PDA

View Full Version : Stimulus Plan



belgareth
02-11-2009, 02:42 PM
It will come as a

terrible shock to some of you that I don't support the stimulus plan. I didn't support either of the previous

bailouts either. Perhaps I'm cynical but any time a politician starts using words like catastrophe and urgent I get

paranoid. A package this large, spending this much money needs to be carefully reviewed, not rammed down our throats

with all these threats of imminent disaster.

So far, from what I have heard and read of the stimulus plan, I

don't see it as anything but a new tax and spend bill of huge proportions. Get the government of our backs, stop

spending money we don't have and let those that made foolish mistakes suffer the consequences of their actions. It

will be painful but, in my opinion, less painful in the long term than adding still more debt resulting in still

higher taxes which can only lead to still more burden on an already stressed economy. In my mind it is more a

question of crash and burn now or crash and burn later, which will be the more painful is the queestion and I think

the later will be many times more painful.

All that aside, I have always opposed universal healthcare, the

foundations of which are being laid as a part of the stimulus package. Universal healthcare is pretty much a

universal disaster in almost every place it has been tried as evidenced by the fact that anybody who can afford to

go elsewhere and pay for medical care does. On top of that, our government is broke! We are up to our eyeballs in

debt, they say Social Security is bankrupt and now they want to take over (mis)management of healthcare? I see

another white elephant where we the people are going to get less than we pay for, we will end up paying more over

time and getting less for our money.

Below is an article that was sent to me today. I do not vouch for the

acuracy of the data but I believe he makes some valid points.

Bel
*************************


Tuesday,

February 10, 2009

To: Friends & Supporters

From: Gary Bauer


If You Are Elderly

– Be

Afraid, Very Afraid

President Obama’s press conference last night was long on fear
and short on facts. Once

again, he warned the country that our "crisis"
will become a "catastrophe" if we don’t immediately pass his

spending
bill. I always get suspicious when a politician wants everyone to shut
up and vote on a 700-page bill.

You can bet there are a lot of
"surprises" hidden in the fine print.

In the last 24 hours, one of those

surprises has been discovered
and analyzed by conservative researchers. It is now being exposed by
conservative

talk radio

– the same folks the Left wants to force off the
air in the name of "fairness." Who would have

guessed that our president
would hide in a "must pass" piece of legislation a provision that
"rations" health care

and makes it more likely that your Granny will be
left to suffer or die?

The legislation sets up a new

bureaucracy, the National
Coordinator of Health Information Technology. This office will monitor
the medical

treatments your doctor is providing you to make sure that
Washington agrees that those treatments are appropriate

and
cost-effective. Another office, the Federal Coordinating Council of
Comparative Effectiveness Research, will

slow down the use of new
medications and technologies because new treatments drive up costs.

It sounds

complicated, but don’t be confused. Europe already has
those offices and former South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle

wrote about
them in a book last year. It was this "expertise" that led President
Obama to nominate Daschle as

Secretary of Health and Human Services, so
he could serve as the architect of the planned nationalized health

care
scheme. But here’s the bottom line of how it works in Europe and what
Daschle and others want to implement

here: The federal government will
decide your medical treatment with COST being the main consideration.
Daschle

argues in his book that instead of treating seniors, they will
have to become more accepting of the conditions that

come with age!

Betsy McCaughey, former Lieutenant Governor of New York and a
health care analyst, points out

that this socialized medicine approach
would be disastrous. In 2006, in England, the health care board ruled
that

elderly citizens with macular degeneration could not receive
treatment with a new drug until they were blind in one

eye! It took
three years of public protests to reverse the policy. But that was just
the tip of the iceberg.



Last year, one thousand British doctors were fighting hard to
reform Britain’s health care system because that

"progressive" nation
also has one of the highest cancer mortality rates in Europe. Why?
Because some bean counting

bureaucrats in the basement of the British
Health Department decided it isn’t "cost effective" to treat

cancer
patients. Like Nancy Pelosi trying to justify birth control in the
stimulus bill, the Left sees people as a

burden to Big Government’s
bottom line.

Consider this irony. A powerful politician who has long
championed

government health care had a seizure last year. In Canada or
Great Britain, "average Joes" might have to wait

months for an MRI. Not
this politician. Twenty-four hours later, he was diagnosed with a rare
form of malignant

brain cancer. Unlike "average Joes" in Canada and
Great Britain, this politician didn’t have to wait months to see

a
specialist. Within two weeks he was treated by some of the world’s
foremost experts on brain cancer.

Ted

Kennedy is alive today probably because we don’t have
socialized medicine. The free market, while flawed, is still

the best
system man has devised. I’m sure there is room for improvement, but I’m
equally sure that government

isn’t the solution. The Europeans and
Canadians flocking here to get health care denied them by their
socialist

governments obviously agree. But where will Americans flee
under the new socialist order?

Here’s the danger

inherent in government-run health care. Just
like a child living in a parent’s house has to abide by the

parent’s
rules, you will be treated like a child. If you expect Uncle Sam to pay
for your health care, then

Washington bureaucrats will dictate whether
saving your health is too costly. The elderly always suffer under such

a
system. By the way, what the heck is this doing in a "stimulus bill"?
And does it help explain why our new

president is so intent on spending
a trillion dollars after only one week of congressional debate?



* * * *

*
American Values
2800 Shirlington Road
Suite 950
Arlington, VA 22206

Phone: 703-671-9700
Fax:

703-671-1680

EMAIL GARY BAUER

<[FON

T=Arial]mailto:gary.bauer@amvalues.org?subject=End[/CO

LOR][/FONT] (gary.bauer@amvalues.org?subject=End)

of
Day 2-10-09>
VISIT AMERICAN VALUES

<[FONT=Arial][COLOR=#0000ff]http://www.ouramericanvalues.org/[/

FONT] (http://www.ouramericanvalues.org/)>

Mtnjim
02-11-2009, 06:22 PM
My only argument with this

is:


Gary Bauer campaigns as a hard-right moralist,a major figure of the Christian Right and former presidential

candidate, has been a key organizer of campaigns linking rightist pro-Israel Christian groups and conservative

Christian evangelicalsI would have exactly the same problem with a hard

left author.

They both have their agendas to push.

belgareth
02-12-2009, 04:42 AM
Despite their distastefully

extreme points of view, both ends of the spectrum have some valid points that are worth listening too so long as you

are sure to filter the garbage out first. As I said, he makes some valid points.

kgk4569
02-13-2009, 06:12 AM
I don't support the stimulus

plan either. I'm too lazy this morning to type my reasons.

belgareth
02-16-2009, 12:14 PM
Perhaps just a little tongue in

cheek but not all that much. Quite a lot more sense in it.



When a company falls on difficult times, one of the

things that seems to happen is they reduce their staff and workers. The remaining workers need to find ways to

continue to do a good job or risk that their job would be eliminated as well. Wall street, and the media normally

congratulate the CEO for making this type of "tough decision", and his board of directors gave him a big bonus.

[/

COLOR]
[COLOR=black][/

FONT]


Our government should not be immune from

similar risks.

[/

COLOR]


[COLOR=black][/SIZ

E]


[SIZE=4]Therefore: Reduce the House of

Representatives from the current 435 members to 218 members and Senate members from 100 to 50(one per State). Also

reduce remaining staff by 25&#37;.

[/

COLOR]


[COLOR=black][/SIZ

E]


[SIZE=4]Accomplish this over the next 8 years.

(two steps / two elections) and of course this would require some redistricting.

[/

COLOR]


[COLOR=black][/SIZ

E]


[SIZE=4]Some Yearly Monetary Gains Include:

[/

COLOR]


[COLOR=black][/SIZ

E]


[SIZE=4]$44,108,400 for elimination of base pay

for congress. (267 members X $165,200 pay / member / yr.)

[/

COLOR]


[COLOR=black][/SIZ

E]


[SIZE=4]$97,175,000 for elimination of the above

people's staff. (estimate $1.3 Million in staff per each member of the House, and $3 Million in staff per each

member of the Senate every year)

[/

COLOR]


[COLOR=black][/SIZ

E]


[SIZE=4]$240,294 for the reduction in remaining

staff by 25%.

[/

COLOR]


[COLOR=black][/SIZ

E]


[SIZE=4]$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork barrel

ear-marks each year. (those members whose jobs are gone. Current estimates for total government pork earmarks are at

$15 Billion / yr)

[/

COLOR]


[COLOR=black][/SIZ

E]


[SIZE=4]The remaining representatives would need

to work smarter and would need to improve efficiencies. It might even be in their best interests to work together

for the good of our country?

[/

COLOR]


[COLOR=black][/SIZ

E]


[SIZE=4]We may also expect that smaller

committees might lead to a more efficient resolution of issues as well. It might even be easier to keep track of

what your representative is doing.

[/

COLOR]


[COLOR=black][/SIZ

E]


[SIZE=4]Congress has more tools available to do

their jobs than it had back in 1911 when the current number of representatives was established. (telephone,

computers, cell phones to name a few)

[/

COLOR]


[COLOR=black][/SIZ

E]


[SIZE=4]Note: Congress did not hesitate to head

home when it was a holiday, when the nation needed a real fix to the economic problems.

