Where this seems to be getting sticky for you, it seems the more you post, maybe you really were a fan of W. Bush and/or his (foreign) policies??? :dozey: Whereas I voted for Obama, I'm really not in his fanclub. Given the two viable options, I just felt that he was the better option. But I have objected to some of his appointments (Eric Holder and Mary Schapiro, most notably) and on a line item basis, some of the things in this most recent bill. But from the standpoint of consumer/investor confidence (which is what makes the most difference = "rational expectations"), I'm glad that a bill was passed. I'm sorry about how it came to be though. I think that it was badly formed and should have been cleaner. I think that the extreme elements from both parties put politics ahead of the interests of the nation - which doesn't really surprise me. So I wish that there had been greater participation from the moderates in both parties. But considering the size of our economy, I don't think this bill is big enough to really make a difference. Maybe it will be... I hope so. But I think there should have been bigger, more immediate tax cuts for individuals and businesses, as well as more of a focus on Year 1.



Someone needs to sell me on this whole "stimulus" on its own merits.

"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

[chuck34]

It has nothing to do with it being a good or bad, I'm simply stating where the money will come from - the same places it's ALWAYS come from. When a surplus no longer exists, you borrow or print. In the housing market, we're experiencing deflation. In that particular market, yes, inflation (or "reflation", as some might say) would be preferable to deflation. Broad deflation throughout the economy would be disasterous, because deflation is generally much harder to address than inflation. That's what the U.S. had in the 1930's and it's very hard to cure, as opposed to inflation.

Is this the exact right thing to do? Economists are still arguing about FDR's New Deal and Reagan's supply side policies. If you expected broad agreement on this bill... :wave:




Chuck. Chuck. Chuck. Why be disingenuous? Review the threads where we were discussing Iraq and Bush. We were discussing foreign policy and your objections to being thought of as a neocon. If you can find a post where I've suggested that since Bush was a rolling joke, Obama can be one too... you can still get that free trip to Monaco. That has not been the basis for any argument that I've made here. You must have watched "Lost" last night and you're now seeing things that don't exist. "Cholly! Where's the baaabee, Cholly? Where's the baaabee?!" :D

Where this seems to be getting sticky for you, it seems the more you post, maybe you really were a fan of W. Bush and/or his (foreign) policies??? :dozey: Whereas I voted for Obama, I'm really not in his fanclub. Given the two viable options, I just felt that he was the better option. But I have objected to some of his appointments (Eric Holder and Mary Schapiro, most notably) and on a line item basis, some of the things in this most recent bill. But from the standpoint of consumer/investor confidence (which is what makes the most difference = "rational expectations"), I'm glad that a bill was passed. I'm sorry about how it came to be though. I think that it was badly formed and should have been cleaner. I think that the extreme elements from both parties put politics ahead of the interests of the nation - which doesn't really surprise me. So I wish that there had been greater participation from the moderates in both parties. But considering the size of our economy, I don't think this bill is big enough to really make a difference. Maybe it will be... I hope so. But I think there should have been bigger, more immediate tax cuts for individuals and businesses, as well as more of a focus on Year 1.




"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."


Nice deflection about talking about deflation instead of inflation. That's a good tactic.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Wholesale-inflation-takes-apf-14410311.html

Of course you would never say that "Bush spent so Obama can", you are much too smart for that. However in post #173 you did say "The $600 billion we've blown, that will probably be closer to $2 trillion before it's over with, is just a Chinese cherry on top (They don't really believe we're ever going to pay them back, do they? ". So you say that Bush blew $600B. And I am saying that Obama has blown $790B, probably soon to be more on something that is of no bennifit. But being an economist and all, I am still waiting for the explaination on how this "deal" is supposed to work.

So you are glad this bill passed "from the standpoint of consumer/investor confidence"? You sure about that? I'll let you back off of that seeing as how we touched a 52 week low in the market today. If that's confidence I would hate to see pessimism.

[donKey jote]

Read the rest of the thread.