Also, we have had 3

senators that were not been doing their jobs for 18+ months (they were on the campaign trail) and still they all had

been accepting full pay. These facts alone support a reduction in senators & congress.

[/

COLOR]


[COLOR=black][/SIZ

E]


[SIZE=4]Summary of opportunity:

[/

COLOR]


[COLOR=black][/SIZ

E]


[SIZE=4]$ 44,108,400 reduction of congress

members.

[/

COLOR]


[COLOR=black][/SIZ

E]


[SIZE=4]$282,100, 000 for elimination of the

reduced house member staff.

[/

COLOR]


[COLOR=black][/SIZ

E]


[SIZE=4]$150,000,000 for elimination of reduced

senate member staff.

[/

COLOR]


[COLOR=black][/SIZ

E]


[SIZE=4]$59,675,000 for 25% reduction of staff

for remaining house members.

[/

COLOR]


[COLOR=black][/SIZ

E]


[SIZE=4]$37,500,000 for 25% reduction of staff

for remaining senate members.

[/

COLOR]


[COLOR=black][/SIZ

E]


[SIZE=4]$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork added

to bills by the reduction of congress members.

[/

COLOR]


[COLOR=black][/SIZ

E]


[SIZE=4]$8,073,383,400 per year, estimated total

savings. (that's 8-BILLION just to start!)

[/

COLOR]


[COLOR=black][/SIZ

E]


[SIZE=4]Big business does these types of cuts

all the time.

[/

COLOR]


[COLOR=black][/SIZ

E]


[SIZE=4]If Congresspersons were required to

serve 20, 25 or 30 years (like everyone else) in order to collect retirement benefits there is no telling how much

we would save. Now

they get full retirement after serving only [FONT=Verdana]ONE term.

[/

COLOR]


[COLOR=red][/

FONT][FONT=Verdana]







IF you are happy how the Congress spends our

taxes, then just ignore this message. IF you are NOT at all happy, then I assume you know what to do.

[COLOR=black][/

COLOR]

Rbt
02-17-2009, 03:21 PM
"IF you are

happy how the Congress spends our taxes, then just ignore this message. IF you are NOT at all happy, then I assume

you know what to do."



Run for political office! Right???

belgareth
02-17-2009, 03:35 PM
Run for

political office! Right???
Ok, so some don't know. :LOL:

How about un-elect the thieving bastards? Or

maybe lynch them? I've always liked the idea of public floggings for dishonest or incompetent elected officials.

Rbt
02-17-2009, 03:41 PM
Ok, so some

don't know. :LOL:

How about un-elect the thieving bastards? Or maybe lynch them? I've always liked the idea

of public floggings for dishonest or incompetent elected officials.

Hey, I live near Chicago... you want

politicians in action, it's probably the next best thing to Washington DC.

I've sometimes wonder about

bringing back things like "tar and feathers" and "riding out of town on a rail."

In the meantime I do what I can

to avoid any contact with politicians or their antics. When greeted with any "we're from the Government and we're

here to help" I will cheerfully run the other way and cover my own ass.

belgareth
02-17-2009, 05:36 PM
I lived in California for more

than 30 years and can tell you all about political stupidity. You are talking the seventh largest economy in the

world, with the highest corporate taxes, some of the highest sales taxes and an income tax and the damned fools have

driven the state to bankruptcy. They used to have budget surpluses, some of the best public schools in the nation

and wonderful state parks. Now they cannot support any of those that they've already allowed to deteriorate beyond

belief and are cutting further.

idesign
02-24-2009, 06:35 PM
Well, Obama is going on TV to

"explain us" one more time how much we need him and his plan. And apparently Bill Clinton burned his ear about his

incessant negativity, so we can look forward to another round of Hope and Change. Obama will try his best to be

sincere of course, but an elected Democrat is genetically to prone to fear-based rhetoric. It appeals to "victims",

and there's nothing a Liberal likes more than a victim.

Obama has been using fear and urgency as his primary

tactics, fitting in perfectly with what's has come to be known as the "Rahm Doctrine". Coined from statements made

by Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, it goes something like this: Never waste a crisis. It gives us the chance to

do what we've always wanted to do but couldn't.

The result from this is what we've seen happen. The

Dems closeted themselves in smoky (incense) rooms, locked out the Reps, disallowed Rep amendments, rushed out a

plan, got criticism, went back to their committees, came back with an even bigger bill, then rushed it through at

midnight to be voted on the next day. Unread by anyone.

I won't even start on how contradictory this is to

Obama's campaign rhetoric. Its just not worth the time, and we'll be seeing a lot more.

The spend-ulus plan is

just what Bel said, the largest federal spending bill in our history, almost exclusively devoted to the public

sector. In essence, Obama and his Merry Band of Thieves are more than doubling the US deficit. I scanned through

this thing one night and really could not believe what I was reading.

Healthcare: "(3)Strategic Plan, (A)(ii)

The utilization of an electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014." That, under direction

of the "National Coordinator for Health Information Technology".

As Bel stated, nat'l healthcare would be bad

enough, but now we have the Feds purposefully gathering under their control the personal and private health

information of "every person in the United States". The bulk of the reasons stated for the creation and

implementation of this new bureaucracy is "reducing costs". Sounds good, until you blend cost control with the

coming nationalized health industry. To understand the mindset of these people, you need only listen to N.Pelosi as

she justified Federal funding of abortion as a way to "reduce costs" in the system, since children are a burden.

That section was yanked as soon as it became public knowledge. Too bad more of it didn't.

The States: Billions

are being transferred to the States, bailing out failed local budgets in which the Federal Gov't has no role or

responsibility. This is a very dangerous precedent. The US Constitution places the primary power to make laws and

regulate in the States. When the Feds begin to pour money into State budgets in such a general way there is an

automatic transfer of power to Washington.

All of this comes naturally to a President (and Congress) who

believes in the transfer of both power and wealth. The first Bill will pull money in to increase Federal spending

on itself. "Grow the Gov't and its Reach", pure and simple. The next bill, which he's hawking tonight, will

concentrate more on how the Feds spend on other programs designed to regulate and manipulate markets. All of this

is designed to centralize power.

Oh, and watch for tax increases, they're coming. Now that Obama has doubled

the deficit, he's promised to cut it in half!

belgareth
02-25-2009, 10:11 AM
A nice summation, ID. It seems

that many people cannot add one and one effectively, perhaps a large chunk of the stimulus money should go towards

education with a focus on critical thinking. It is only a little less obvious than being hit in the face with a

brick that the huge programs and massive money being spent has to be paid sooner or later. More government programs

and higher wages are paid for from tax money and that comes straight from our pockets, no matter how much smoke or

how many mirrors you use. Unless there is an improbably fast and huge increase in productivity taces have to go up

very soon. Higher taxes will result in a greater burden on the economy. allowing less money to circulate through

it.

Yes, I do beat on taxes a lot. Taxes themselves are neither good nor evil. They are a symptom of a problem

though. And the higher the taxes the more government manipulation and control we have. That always equates to

reduced freedom and a lower standard of living for everybody.

Here you go, your first of many tax increases. Do

you know how much $63,000,000,000 per year in new taxes really is?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/obama_budget

idesign
02-25-2009, 09:35 PM
I read the article you linked,

and listened to the president last night, and saw that the latest "whatever" bill was passed today with no less than

8600 earmarks with no public or Congressional debate, again.

Its no longer a creeping subversion of personal

economic freedom, its in our face, and nobody is seems to care. The Reps are scratching their balls and wondering

what to do, unwilling to take principle by the nuts and squeeze out some rational check on this runaway madness.

Not that they have any power to do so. The Dems are in control everywhere and they're using it to full advantage.

The DIHL electorate which swept this guy into office are sitting around their TVs just blinking their eyes at the

news, not having the slightest capacity to understand what they've unleashed.

belgareth
02-26-2009, 06:36 AM
In college we did a class

project where we took a transcript of a political speech, redacted the fluff, hyperbole and nonsense statements,

then we cross referenced all the contradictory stuff and looked at what remained. There was virtually nothing. I

haven't listened to a political speech since then. Every time I hear about this politician or that one said

something it gives me a quiet chuckle because it is unlikely they really said anything.

To set the record

straight, had it not been for the structure of the electoral college, Obama would not now be president. He did not

get the majority of the vote. To be honest, I do not believe that Obama and his ilk are the problem. Rather, they

are a symptom of a much deeper problem. Not that it helps in the long run, we are still screwed, hoist on our own

petard, as it were. We want it all and are not willing to get out and work for it. Instead, we want it all hand

delivered on a gold platter just because we think we deserve it. Now that some high and mighty figure has promised

to give it to us in xchange for a few paltry concession like liberty and just taxation, we are going to follow him

like a pack of starving puppies after the scent of meat. That we do not see the snares laid in our paths, or the

cages placed at the end is not our fault. We are going to willingly follow the scent of free food and song until we

are locked into the cages built on a foundation of sand.

No, I'm not disgusted and angry. Why do you ask?

belgareth
02-28-2009, 09:40 AM
New addition to the stimulus package announced…




Washington , DC - Congress is considering sweeping legislation

that
will provide new benefits for many Americans. The Americans With

No
Abilities Act (AWNAA) is being hailed as a major legislative

goal
by advocates of the millions of Americans who lack any real

skills
or ambition.




'Roughly 50 percent of Americans do not possess the competence and


drive necessary to carve out a meaningful role for themselves

in
society,' said California Senator Barbara Boxer. 'We can no

longer
stand by and allow People of Inability to be ridiculed and

passed
over. With this legislation, employers will no longer be able

to
grant special favors to a small group of workers, simply

because
they have some idea of what they are

doing.'


In a Capitol Hill press

conference, House Majority Leader Nancy
Pelosi (D) and Senate Majority Leader

Harry Reid (D) pointed to the
success of the U.S . Postal Service, which has a

long-standing policy
of providing opportunity without regard to performance.

Approximately
74 percent of postal employees lack any job skills, making

this
agency the single largest U.S employer of Persons of

Inability.


Private-sector industries with

good records of non-discrimination
against the Inept include retail sales (72%),

the airline industry
(68%), and home improvement 'warehouse' stores (65%). At

the state
government level, the Department of Motor Vehicles also has

an
excellent record of hiring Persons of Inability

(63%).


Under The Americans With No

Abilities Act, more than 25 million
'middle man' positions will be created,

with important sounding
titles but little real responsibility, thus providing an

illusory
sense of purpose and performance.




Mandatory non-performance-based raises and promotions will be

given
so as to guarantee upward mobility for even the most

unremarkable
employees. The legislation provides substantial tax breaks

to
corporations that promote a significant number of Persons of

Inability
into middle-management positions, and gives a tax credit to small

and
medium-sized businesses that agree to hire one clueless worker

for
every two talented hires.




Finally, the AWNAA contains tough new measures to make it

more
difficult to discriminate against the Non-abled, banning, for

example,
discriminatory interview questions such as, 'Do you have any

skills
or experience that relate to this

job?'


'As a Non-abled person, I can't

be expected to keep up with people
who have something going for them,' said Mary

Lou Gertz, who lost her
position as a lug-nut twister at the GM plant in Flint,

Michigan, due
to her inability to remember 'rightey tightey, lefty loosey.'

'This
new law should be real good for people like me,' Gertz added.

With
the passage of this bill, Gertz and millions of other

untalented
citizens will finally see a light at the end of the

tunnel.


Said Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL):

'As a Senator with no abilities,
I believe the same privileges that elected

officials enjoy ought
to be extended to every American with no abilities. It is

our duty
as lawmakers to provide each and every American

citizen,
regardless of his or her inadequacy, with some sort of space to take up

in this
great nation and a good salary for doing so.'

kgk4569
03-02-2009, 09:10 AM
tee hee, It's been awhile

since I've seen that thar posted up.

belgareth
03-06-2009, 09:20 AM
The rebellion has

begun.

(google the author if you doubt) (or ck sources at end of this message)


Eleven States Declare Sovereignty Over Obama’s

Action


by A..W.R.

Hawkins


02/23/2009





State

governors -- looking down the gun barrel of long-term spending forced on them by the Obama “stimulus” plan -- are

saying they will refuse to take the money. This is a Constitutional confrontation between the federal government and

the states unlike any in our

time.







In the first five weeks of his presidency, Barack Obama has acted so

rashly that at least 11 states have decided that his brand of “hope” equates to an intolerable expansion of the

federal government’s authority over the states. These states -- "Washington, New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana,

Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, [Minnesota]...Georgia," South Carolina, and Texas -- "have all introduced bills and

resolutions" reminding Obama that the 10th Amendment protects the rights of the states, which are the rights of the

people, by limiting the power of the federal government.. These resolutions call on Obama to “cease and desist” from

his reckless government expansion and also indicate that federal laws and regulations implemented in violation of

the 10th Amendment can be nullified by the

states.







When the Constitution was being ratified during the 1780s, the 10th

Amendment was understood to be the linchpin that held the entire Bill of Rights together. The amendment states: “The

powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to

the States respectively, or to the

people."












The use of the 10th Amendment in conjunction with nullification

garnered much attention in 1828, when the federal government passed a tariff that southerners believed affected them

disproportionately. When the 1828 tariff was complemented by another in 1832, Vice President John C. Calhoun

resigned the Vice Presidency to lead his home state of South Carolina in pursuit of an “ordinance of nullification,”

which was no less a declaration of the sovereignty of each individual state within the union than the declarations

now being made.







Calhoun was simply exercising what he recognized to be his state’s

right to defend liberty within its borders by rejecting the dictates of an overbearing central government. While his

efforts culminated in a tense affair referred to as the “nullification crisis,” which witnessed everything from

threats of a federal invasion of South Carolina to an ongoing and near union-rending debate over national power vs.

state’s rights, they also succeeded in turning back the tariffs that had been passed in spite of the Constitutional

limits on federal power.







This time around, in 2009, appeals to the 10th Amendment are not based

on tariffs but on unfettered government expansion in Obama’s “stimulus bill,” federal mandates on abortion that

violate state laws, and infringements on the 1st and 2nd Amendments, among other

things.







For example, Family Security Matters reports that Missouri’s “House

Concurrent Resolution 0004 (2009) reasserts its sovereignty based on Barack Obama’s stated intention to sign into

law a federal ‘Freedom of Choice Act’, [because] the federal Freedom of Choice Act would nullify any federal or

state law ‘enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of [its] enactment’ and would effectively

prevent the State of Missouri from enacting similar protective measures in the

future.”







The resolution in Montana grew out of concerns over coming attacks on

the 2nd Amendment, thus its preface describes it as, “An Act Exempting From Federal Regulation Under The Commerce

Clause Of The Constitution Of The United States A Firearm, A Firearm Accessory, Or Ammunition Manufactured And

Retained In Montana.”







New

Hampshire’s resolution actually references certain

federal actions that would be nullified within that state were they pushed by Obama’s administration, according to

americandaily.com (http://americandaily.com/). Among these are “Any act regarding

religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press, [and

any] further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or

ammunition.







Regardless of the specific reason behind each of the resolutions in

the 11 states, all of them direct the federal government to “cease and desist” in its reckless violation of state’s

rights. In this way, South Carolina’s resolution is typical of the others issued to

date:







“The General Assembly of the State of South Carolina, by this

resolution, claims for the State of South Carolina sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the

United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the United States

Constitution…







Be it…resolved that this resolution serves as notice and demand to

the federal government, as South Carolina's agent, to cease and desist immediately all mandates…beyond the scope of

the federal government's constitutionally delegated

powers.”







What these state assemblies and congresses have hit upon here is key

to our entire conservative interpretation of the Constitution, for these states understand that the Constitution

limits the federal government, not the people. Or to put it another way, it guarantees the freedom of the people by

limiting the government..







Every conservative should relish the call for the federal government

to “cease and desist all mandates that are beyond the scope of [its] constitutionally delegated powers.” In this

way, we honor the Constitution that enumerates a number of our liberties yet also guarantees us other liberties that

are neither enumerated nor denied in the

document.







Liberals don’t respect the Constitution, and liberals in Congress

don’t hesitate to propose legislation that would clearly violate it. The current push to give Washington, D.C. a

voting representative in the House of Representatives is a good example; even liberal Prof. Jonathan Turley told a

Congressional hearing that this bill is patently unconstitutional. But they press on with

it.







Our Constitutional system of checks and balances is always thought of

as enabling two of the three branches of the federal government to keep the third within its constitutional bounds.

But there is a fourth check, the states, which also have a Constitutional function. It is to them this burden now

falls. The states can choose between allowing the federal government to impose untenable conditions on them if they

accept the stimulus money, or to reject

it.







These eleven states have the right to reject the stimulus plan. And

they must.







There is no other option. For this federal expansion will not stop

unless we stand in its way with courage in our hearts and the Constitution in our

hands.

DrSmellThis
03-06-2009, 12:37 PM
To

set the record straight, had it not been for the structure of the electoral college, Obama would not now be

president. He did not get the majority of the vote.
Could you clarify what you mean by this, Bel? For

reference, here are the election results which state Obama won 53% of the vote, as compared to 46% for McCain:



http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/

And here is an article that notes,

"U.S.

President-elect Barack Obama has won the highest proportion of popular vote since Republican George H. W. Bush

defeated Democrat Michael Dukakis in 1988, according to figures released Wednesday.

The 52 percent of the

popular vote that Obama won -- 63.4 million ballots -- is the highest of any Democratic candidate since 1964.



Obama is the first Democrat since Jimmy Carter in 1976 to win more than 50 percent of the popular vote.



Bill Clinton was twice elected president without getting half of the popular

vote."

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90777/90852/6528641.html

Here is a more detailed

account:

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/05/election.president/index.html

belgareth
03-06-2009, 01:45 PM
INTERESTING

FACTS ----- NOTICE LINK AT BOTTOM


Some unreported stats about the

2008 election
Professor Joseph

Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul , Minnesota

,
points out some interesting facts concerning the

2008 Presidential election:

-Number of States won by: Democrats: 20; Republicans:

30

-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

was
mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens. Democrat territory

mostly
encompassed those citizens living in rented or government-owned tenements

and
living off various forms of government welfare..."
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.