Pay us with some of their surpus.

For someone who in the past has been known to drone on about people not answering his questions, well thanks for your helpful advice... :dozey:

Again, pay you for what? As compensation for your spending in a war you unilaterally started in your own interest ? :s
Didn't you get what you wanted? Isn't that payment enough?

Hasn't Iraq got enough collapsing (i.e. bombed out) bridges of it's own to repair before paying you back for anything ? ;)

Reminds me of something I saw in another thread I haven't read - something about getting the victim's family to pay for the bullet :dozey:

[race aficionado]

I'll let you back off of that seeing as how we touched a 52 week low in the market today. If that's confidence I would hate to see pessimism.

Chuck.

The stock market is a gambling casino that is desperate but still so powerful in the way it can make people feel and think.

Just look at how it "reacts" to our government's decisions. It doesn't like something so it goes down and the majority of the stock market followers like you go bonkers.

Then the next day it goes up. it's a teaser.

It's a yo-yo(sp?) that goes up and down and of course controlled by very powerful and very rich people. - not many of them by the way - but they will just react to what best fits THEIR interests.

That CURRENT gambling cassino that is our stock market is a crock in my opinion and I wouldn't determine the future of our nation with how confident the gamblers feel at a particular moment.

Just keep on holding to your pantalones, this is a very bumpy ride.

:s mokin:

[chuck34]

For someone who in the past has been known to drone on about people not answering his questions, well thanks for your helpful advice... :dozey:

Again, pay you for what? As compensation for your spending in a war you unilaterally started in your own interest ? :s
Didn't you get what you wanted? Isn't that payment enough?

Hasn't Iraq got enough collapsing (i.e. bombed out) bridges of it's own to repair before paying you back for anything ? ;)

Reminds me of something I saw in another thread I haven't read - something about getting the victim's family to pay for the bullet :dozey:

Since you are clearly against the war, you will not know about all the Iraqis that are happy that we got rid of an evil dictator. But go on believing that we did it for our own interests only.

And yes Iraq does have enough collapsing bridges of it's own to repair. That is the freaking point, we (The US) are paying for the repairs currently and in the past.

[chuck34]

Chuck.

The stock market is a gambling casino that is desperate but still so powerful in the way it can make people feel and think.

Just look at how it "reacts" to our government's decisions. It doesn't like something so it goes down and the majority of the stock market followers like you go bonkers.

Then the next day it goes up. it's a teaser.

It's a yo-yo(sp?) that goes up and down and of course controlled by very powerful and very rich people. - not many of them by the way - but they will just react to what best fits THEIR interests.

That CURRENT gambling cassino that is our stock market is a crock in my opinion and I wouldn't determine the future of our nation with how confident the gamblers feel at a particular moment.

Just keep on holding to your pantalones, this is a very bumpy ride.

:s mokin:

Race, I am not a stock market follower. I have some pretty limited investments (401K, a couple other stocks). I understand that it goes up and down all the time. No big deal to me. Jag was saying that this stimulus was giving investors confidence. The stock market is about the best gage of investor confidence that I know of. And since Obama, and his team, have started giving out details (or lack thereof) of their economic plan the market has pretty much crashed. That is showing a decided LACK of confidence that the market has in his plan.

You are very much right on, it will be a very bumpy ride. Especially if Obama and his "team" keep going this way.

[donKey jote]

Since you are clearly against the war, you will not know about all the Iraqis that are happy that we got rid of an evil dictator. But go on believing that we did it for our own interests only.

I am clearly against going to war under false pretences. I am clearly against evil dictators. The region might even become more stable as a result sometime, even without your one-time friend keeping the religious fundi's at bay... we shall see.
But you seem to think you went to war for the Iraqi people? Pull the other one. :laugh:
According to the bull during the buildup, you went to war to get rid of the Saddam threat against yourself. Conveniently forgotten about him being the brains behind 9/11 and his ability to reach the US with WMD's within 30 minutes? :laugh:



And yes Iraq does have enough collapsing bridges of it's own to repair. That is the freaking point, we (The US) are paying for the repairs currently and in the past.
The freaking point is that you (The US) are paying for damage to the infrastructure that you have inflicted. However, it's not all lost $$$: how much of your money is going to your own contractors to carry out the repairs, and how much is going into the big black hole in your puppet's pockets? You (the US neocons) saw the war as a business with a relatively good IRR based on -as it turns out- false premises: the oil money is not flowing back into their pockets as planned. Took a gamble and lost, so to say. Why should they (fledgeling Iraqi democrats ;) ) now cover your bad loans?

[BDunnell]

Since you are clearly against the war, you will not know about all the Iraqis that are happy that we got rid of an evil dictator.

Your assumption that everybody who was against the war doesn't recognise the improvements that have been made is, frankly, blinkered and simplistic.

[Jag_Warrior]

Nice deflection about talking about deflation instead of inflation. That's a good tactic.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Wholesale-inflation-takes-apf-14410311.html


Chuck, you'll do so much better in disagreeing with me if you don't post links that agree with what I'm saying.

For a single month (January), which is subject to revision, there was an unexpected uptick in inflation, mainly driven by energy. But what I tried to point out to you is that there are few if any inflation concerns, and there continues to be severe deflation in the area that is the root cause of this recession: housing. You post what you think is some proof(?) that inflation is a looming danger. But I suppose you didn't bother to read the conclusion of the article... which you supplied:


Despite the big jump in wholesale prices in January, economists do not believe inflation is on the verge of becoming a problem, given the country's deep recession.

That downturn, which began in December 2007, has been keeping a lid on inflation pressures, which has given the Federal Reserve the room to slash a key interest rate to nearly zero without having to worry about kindling inflation.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told an audience at the National Press Club on Wednesday that he saw little risk that the Fed's efforts to fight the recession and a severe financial crisis would trigger inflation pressures.

He said that once the economy begins to rebound and financial markets stabilize, the Fed will be able to quickly reverse the actions it has taken before inflation becomes a problem.


So a question for you, Chuck: what concerns you more right now, the potential for deflation or inflation?



Of course you would never say that "Bush spent so Obama can", you are much too smart for that.

Why thank you. But then there's the truth of the matter: why would I post something that doesn't reflect my views?



However in post #173 you did say "The $600 billion we've blown, that will probably be closer to $2 trillion before it's over with, is just a Chinese cherry on top (They don't really believe we're ever going to pay them back, do they? ". So you say that Bush blew $600B. And I am saying that Obama has blown $790B, probably soon to be more on something that is of no bennifit. But being an economist and all, I am still waiting for the explaination on how this "deal" is supposed to work.

In the context of what was being discussed in post #173 (neocon policy failures and the wasteful & needless war in Iraq), I fail to understand how you think that relates to my feelings about Obama's fiscal policy.



So you are glad this bill passed "from the standpoint of consumer/investor confidence"? You sure about that? I'll let you back off of that seeing as how we touched a 52 week low in the market today. If that's confidence I would hate to see pessimism.

I won't back off of anything that I believe, Chuck. What did I say? I am glad that a bill was passed. Based on traders and others that I converse with, as well as what the market pundits have been saying daily, this imperfect piece of legislation was preferable (to many) than no legislation at all. And I've already said that I think it could have been better. But since that didn't seem to be in the cards, better the DJIA at 7465 than at some even lower level in disorderly fashion. I've been short the S&P 500 and various stocks since the first of the year. I haven't taken a long position in months... other than whatever is automatically bought in my 401K. I believe that in the short term, unemployment will go higher and the equity markets will go lower. But the general hope is that, by the 3rd quarter, if people and companies will stop running scared, a floor might be established by some of this fiscal and monetary action.

But if you're looking for absolutes, the world doesn't work that way. No one can guarantee that this package will be a failure and no one can guarantee that it will be a success. Are you one who believes that we should have done nothing, and within 4 or 5 months the "free market" would have sorted things out? You've been rather coy on this. I certainly don't mind stating my beliefs, but what do you believe would have been the correct course of action?