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


Notice that only in the states of Alaska and Oklahoma : All counties were won

by McCain/Palin.
The original posting with this information is below this Newsweek article at

this link:

h

ttp://www.newsweek.com/id/163337 (http://www.newsweek.com/id/163337).

belgareth
03-06-2009, 01:51 PM
Corrections found since I posted that

comment:

President-elect Barack Obama

actually carried

(http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/)28 states (and the District of Columbia), not 20 as claimed in the

message. Sen. John McCain carried only 22 states, not 30.


The total area of

states won by Obama is actually 1,483,702 square miles, significantly more than the 580,000 stated by the e-mail.

McCain's states have an area of 2,310,315 square miles, not the 2,427,000

claimed.


The population of counties carried by Obama is just under 183

million, not the 127 million claimed. McCain carried counties with a total population of just under 119 million, far

fewer than claimed in this message.


The murder rate for counties carried by

Obama was 6.56 per 100,000 inhabitants, less than half the rate claimed in the message. The rate for counties

carried by McCain was 3.60 per 100,000, much higher than claimed in the

message.

DrSmellThis
03-06-2009, 02:23 PM
Thank you for providing the

corrections.

So to clarify, there was no truth to the claim that McCain won the popular vote, right?

And

regarding the states comparison, I counted 29 states for Obama, just looking at the final CNN data, rather than 28.

That is a sizable margin in favor of Obama as well.

The other data posted are misleading if interpreted to

discredit Obama's victory in any way, in that Obama won all major urban areas without exception (even in Texas),

while McCain did better in most rural areas. Pretty much everything noted can be explained by that one fact, such as

comparitive murder rates, or amounts of land "won" (Whatever that means. Sounds like a Monopoly game) especially.



Reading anything into all that would be like me talking about how much better educated Obama's voters were,

since that could be attributed to the fact that more educated people live in cities, and may well also have

different concerns than country folk. Here is one comparison along those lines, though not the most recent numbers.

But you get the

idea:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/106381/Obama-Education-Gap-Extends-General-Election.aspx

So I

really couldn't take that fact, in isolation, as an indictment of McCain or republicans in general.

I could not

find the original source of that original "article" by following the provided link. Maybe my browser is ill

equipped. But it's obviously a collection of blatant falsehoods, so no big deal.

belgareth
03-06-2009, 03:07 PM
Doesn't make me think Obama's

going to be good for the country, in any case. And I am quite well educated, thank you. Personally, I think Obama is

a bad symptom of a deep problem and the problem is only getting worse.

DrSmellThis
03-06-2009, 04:02 PM
Doesn't make me think Obama's going to be good for the country, in any case. And I am

quite well educated, thank you. Personally, I think Obama is a bad symptom of a deep problem and the problem is only

getting worse.It is already quite clear that you and the other recent major posters on politics here, to put

it mildly, do not approve of Obama (or "liberals" for that matter). But one would think a correction of facts would

be welcomed in any case.

Mtnjim
03-06-2009, 04:23 PM
The rebellion

has

begun.

(google the author if you doubt) (or ck sources at end of this message)


Eleven States Declare Sovereignty Over Obama’s

Action


by A..W.R.

Hawkins

So, I did Google him. Solder of Fortune Magazine??

Geeze!
Alpinesurvivor, Americanthinker, usapartisan, Ya think he may have an ultra right wing (to the point of

whack job) agenda to push?


Professor Joseph Olson of

Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul , Minnesota

,
points out some interesting facts concerning the

2008 Presidential election:

Try Googling this and you'll find.


I

thought I smelled a rat when I noticed that Professor Olsen (a real person) taught at Hemline University School of

Law. Hemline? It turns out that Professor Olson did not do the research, there are inaccuracies in the research, and

Alexander Tyler is not the correct person. Read the Snopes.com article for a fuller explanation.

While it is

probable that the facts regarding a democratic state are true or plausible, the cause being heralded is done no good

through shoddy journalism (or whatever you want to call it).

And


So by now you've realized I

looked into this. First off, (kinda funny) since they all copy/pasted, they all have the same typo. I'm not talking

a teh or an adn, but rather the school Prof. Olson teaches from. It's Hamline, not Hemline. Perhaps the original

writer was a woman or one of those log cabin republicans (http://online.logcabin.org/) and had fashion on

the mind or maybe one of those "moral" types who was thinking about the deplorable height current dresses and skirts

are permitted to climb to. Who knows?

Well it seems the guy who just posted this last Thursday might have been

unaware (as was I) that this is an old, hard turd and not a fresh steamy log.

How about some commentary

from some more "mainstream" sources??


When you pick articles from the "fringes", either left or right, you

weaken your argument.:sick:

belgareth
03-06-2009, 05:03 PM
It is

already quite clear that you and the other recent major posters on politics here, to put it mildly, do not approve

of Obama (or "liberals" for that matter). But one would think a correction of facts would be welcomed in any

case.
You are absolutely right, my opinion of liberals gets worse all the time. And I obviously was quite

willing to post a correction as soon as it was brought to my attention. That does not mean that the liberal

mentality or direction is a good one or a sound one. The radical rants are really no different from one election to

the next, only the names change.

You might also note that I am open minded enough, unlike the rabid anti-Bush

posters here not long ago, to both admit errors and to agree with some of the things Obama has done. Come to think

of it, I disagreed with Bush on a number of things and agreed with Clinton on some.

The bottom line is that I

believe the course we are on is, and I've said this before, socialist. And, despite the fantasies of so many

people, socialism does not work in the long term. The only demonstratably functional long term plan is to keep

government out of our lives as much as possible. Keep in mind that it also means I do not agree with the

conservatives controlling mindset either. Both are equally wrong

belgareth
03-06-2009, 05:09 PM
How about

some commentary from some more "mainstream" sources??


When you pick articles from the "fringes", either left

or right, you weaken your argument.:sick:
How is it any different from the radical stuff posted against

Bush not so long ago? By the way, I am not supporting, only posting. By now you should know that while slightly

conservative I am utterly opposed to big government in general. If I had to take a stand it would be against Obama

and even more so with Hillary. But, since he is president, I can pick on him and since he is, in my mind, a

disaster, expect me to continue to post against him. Had McCain won I'd probably be doing the same against him as

he is close to as bad in another direction.

idesign
03-07-2009, 07:00 AM
IMO, there really isn't much of

a "maistream" media anymore. The same media that relentlessly attacked Bush at every turn is now in the bag for

Obama, to its shame. If ever we've needed a responsible - even cynical - press its now. Where are the

investigative reporters delving into this particular set of corrupt characters? It shouldn't matter whether you

have a "D" or an "R" by your name, but apparently it does matter.

The Obama administration is engaged in deceit,

upon an either ignorant or blind population. State's rights are only part of authoritarian power-grab. The

tentacles of the Federal Gov't are reaching further and further into every corner: health, economics, education and

even the census.

Oversight of the next census has been transferred from the Dept. of Commerce to the White

House. The "Rahm Doctrine" will now include manipulation of census data for the purpose of re-districting in favor

of the Dems. Vote grabbing by Federal tampering.

Do I seem too cynical? Not really if you look at the scope and

breadth of Obama's actions already. Every single line of every bill serves to centralize power in the Federal

Gov't. This is being sold as "Stimulus", which of course its not.

The more details the seep out between the

cracks in the media, the more people we'll have actually reporting on what's really going on. That's why you're

hearing more about the return of the "Fairness Doctrine". Muzzle the opposition in true authoritarian style.

belgareth
03-07-2009, 07:37 AM
yeah, I noticed quite a few

times how the 'Liberal' democrats prefer to suppress any opposition to their decisions, opinions, goals etc.

Liberal is rapidly becoming equated to authoritarian and suppression. I am afraid that by time the public wakes up

and can smell the stink, we are going to be too close to socialist to reverse it and return to what the writers of

the constitution intended.

Another Workers' Paradise in the making. I'm thrilled to be a part of it.

Rbt
03-07-2009, 12:08 PM
Doesn't

make me think Obama's going to be good for the country, in any case. And I am quite well educated, thank you.

Personally, I think Obama is a bad symptom of a deep problem and the problem is only getting worse.

IMO

none of the current crop of politicians from ANY party is going to do any real "good" for the country.

Bush,

Clinton (either one), McCain, Obama, Nader, Perot, etc etc... doesn't matter. The names may change but the

underlying crap remains the same.

Politics are just like one big TV soap opera to me, with a dash of American

Idol, Survivor, Dancing witht he Facts, and most assuredly "Lost" (and I wish many of them would get lost...).



They seem to have their own fanatsy worlds. Oh, I keep an eye on them, as what they do can bite me, but otherwise

I just do what I can to live my life and cover my ass in spite of them. I can't see getting too wound up in their

antics, and as far as teh "media" is concerned, I get most all the news I need on the weather report. The rest is

poo.

About the only "news" source I have been using is US News and World Report magazine as they seem the least

biased (on average) over others like Time, Newsweek, Washington Post, etc. But I keep a large container of salt

nearby as I'm taking a lot of "grains of salt" with no matter what story I read.

idesign
03-07-2009, 01:33 PM
I pretty much agree Rbt, the "R"

and the "D" don't mean so much any more, only in the manner of degree. They'll both take us to the same place,

just that one wants to go faster than the other. However, there are some key differences in social

policies.

BTW, what do the small letters below MENSA say? Your image didn't blow up, apparently unlike the

model's breasts.