[chuck34]

I give up you all have convinced me. Bush is evil, the US is evil, we have never done anyone any good. Obama has the answers. Since he has taken office the US is respected again by all nations. The economy is soaring once again. Everyone has healthcare. Everyone is happy.

I'm just tired of talking in circles with no one listening.

[Breeze]

No-one knows what to do about the economic crisis. Gordon Brown basically admitted as much today and every economic or political analyst/expert/commentator one hears puts forward a different view. It is one reason it is proving impossible to find common ground regarding solutions within the EU.

I beg to differ. There are many who know what to do about the current economic crisis. Sadly, they are not working in a legislative capacity because they are free market advocates.

[race aficionado]

I give up you all have convinced me. Bush is evil,

No he's not, he is just a confused, delusional, . . . i'll stop here.



the US is evil,

Is it? I think it is also confused and delusional. A hard couple of whacks in the head as we have suffered can do that.


we have never done anyone any good.

au contraire - The U.S. of A. has done a lot of good. And once we get our house together, we will do much more (specially with the spirit of respect of other's opinions and beliefs) - how about this: Unity through diversity.


Obama has the answers.

He's doing his best and making sure that he has the best advise available. Also, thank goodness, he is open to admit his mistakes.


Since he has taken office the US is respected again by all nations.

Very god point.


The economy is soaring once again.

Really? Dang! where have I been!!!!



Everyone has healthcare.

I do. Because I'm one of the fortunate ones that can afford it.


Everyone is happy.

It depends on what is happening at the moment. I won't get into my personal issues but what I do know is that I am glad that everything is falling apart around us because it is just proof that it is now working and we have to make it right for all of us.


I'm just tired of talking in circles with no one listening.


Chuck, based on the responses to your continuous posts, we are listening.

Peace.
:s mokin:

[F1boat]

He will bring the apocalypse for Republicans - will turn USA into a EU-like state. :)

[Jag_Warrior]

I beg to differ. There are many who know what to do about the current economic crisis. Sadly, they are not working in a legislative capacity because they are free market advocates.

But Breeze, I believe that was BDunnell's point when he said: "every economic or political analyst/expert/commentator one hears puts forward a different view."

You don't even have to turn the channel. Just stay on Bloomberg or CNBC long enough and another, disparate, "well thought out" view will be presented. Just this morning, I 've listened to two different people who have PhD's in Economics present views that are in total conflict with each other. As a matter of fact, give some people long enough, and they'll start stepping on their own beliefs.

For example, I've listened to and watched Lawrence Kudlow for many years. Overall, I don't know that there has been a bigger advocate for free market principles on the national scene. But since September, even Larry's views have become rather conflicted. Larry hasn't gone off the reservation and started screaming for bank nationalizations (yet). But his constant use of the term "moral hazard" also covers things that he seemed to be in support of... before he was against them... I think... not really sure anymore - and I don't think Larry is either. I'm not throwing darts at him. Hell, anyone whose head is not spinning right now probably isn't in the game.

[Jag_Warrior]

I give up you all have convinced me. Bush is evil, the US is evil, we have never done anyone any good. Obama has the answers. Since he has taken office the US is respected again by all nations. The economy is soaring once again. Everyone has healthcare. Everyone is happy.

I'm just tired of talking in circles with no one listening.

Why the frustration, Chuck?

Once you jumped from talking about foreign policy, and tried to convince me that we'd been talking about economics all along ( ;) ), now you're just going to roll up on me when I ask you what YOU believe is the right course of action, with respect to the recession?

I hope you're not going to be like Pete Sessions and join the "GOP Taliban." That's a sad way to be, IMO. I oppose things everyday in my work. But I don't throw up my hands, dig in my heels and stamp my feet, and oppose things just for the sake of opposing them. When I'm under pressure, I like to ask myself, "What would Danica Patrick do?" Then I do the opposite. Try it. It works! :D

[chuck34]

Why the frustration, Chuck?