DrSmellThis
03-08-2009, 12:08 AM
You

might also note that I am open minded enough, unlike the rabid anti-Bush posters here not long ago, to both admit

errors and to agree with some of the things Obama has done. Since I was the main anti Bush poster back in

the day, it's difficult not to take this as directed at me. If it wasn't, let me know. Or are you baiting as you

sometimes say you do? If so, I wish you'd not do that please, because the spirit of things is thrown off course

into something that to me feels like a macho power struggle. Then conversing becomes painful for everyone (not

speaking for you), as writing this post admittedly is a little bit.

So although I don't want to get into an

argument, I will respond to the specific points, assuming they were directed at me, for the sake of the forum

record.

* Are you really suggesting I posted falsehoods and wouldn't admit errors?? I challenge you to find a

single post of mine that contained plainly false matters of fact, in this forum. I have 6000 posts, so have at it.

I'm not saying there couldn't be one, but I'd actually be suprised just because I have tried to be careful at all

times about what I post. I am confused as to why you would suggest this.

Incidentally, you never did admit your

claim about McCain winning the vote was false, which is why I asked again for clarification. Reread the above posts.

You admitted several things about the spam you posted were mistakes, but not that. I assumed you probably ommitted

the correction accidentally. But that was a huge and strong claim that was worth clarifying.

* When I have argued

society, philosophy or politics; I tried very, very hard to be careful and disciplined in my arguments, and provide

legitimate sources where appropriate. For years I have been doing this, no matter the topic, and all my posts are a

matter of public record. I hope you and others have benefitted from this effort in some way. I have certainly been

trained in grad school to do as much, and have tried to keep all those habits, even here. That is the standard I

have sought to maintain in every case, such as in my debates with Kohl. An independent observer, a professor

familiar with Kohl's work, noticed just that quality about my posts in that case.

When I disagreed about McCain

winning the popular vote above, for example, I posted as good a source as I could find.

When I was arguing about

Bush's policies, I typically used the mainstream news services, and typically used multiple sources of information

for each point or argument, when appropriate. In the election corruption thread, I must have sited hundreds of

sources to make one argument that there appeared to be corruption, including official government documents. Same

with several other threads.

*You know that I have apologised frequently in this forum whenever I said something

that warranted it. I've never minded looking a bit foolish "for the team", as it were.

* I don't recall a

single post where you agreed with something Obama has done, by the way. I do forget whether you stated you liked him

closing Guantanamo. But it doesn't matter. Your opinion is your opinion. He'll never reduce the size of government

to 3&#37; of what it is, like you want him to (I believe that was the percentage you have mentioned, but I could be

mistaken.), so I know in advance there will never come a day when you do not strongly reject pretty much everything

he does, since almost everything a president does is related in some way to some government entity. But I'm glad

you speak your mind, and am thankful you have got me to think about various issues over the years.

belgareth
03-08-2009, 05:43 AM
I can't help if you choose to

take it personaly. Since I was not directing it at you personaly I will not bother to respond to any portion

addressing that. Go back and look for pointless name calling, as one example. Also, please point out a single

example where you agreed with Bush publicly.

You can look yourself but I specifically stated I agreed with

Obama's stand on limiting incomes of executives in corporations that took bailout funds. Another position I

disagreed with Bush on and agree with Obama on is stem cell research, still another is abortion. I completely agreed

with Clinton's welfare to work plan, as well. As far as closing Guantanamo, I am looking for some workable

alternative. I do not see releasing prisoners of war back into their native lands as being all that rational but I

do not support torture either.

Some things I disagree with both Bush and Obama on are the increases in the size

of government, the increases in the burden of government on the people, the increases in the invasion of our rights

and privacy. I always will oppose huge increases in government, government spending and invasions of our privacy and

the loss of our rights. It seems to me that you ranted quite a bit about loss of privacy under the excuse of

national security, please correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be perfectly willing to accept it under the

auspices of universal healthcare, something I am utterly opposed to for what seem rather obvious reasons that I have

brought up a number of times.

It is a fine thing that you take all your sources from mainstream media, if that

is where you want to get all your facts. Many have noticed over the years that the mainstream media is biased.

Perhaps some radicalism is appropriate?

You and I see government in a different manner. As far as I can tell,

you want a nanny state where I believe people need to be taught to be more self reliant and to stop relying on the

government for everything. In the end, with the right training, the people could be taught enough to reduce

government to a more appropriate size and power. It isn't something that is going to happen in my lifetime and I am

well aware of that. Frankly, the way things are going I am pretty certain that we are going to more or less follow

the former Soviet Union. Not only is that terribly sad to see for a people who were once proud, rugged individuals

but it is going to cause untold pain and suffering for the very people the government alleges it is trying to help.



I've used several numbers but whether the appropriate size is 1% of current or 10% or 98% is not the point.

The point is that the ongoing, uncheck growth in government is bad for everybody except the very few "leaders".



<start: humor> I'm glad to see we are back to disagreeing, Doc. I was worried there for while when we kept

agreeing :) <end: Humor>

I've learned a lot and seen a lot of new things from debating with you. Don't take it

personally, please! We may disagree but you still have my respect

Rbt
03-08-2009, 05:57 PM
I pretty much

agree Rbt, the "R" and the "D" don't mean so much any more, only in the manner of degree. They'll both take us to

the same place, just that one wants to go faster than the other. However, there are some key differences in social

policies.

Yes there are indeed differences. But it seems to be such a small percentage of the overall.

Like apes and humans there's only about a 3% difference... (DNA).
:p

Both are taking us down the same garden

path by very slightly different routes.


BTW, what do the small letters below MENSA say? Your image

didn't blow up, apparently unlike the model's breasts.

"Give up you're just not smart enough"



Really didn't make that much sense to me but it was one of the best looking Mensa related graphics I could locate

on short notice. (Something like "All this and brains too" may have been better... or "I got these instead of brains

- which would you rather have?")
:whip:


Thought I'd stick it in as my reference to my claim to being

intelligent too. Never seen her at any of the meetings though...
:sad:

belgareth
03-08-2009, 07:36 PM
Yes there are

indeed differences. But it seems to be such a small percentage of the overall. Like apes and humans there's only

about a 3% difference... (DNA).
:p

Both are taking us down the same garden path by very slightly different

routes.
:sad:I too agree that both parties are leading us in the wrong direction. The only real difference

is that there are more things to dislike about the Ds than the Rs. Both sides are contributing to the problem.

belgareth
03-09-2009, 07:19 AM
While I did not write the

following, I certainly agree with it. There is one part I removed because I completely disagreed with it. You can

read it yourself on the guy's blog.

Bel.

While I did not write the following, I certainly agree with it.

There is one part I removed because I completely disagreed with it. You can read it yourself on the guy's blog.



Bel.

"I'm Tired" by Robert A. Hall


I'll be 63 soon. Except

for one semester in college when jobs were scarce, and a six-month period when I was between jobs, but job-hunting

every day, I've worked, hard, since I was 18. Despite some health challenges, I still put in 50-hour weeks, and

haven't called in sick in seven or eight years. I make a good salary, but I didn't inherit my job or my income,

and I worked to get where I am. Given the economy, there's no retirement in sight, and I'm tired. Very tired.



I'm tired of being told that I have to "spread the wealth around" to people who don't have my work ethic.

I'm tired of being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people

too lazy or stupid to earn it.

I'm tired of being told that I have to pay more taxes to "keep people in

their homes." Sure, if they lost their jobs or got sick, I'm willing to help. But if they bought McMansions at

three times the price of our paid-off, $250,000 condo, on one-third of my salary, then let the leftwing Congress

critters who passed Fannie and Freddie and the Community Reinvestment Act that created the bubble help them-with

their own money.



I'm tired of being told how bad America is by leftwing millionaires like

Michael Moore, George Soros and Hollywood entertainers who live in luxury because of the opportunities America

offers. In thirty years, if they get their way, the United States will have the religious freedom and women's

rights of Saudi Arabia, the economy of Zimbabwe, the freedom of the press of China, the crime and violence of

Mexico, the tolerance for Gay people of Iran , and the freedom of speech of Venezuela .. Won't multiculturalism be

beautiful?


I believe "a man should be judged by the content of his character, not by the color of his skin."

I'm tired of being told that "race doesn't matter" in the post-racial world of President Obama, when it's all

that matters in affirmative action jobs, lower college admission and graduation standards for minorities (harming

them the most), government contract set-asides, tolerance for the ghetto culture of violence and fatherless children

that hurts minorities more than anyone, and in the appointment of US Senators from Illinois. I think it's very cool

that we have a black president and that a black child is doing her homework at the desk where Lincoln wrote the

emancipation proclamation. I just wish the black president was Condi Rice, or someone who believes more in freedom

and the individual and less in an all-knowing government.

I'm tired of a news media that thinks Bush's

fundraising and inaugural expenses were obscene, but that think Obama's, at triple the cost, were wonderful. That

thinks Bush exercising daily was a waste of presidential time, but Obama exercising is a great example for the

public to control weight and stress, that picked over every line of Bush's military records, but never demanded

that Kerry release his, that slammed Palin with two years as governor for being too inexperienced for VP, but touted

Obama with three years as senator as potentially the best president ever.

Wonder why people are dropping

their subscriptions or switching to Fox News? Get a clue. I didn't vote for Bush in 2000, but the media and Kerry

drove me to his camp in 2004.

I'm tired of being told that out of "tolerance for other cultures"
we must

let Saudi Arabia use our oil money to fund mosques and madrassa Islamic schools to preach hate inAmerica , while no

American group is allowed to fund a church, synagogue or religious school in Saudi Arabia to teach love and

tolerance.

I'm tired of being told I must lower my living standard to fight global warming, which no one

is allowed to debate. My wife and I live in a two-bedroom apartment and carpool together five miles to our jobs. We

also own a three-bedroom condo where our daughter and granddaughter live. Our carbon footprint is about 5&#37; of Al

Gore's, and if you're greener than Gore, you're green enough.

I'm tired of being told that drug

addicts have a disease, and I must help support and treat them, and pay for the damage they do. Did a giant germ

rush out of a dark alley, grab them, and stuff white powder up their noses while they tried to fight it off? I

don't think Gay people choose to be Gay, but I damn sure think druggies chose to take drugs.. And I'm tired of

harassment from cool people treating me like a freak when I tell them I never tried marijuana.

I'm tired

of illegal aliens being called "undocumented workers,"
especially the ones who aren't working, but are living on

welfare or crime.
What's next? Calling drug dealers, "Undocumented Pharmacists"? And, no, I'm not against

Hispanics. Most of them are Catholic and it's been a few hundred years since Catholics wanted to kill me for my

religion. I'm willing to fast track for citizenship any Hispanic person who can speak English, doesn't have a

criminal record and who is self-supporting without family on welfare, or who serves honorably for three years in our

military. Those are the citizens we need.

I'm tired of latte liberals and journalists, who would never

wear the uniform of the Republic themselves, or let their entitlement-handicapped kids near a recruiting station,

trashing our military. They and their kids can sit at home, never having to make split-second decisions under life

and death circumstances, and bad mouth better people then themselves. Do bad things happen in war? You bet. Do our

troops sometimes misbehave? Sure. Does this compare with the atrocities that were the policy of our enemies for the

last fifty years-and still are? Not even close. So here's the deal. I'll let myself be subjected to all the

humiliation and abuse that was heaped on terrorists at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo, and the critics can let themselves be

subject to captivity by the Muslims who tortured and beheaded Daniel Pearl in Pakistan, or the Muslims who tortured

and murdered Marine Lt. Col.
William Higgins in Lebanon, or the Muslims who ran the blood-spattered Al Qaeda

torture rooms our troops found in Iraq, or the Muslims who cut off the heads of schoolgirls in Indonesia, because

the girls were Christian. Then we'll compare notes. British and American soldiers are the only troops in history

that civilians came to for help and handouts, instead of hiding from in fear.

I'm tired of people telling

me that their party has a corner on virtue and the other party has a corner on corruption. Read the papers-bums are

bi-partisan. And I'm tired of people telling me we need bi-partisanship.
I live in Illinois , where the "

Illinois Combine" of Democrats and Republicans has worked together harmoniously to loot the public for years.
And I

notice that the tax cheats in Obama's cabinet are bi-partisan as well.

I'm tired of hearing wealthy

athletes, entertainers and politicians of both parties talking about innocent mistakes, stupid mistakes or youthful

mistakes, when we all know they think their only mistake was getting caught.
I'm tired of people with a sense of

entitlement, rich or poor.

Speaking of poor, I'm tired of hearing people with air-conditioned homes,

color TVs and two cars called poor. The majority of Americans didn't have that in 1970, but we didn't know we were

"poor." The poverty pimps have to keep changing the definition of poor to keep the dollars flowing.

I'm

real tired of people who don't take responsibility for their lives and actions. I'm tired of hearing them blame

the government, or discrimination, or big-whatever for their problems.

Yes, I'm damn tired. But I'm also

glad to be 63. Because, mostly, I'm not going to get to see the world these people are making. I'm just sorry for

my granddaughter.

Robert A. Hall is a Marine Vietnam veteran who served five terms in the Massachusetts

state senate. He blogs at

www.tartanmarine.blogspot.com (http://www.tartanmarine.blogspot.com/)
< http://www.tartanmarine.blogspot.com/ (http

://www.tartanmarine.blogspot.com/) >

Rbt
03-09-2009, 05:15 PM
"undocumented pharmacists"

Now

that's (sadly) funny.

idesign
03-11-2009, 07:54 PM
Yes there are

indeed differences. But it seems to be such a small percentage of the overall. Like apes and humans there's only

about a 3% difference... (DNA).

The problem, it seems to me, is that even the "small" things have far

reaching and often unintended consequences. What sounds good on face will often bite you in the face once

implemented and funded. I think it was Reagan who said something like "the closest you'll get to eternity in this

life is a federal program". And when it does not work, or more likely does damage, you just can't step on it hard

enough to kill it.



"Give up you're just not smart enough"

Really didn't make that much

sense to me but it was one of the best looking Mensa related graphics I could locate on short notice. (Something

like "All this and brains too" may have been better... or "I got these instead of brains - which would you rather

have?")

I think it was a backdoor irony, suggesting double indemnity. :) I like your last suggestion

though but I'd probably rather have the model's corset on my g/f.



Thought I'd stick it

in as my reference to my claim to being intelligent too. Never seen her at any of the meetings

though...
:sad:

You won't see her at the meetings, she's too busy being smart in private.

Rbt
03-12-2009, 09:13 AM
The problem,

it seems to me, is that even the "small" things have far reaching and often unintended consequences. What sounds

good on face will often bite you in the face once implemented and funded. I think it was Reagan who said something

like "the closest you'll get to eternity in this life is a federal program". And when it does not work, or more

likely does damage, you just can't step on it hard enough to kill it.





Well, the thing is of

course that no matter which party it is, there are going to be "programs" put in place that will live for eternity.

And we are left with an infinite number of diametrically opposed (philosophically) programs warring with each other

while we the taxpayers huddle in the trenches while dodging the the bullets flying between sides that we had to pay

for in the first place... all the while getting nowhere. Except deeper in sh*t.

No I'm not a fan of

politics.... or politicians. But I'm not going to let them screw up my life any more than necessary. Just work

around them and stay out of their sight.
:run:

a.k.a.
03-15-2009, 08:03 PM
Capitalist economies require the

constant circulation of money to function successfully. Money buys commodities, which create profits, which creates

capital, which creates jobs, which creates incomes, which creates markets.
When the circulation of money slows

down — when billions of dollars in so-called "assets" turn out to be nothing more than the promise of

hyper-inflated returns on loans that will never be payed back - things start grinding to a halt. Investment is

reduced, jobs are lost, markets contract, consumer spending goes down, commodities remain unsold, the rate of profit

declines, and capital is in short supply.
To bring a capitalist economy out of recession you have to somehow

increase the circulation of money in the system. There's a finite number of ways to do this: 1) Increase consumer

spending. 2)Increase private investments. 3) Increase exports. 4) Increase public spending.
Right now, the

American working classes are too strapped to spend us out of a recession. The capitalist classes are not seeing

enough returns to invest us out of a recession. And the rest of the world doesn't want to buy us out of a

recession.
I disagree with many details of Obama's Stimulus Plan, but the basic strategy (Public Spending) is

the only option this country has left.
I think many of his critics understand this, but they seem to be

playing up the obvious risks in order to secure their own political fortunes.

belgareth
03-16-2009, 06:00 AM
As a short term fix, that's a

fine idea but you are not dealing with the mindset that got us into this situation in the first place or the mental

state that creates a recession. Short term thinking has been our downfall from day one, every time we apply a short

term fix it makes matters worse in the long term. Adding trillions of dollars to current and future debt is not a

long term solution.

Recession is as much or more a mental exercise than a monetary one. You have to first

understand money. Money is a concept, nothing more. Have you ever seen a billion dollars? Nobody else has either. It

is an entry in a ledger or stored as electrons on magnetic media. The money you might have in the bank is also an

electronic entry someplace that tells the bank you have loaned them the money so they can use it to loan other

people and make a profit on the margin. The only reason money has value is because we collectively agree it has

value. Were we trading in seashells it would be no different and if it became widely known that seashells were

becoming scarce they would be held and hoarded too instead of used to buy the non-necessary items we want. Even

purchases of quasi necessarry items would be deferred whenever possible. That would result in a reduction in the

shells available to the hunters so they would cut down on the amount of meat they brought home so it would not sit

in their caves and stink instead of being traded.

Right now the capitalist classes are not seeing enough

spending to justify employment of all their workers. That, of course, frightens everybody who then begins to hoard

and spend less. The hard knock we got from energy prices didn't help the mindset. Then the hard knock from the

banks made matters worse. People are justifyably frightened and as a result they are not buying the things they

would otherwise buy. That results in a drastic reduction in goods orders that results in further layoffs.



Certainly, there are millions of people out of work right now. and the rest are scared spitless that they may be

next. None of them see the possibility of future employment in a recession and the news people are not helping by

highlighting the negatives. There is still money to be had despite a likely adjustment in earnings and cost of

living. The real issue is creating the confidence to get people to start using that money instead of acting in fear

and hoarding it.

Here too, for different reasons, I support parts of the stimulus plan but the overall package

is wrong. The bailouts should not have happened the way they did. Helping the individuals who were in trouble

through no fault of their own is fine, helping corporations or individuals who made reckless decisions is simply a

bad precedence and will result in the need for more bailouts. We've already seen it coming from the automotive

industry.