Once you jumped from talking about foreign policy, and tried to convince me that we'd been talking about economics all along ( ;) ), now you're just going to roll up on me when I ask you what YOU believe is the right course of action, with respect to the recession?

I hope you're not going to be like Pete Sessions and join the "GOP Taliban." That's a sad way to be, IMO. I oppose things everyday in my work. But I don't throw up my hands, dig in my heels and stamp my feet, and oppose things just for the sake of opposing them.

I'm frustrated because it seems that we keep going over the same thing all the time. Not just you, not just me, everyone. Same thing over and over, no one listens. I'm probably just as guilty of that, but I'm tired.

If you really want to know what I believe is the right course. It's simple, do what the US has done time and again when we have successfully pulled out of a recession. Cut taxes AND spending.

[Jag_Warrior]

If you really want to know what I believe is the right course. It's simple, do what the US has done time and again when we have successfully pulled out of a recession. Cut taxes AND spending.

See, what was so hard about that?

[donKey jote]

I'd like to see that series. I get BBC America, so I'll look for it there. The only other channel that I get, that doesn't seem to go through Tel Aviv for censor approval before Americans can see it, is Link TV. I think Link has some BBC originated programming as well.

episode 3 is out :erm:

BBC2 9pm
21st Feb

Iran and the West - Nuclear Confrontation

In part three of this landmark series from Norma Percy and the team that made the multi-award winning documentaries The Death of Yugoslavia and Elusive Peace: Israel and the Arabs, contributors including Iran's President Khatami tell the inside story of the West's continuing nuclear confrontation with Iran. The film also shows a rare moment when they worked together.

US State Department insiders tell how, after 9/11, Iran played a key role in helping America to topple the Taliban in Afghanistan - only for President Bush to put Iran into his 'axis of evil' immediately afterwards. Jack Straw, then foreign secretary, and President Khatami describe how Iran offered to help the US and its allies in their war against Saddam Hussein - help that, given Iran's powerful contacts in Iraq and the West's subsequent difficulties there, might have made a crucial difference.

Jack Straw, his successor Margaret Beckett, and Joschka Fischer of Germany describe how they struggled to find a compromise between Iran and President Bush's hardliners over Iran's nuclear programme. John Sawers, currently our man at the UN, reveals an extraordinary secret deal that Iran proposed a few years later.

[Roamy]

This is only the beginning for Obama like this is Islam 101
Time to bring in the Israeli's and sort sh!t out

Iran's Leadership Ignores Obama Outreach, Says World Powers Cannot Block Nuclear Program
Friday, March 20, 2009
PrintShareThis
TEHRAN, Iran — Iran's supreme leader said Friday that world powers had been persuaded they could not block Iran's nuclear progress — making no mention of a new-year's message sent by President Obama to his country, Reuters reported.

Neither Ayatollah Ali Khamenei nor Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad noted Obama's attempt to make a "new beginning" with their country in recorded messages they issued to mark the Iranian New Year.

Obama released the video Friday to coincide with the Iranian festival of Nowruz, which marks the arrival of spring. In the video, Obama says the U.S. is prepared to end the strained relations if Tehran tones down its combative rhetoric.

"This process will not be advanced by threats. We seek instead engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect," Obama said.

A press adviser to Iran's president downplayed the video, saying "minor changes will not end the differences."

Ali Akbar Javanfekr told the Iranian state-run English-language Press TV satellite station that Iran will never forget U.S. meddling in Tehran's affairs. The two countries broke off relations after the 1979 Islamic revolution.

[Mark in Oshawa]

This is only the beginning for Obama like this is Islam 101
Time to bring in the Israeli's and sort sh!t out

Iran's Leadership Ignores Obama Outreach, Says World Powers Cannot Block Nuclear Program
Friday, March 20, 2009
PrintShareThis
TEHRAN, Iran — Iran's supreme leader said Friday that world powers had been persuaded they could not block Iran's nuclear progress — making no mention of a new-year's message sent by President Obama to his country, Reuters reported.