The stimulus should be aimed not at large institutions but at the people. Jobs, major tax cuts to

create jobs and promises of secure futures are what we need right now, not hand outs to people who knowingly screwed

up and are still living like kings. The housing market bust is not over and until those who could not afford the

homes they bought are settled in some long term manner, it will not be over. If they could not afford the home they

bought last year, they probably cannot afford them next year either. Bailing them out will do no more than prolong

the agony. On the other hand, increasing 'worthwhile employment' and decreasng the tax burden will help to resolve

the problem in the long term. I define worthwhile employment as a job that is reasonably secure and pays well enough

that a person can afford to pay their bills and keep food on the table in a healthy environment. Yes, it does leave

a lot to be defined but that cannot be helped. I do not include the ability to have two brand new cars, vacations in

Bermuda or other luxury items.

For all the above reasons I actually support the earmarks more than the overall

spending plan. Most of the earmarks I have seen would create work, which would generate spending and increase

confidence.

The US has long been declining in it's competitiveness on the world market. We are becoming a

nation of service industries, that are less well paid, while many of our high value jobs are going overseas. Our

edication system is focusing on being test-worthy rather than being educated and productive. That is a trend we need

to reverse but it cannot be done with handouts. It can only be accomplished by changing our mindset while leaning

down the wasteful, inefficient and non-productive organizations. That is a large part of what needs to happen now

and would be happening were it not for the bailouts.

We agree on many things but I think we disagree on the

reasons or the exact actions needed to resolve the crises.

a.k.a.
03-16-2009, 10:39 AM
The housing

market bust is not over and until those who could not afford the homes they bought are settled in some long term

manner, it will not be over. If they could not afford the home they bought last year, they probably cannot afford

them next year either. Bailing them out will do no more than prolong the agony.

This part of the

Obama's strategy is what worries me the most. I do think that home-buyers need some relief, but I wonder how it

will work out in the long run. You agree to reduce the value of your home in return for a renegotiated loan. Sure

this may help you keep your home. But doesn't it also encourage those same predatory lenders that created the

real-estate bubble in the first place? They can wait for real estate prices to sink even lower, buy up a bunch of

property at bargain prices, encourage buyers to take out government secured loans, and then sell this debt in the

financial markets. Who cares if the homeowners can't pay, if the government backs up their debt?
On the other

hand I support more public spending in Healthcare. First of all, this is where the job market is still relatively

healthy. I believe in building up our strengths in order to overcome to our weaknesses. Second of all, public

spending in healthcare indirectly supports other industries by reducing insurance costs. Thirdly, pharmaceuticals

are one export which could conceivably become competitive with a little government support.
My biggest

disagreement with Obama's critics is over tax cuts. Tax cuts are a sort of band-aid solution for reduced rates of

profit. They don't create confidence. Rather, they create incentives, or at least opportunities, to invest in

other countries.

belgareth
03-16-2009, 11:51 AM
It depends on hte homebuyer we

are talking about. Those that knowingly bought houses far beyond their means are never going to be help-able. In a

normal market they would lose the houses too or would never have been allowed to obtain a loan. I do agree with your

concern about predatory lenders as well. So long as the government is involved in bailing people out and their are

predators out there it is going to happen.

It depends on what you mean by greater healthcare spending. The

health of that job market is not material to the topic, really. And I surely do not want our government involved in

providing or monitoring healthcare. I look at the rest of the world's 'universal healthcare' and shudder!

I

look at taxes like an engineer, they are parasitic on the economic engine. Currently, taxes consume about half of

the energy the economic engine produces. A reduction in taxes would put more money into the economy but the

reduction would have to be substatial. You can use the argument that other places have higher taxes but it begs the

question of how their economies would be doing with half the tax rate.

belgareth
03-16-2009, 01:54 PM
More than a bad day: Worries grow that Barack Obama & Co. have a competence

problem
Sunday, March 15th 2009,


Roberts/Bloomberg

President Barack Obama
Not long ago, after a string of especially

bad days for the Obama administration, a veteran Democratic pol approached me with a pained look on his face and

asked, "Do you think they know what they're doing?"



The question caught me off guard because the man is a well-known Obama

supporter. As we talked, I quickly realized his asking suggested his own considerable doubts.



Yes, it's early, but

an eerily familiar feeling is spreading across party lines and seeping into the national conversation. It's a

nagging doubt about the competency of the White House.



It was during George W. Bush's second term that the I-word -

incompetence - became a routine broadside against him. The Democratic frenzy of Bush-bashing had not spent itself

when a larger critique emerged, one not confined by partisan boundaries.

The charge of incompetence covered the mismanagement of

Iraq, the response to Hurricane Katrina and the economic meltdown. By the time Bush left, the charge tipped the

scales to where most of America, including many who had been supporters or just sympathetic, viewed him as a failed

President.

The tag of

incompetence is powerful precisely because it is a nondenominational rebuke, even when it yields a partisan result.

It became the strongest argument against the GOP hammerlock on Washington and, over two elections, gave Democrats

their turn at total control.

But already feelings of doubt are rising again. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry

Reid were never held in high regard, so doubts about their motives and abilities are not surprising.



What matters more is

the growing concern about Obama and his team. The longest campaign in presidential history is being followed by a

very short honeymoon.

Polls show that most people like Obama, but they increasingly don't like his policies. The vast spending

hikes and plans for more are provoking the most concern, with 82&#37; telling a Gallup survey they are worried about

the deficit and 69% worried about the rapid growth of government under Obama. Most expect their own taxes will go up

as a result, despite the President's promises to the contrary.



None other than Warren Buffet, an Obama supporter, has called the

administration's message on the economy "muddled." Even China says it is worried about its investments in American

Treasury bonds. Ouch.

Much of the blame falls on Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, whose appalling tax problems softened the ground

under him before he took office. After his initial fumbling presentations, he became a butt of jokes on "Saturday

Night Live," not a sustainable image for the point man in a recession. And still the market waits for his answer to

the banks' toxic assets.

It's also notable that four people lined up for top jobs under Geithner have withdrawn, leaving one British

official to complain that there is nobody to talk to at the Treasury Department. Perhaps it was a bid to combat the

Geithner blues that led Larry Summers, Obama's top economic adviser, to make an unusual appearance Friday in which

he defended the spending plans everyone is so worried about.



Yet the doubts aren't all about Geithner, and they were reinforced by

the bizarre nomination and withdrawal of Chas Freeman as a top intelligence official. It's hard to know which

explanation is worse: that the White House didn't know of Freeman's intemperate criticism of Israel and his praise

of China's massacre at Tiananmen Square, or that it didn't care. Good riddance to him. But what of those who

picked him?

Which

brings us to the heart of the matter: the doubts about Obama himself. His famous eloquence is wearing thin through

daily exposure and because his actions are often disconnected from his words. His lack of administrative experience

is showing.

His

promises and policies contradict each other often enough that evidence of hypocrisy is ceasing to be news. Remember

the pledges about bipartisanship and high ethics? They're so last year.

The beat goes on. Last week, Obama brazenly gave a

speech about earmark reform just after he quietly signed a $410 billion spending bill that had about 9,000 earmarks

in it. He denounced Bush's habit of disregarding pieces of laws he didn't like, so-called signing statements, then

issued one himself.

And

in an absolute jaw-dropper, he told business leaders, "I don't like the idea of spending more government money, nor

am I interested in expanding government's role."



No wonder Americans are confused. Our President is, too.



mgoodwin@nydailynews.com

DrSmellThis
03-16-2009, 05:14 PM
I'm not worried about general

competence right now, particularly after the last eight years where absolute incompetence was the least of the

problems. Those who most loved Bush and Cheney called them "incompetent".

But it's just too early to "call

incompetence", except on ideological grounds (for example, "all expansion of government is bad, therefore Obama is

incompetent"). But ideology fails to tell you what to do in an emergency, among its other short and narrow sighted

failings.

To me it's not a partisan or ideology thing. It's not even about a deeper philosophy of government,

or what to do in normal times, or for the long term.

The only relevant evaluation is whether the package works

to do what it was designed to in the short term time frame it was designed to address. I get impatient with all the

criticisms that presuppose spending like this as a long term plan. Those criticisms are disingenuous and overly

cynical.

A lot of the economists involved in these recovery efforts were conservatives, like Paul Volker, who has

forgotten more about practical economics than most economists will ever know; not that I have always agreed with

him. If McCain was in power, we would still be doing something along these lines, that would have many more

similarities than differences, and we would have lots of criticisms of it. Or if you picked a random person to be

president, and he or she consulted with all the best economists and experts, the same result would happen.

As AKA

pointed out, a stimulus package is the classic solution to this type of economic problem, in terms of what to do in

the immediate short term.

Of course you are a moron if that is your whole plan. But generally speaking, the

stimulus does not ignore the bigger picture, because the bigger picture tells you that your short term plans
would

differ from your longer term plans, and that you begin with a stimulus. It that corrrect? We'll see. I hope so, to

say the least.

Having said that to avoid the partisan insanity; I have the same worries everyone does. I'm sure

Obama and his advisors have those same worries as well! I believe he is genuinely trying to figure it out and do the

best thing, and that his best shot at a solution is going to have lots of flaws.