Neither Ayatollah Ali Khamenei nor Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad noted Obama's attempt to make a "new beginning" with their country in recorded messages they issued to mark the Iranian New Year.

Obama released the video Friday to coincide with the Iranian festival of Nowruz, which marks the arrival of spring. In the video, Obama says the U.S. is prepared to end the strained relations if Tehran tones down its combative rhetoric.

"This process will not be advanced by threats. We seek instead engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect," Obama said.

A press adviser to Iran's president downplayed the video, saying "minor changes will not end the differences."

Ali Akbar Javanfekr told the Iranian state-run English-language Press TV satellite station that Iran will never forget U.S. meddling in Tehran's affairs. The two countries broke off relations after the 1979 Islamic revolution.

If true, kind of puts the "cooperation" Iran was offering after 9/11 into some sort of shady light. The whole thing is a mess. I think Obama's instincts here are geniune but I think Iran has never been that serious about getting along with the US. The bad blood truly does go back to the years of the Shah when the US was on the wrong side (in the current regime's eyes) of the civil war.

[Eki]

Give Iranians some time to let it sink in. Their jaws have probably dropped out of surprise and they are speechless.

At last the US has a President who has common sense and is not blinded by hatred and vengeance.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Eki....I have some swampland to sell ya. Iran is just going to try to figure out a way to get what they want while denying the US what it wants.....just as they always have.

[Eki]

Eki....I have some swampland to sell ya. Iran is just going to try to figure out a way to get what they want while denying the US what it wants.....just as they always have.
It's worth a try anyway. You never know before you try. This far the US has only offered them threats and sanctions.

[Mark in Oshawa]

It's worth a try anyway. You never know before you try. This far the US has only offered them threats and sanctions.

Iran has done nothing to deserve much different truth be told. Iran's opinion of the US under Clinton or Bush 42 or Reagan is all pretty much what it was for Bush 43. Whose to say their opinion will change with Obama? Obama isn't offering up anything different in the open that most US administrations were not behind closed doors willing to offer. This bad relationship is a two way street Eki. It isnt always America's fault relations are bad. Bush didn't help things I will concede but his policy on Iran didn't just materialize out of thin air. There is a reason these guys have generated this animosity.

[Eki]

There is a reason these guys have generated this animosity.
Yeah, they overthrew the Shah 30 years ago, took some American hostages and therefore hurt the petty pride and feelings of Americans.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Eki, civilized nations don't take citizens of another country hostage and then cry the blues because that nation wont give them any love. Backing the Shah was wrong only in that the situation went south for the Shah. Lets face it, most nations back leaders at one point or another that are less than democratic. You want consistency? I will believe your bonafides onthis when I see you start threads pointing out the anti-democratic impulses of such wonderful people as Hugo Chavez, The Castro brothers or Mr. Mugabe in Zimbabwe.

[Eki]

Eki, civilized nations don't take citizens of another country hostage and then cry the blues because that nation wont give them any love. Backing the Shah was wrong only in that the situation went south for the Shah. Lets face it, most nations back leaders at one point or another that are less than democratic. You want consistency? I will believe your bonafides onthis when I see you start threads pointing out the anti-democratic impulses of such wonderful people as Hugo Chavez, The Castro brothers or Mr. Mugabe in Zimbabwe.
I think 30 years is long enough to hold a grudge, although it's nothing compared with the 50 year grudge they have had with Cuba or the 60 year grudge with North Korea.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Eki...Cuba has dined out on that grudge for a while. North Korea is run by a lunatic. Even the Chinese have a hard time dealing with him. North Korea truly is the evil empire you find fault with.

Is the US silly to keep up bad relations with some nations? Yes...but those positions haven't changed any on the part of the protaganists, who in each case have done little to change their view of the US either. takes two to tango.....