I don't believe in throwing

good money after bad, I don't believe in pork and earmarks that are not totally focused toward the recovery.

I

think it's bad form to put anything in that bill that is not a direct and powerful effort at economic

recovery.

For example, I don't believe we should put healthcare record keeping provisions in there because that

deserves its own debate. We need a program that fits America and Americans, not Canadians or French; and that

requires a lot of tweaking.

I do favor an increased public role in healthcare, and I favor healthcare for all

Americans, despite all the shouts of "socialist!" I think it is a good and necessary investment in our country. The

healthcare crisis is dragging us all down. No amount of Darwinism is going to lift us out of this mess. Untreated

sick people are a black hole for national and world resources. Getting everybody health care in a reliable manner

will be good for the economy in the long term, and in the biggest picture.

My bias there is to use a conservative

principle from the Regan administration, federalism. You farm out the administrative part as much to the local level

as possible, while having appropriate standards for uniformity, etc. that is the cheapest way, and the most

efficient, all other things being equal. Plus, when you have the locals involved, people tend to care more about the

details, if that makes sense. I am a big privacy advocate, and have to maintain standards of privacy and

confidentiality in my own field. I object to any violation of those rights in the strongest terms. You do have to

collect personal information to provide healthcare, but there is lots and lots of room to protect people within

that. Medical ethicists and privacy advocates should take part in designing the information gathering and record

keeping.

But returning to the stimulus, measures that create jobs through work; where the work itself address the

recovery; are a no brainer for what to include. If you fix a bridge it puts people to work and helps the economy of

the people who depend on that bridge. If you put people to work helping veterans recover from PTSD, it helps the

ecomomy and puts people to work, both the helpers and the helpees (and yes it is relevant, AKA/Bel, that you are

investing in an area where the field and jobs are relatively more stable, precisely because you are not throwing

good money after bad.) What you want is to maximize the "power" of each measure in that way, looking for measures

that multi-task and/or bring bang for the buck. My quarrels with Obama's plan relate back to this issue, which is

the "power" of each provision. You have to look at the big picture to discern the power of a provision.

I'm

frankly torn about how much to bail out the auto industry, even though everything about my small home town in Ohio,

as well, as our family business has been to a huge degree dependent on the auto industry. I am still personally at

risk along with the auto industry. If anyone should be interested in helping carmakers, it's me and my family. But

frankly, the auto companies were terribly mismanaged and foolishly misread the demands of the marketplace. I would

have been glad to buy domestic, and even would have preferred to do so; but bought a foreign car because it was

better in every relevant category. Maybe you let one or two of them fail and start over? Again, this so called

"conservative view" has nothing to do with my politics as far as I can tell. I just don't like to throw good money

after bad.

Regarding that op-ed piece from NYDN, neither Warren Buffet, Donald Trump, nor anyone else could

devise a recovery plan that didn't seem "muddled".

Frankly, I worry more about those who pretend to have

simple, clear answers, particularly ones based on ideology. Those people were bound to come out of the woodwork with

all guns blaring the first chance they got, shouting from the highest rooftops that an emergency spending bill

equals communism and socialism. They don't even wait for McCain's presidential "corpse" to chill.

Obama

consulted all the experts from all sides of the ideological spectrum before acting, and their opinions came back --

you guessed it -- muddled. Given that, I'm not going to expect anything close to perfect clarity.

But to me that

op-ed piece is a bit disingenuous. When Obama gives exactly the answer someone who likes fiscal conservatism would

hope for, to clarify the difference between long and short term, this journalist opines that Obama therefore is

"confused." What a waste of time.

Rbt
03-16-2009, 06:36 PM
IMO all I know is that it took us

years to get into this mess, and it will no doubt take years to dig out of it.

And just like there is no single

magic PUA line, no single magic pheromone, no single, simple anything most of the time, there will be no single,

simple magic answers.

And there is that line about when you find yourself stuck deep in a hole, it might be a

good idea to stop digging...

idesign
03-16-2009, 10:01 PM
Capitalist

economies require the constant circulation of money to function successfully.

The capitalist classes are not

seeing enough returns to invest us out of a recession. And the rest of the world doesn't want to buy us out of a

recession.

I disagree with many details of Obama's Stimulus Plan, but the basic strategy (Public Spending)

is the only option this country has left.
I think many of his critics understand this, but they seem to be

playing up the obvious risks in order to secure their own political fortunes.

I agree a.k.a., liquidity

is the major problem in the markets now, all of them, housing, equity, credit etc. I do not agree that "public

spending" is the answer. I doubt that as much as 10% of these "stimulus" funds will reach the private sector where

its needed most. And its common experience that the inefficiencies of gov't will not allow anything at all to

filter through inside of 12-18 months. By then the turnaround would be well on its way if Washington would just

keep their hands off.

If you want to stimulate a market, any market, in the short term, you have to put cash in

the hands of investors and spenders immediately. Historically the only way to do that is by taking less of their

cash in the form of taxes and burdensome regulation. Not that some regulation is not needed.

I don't think its

a matter of "risk to secure political fortune". Yes, money follows politics in this country, and vice versa. That

does not mean that disastrous economic policies will work any better now than they have in the past. See Weimar

Germany, Carter America and Yeltsin Russia. Japan tried this in the 90s, spending their way out of recession. Its

now know as Japan's "lost decade", and in the process they quadrupled their national

debt.




Recession is as much or more a mental exercise than a monetary one.

The

real issue is creating the confidence to get people to start using that money instead of acting in fear and hoarding

it.

The stimulus should be aimed not at large institutions but at the people.

Bel has hit the other

half of the nail on the head. Confidence is half the game, and its why the stock market has tanked 2000+ points

since Obama's been elected. Every time he or one of his people goes before a microphone it drops another hundred

point or so. His Treasury Sec has most of his senior staff unfilled. Now, in a time of economic crisis, one would

think that the Treas. Dept. would have some kind of priority. Not so, unfortunately. He has a host of "shadow

advisors" who may nod wisely at his policies, but as Obama's policies unfold, nobody wants to work for this guy (or

they can't get vetted).

In the end, I don't think the markets have any confidence in this President. He's

turning out to be not as smart as he's been billed. He's following a boilerplate set of policies (not only

economic, and that's not lost on many of us) which require only a like minded Congress. There's no crisis

there.

idesign
03-16-2009, 10:39 PM
While breathing deeply and

taking a deep draught of Chamomile tea for composure, I'm pondering the separation of economics and ideology. I'm

also pondering how committed our Pres. is to this ideal. To quote Borak... "NOT".

I honestly and completely

agree with what a lot of you guys say, aka, Doc, Bel, Rbt et al. And I heartily engage in and enjoy fruitful

debate, though I may be guilty of "flaming" at times. Its my fault.

Having said that, and after reading verbatim

some of the actual bills he's signed, and seeing what he's actually doing (forget what he says, its

meaningless), I don't for an instant believe Obama gives a flying f**k whether the economy turns around this year

or in the year 2525.

This is NOT a political opinion.


Pardon my language, but I'm over this guy getting a

pass for using this situation to shove his agenda through (irrespective of ideology) while billing it as some kind

of stimulus.

Darn, the Chamomille ran out... oops

belgareth
03-17-2009, 06:40 AM
Please forgive me for the light

side-trak but this article struck me as hilarious! What a grand suggestion!

Senator suggests AIG execs should kill themselves



By NIGEL DUARA, Associated Press Writer Nigel Duara, Associated Press

Writer AP –

IOWA

CITY, Iowa – Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley suggested that AIG executives should take a Japanese approach toward

accepting responsibility for the collapse of the insurance giant by resigning or killing

themselves.

The

Republican lawmaker's harsh comments came during an interview with Cedar Rapids, Iowa, radio station WMT on Monday.

They echo remarks he has made in the past about corporate executives and public apologies, but went further in

suggesting suicide.

"I

suggest, you know, obviously, maybe they ought to be removed," Grassley said. "But I would suggest the first thing

that would make me feel a little bit better toward them if they'd follow the Japanese example and come before the

American people and take that deep bow and say, I'm sorry, and then either do one of two things: resign or go

commit suicide.

"And in

the case of the Japanese, they usually commit suicide before they make any apology."

Grassley spokesman Casey Mills said the senator isn't

calling for AIG executives to kill themselves, but said those who accept tax dollars and spend them on travel and

bonuses do so irresponsibly.

"Senator Grassley has said for some time now that generally speaking, executives who make a mess of their

companies should apologize, as Japanese executives do," Mills said. "He says the Japanese might even go so far as to

commit suicide but he doesn't want U.S. executives to do that."



The senator's remarks added to a chorus of public outrage over the

disclosure that AIG intends to pay its executives $165 million in bonuses after taking billions in federal bailout

money. President Barack Obama lambasted the insurance giant for "recklessness and greed" on Monday and pledged to

try to block payment of the bonuses.

belgareth
03-17-2009, 10:03 AM
Rather disappointing but it

highlights the facts regarding stem cell research despite what the press tells us.

Embryonic Stem Cells: 5 Misconceptions
Christopher

Wanjek
Livescience's Bad Medicine Columnist


livescience.com



Last week President Obama lifted restrictions on federal funding for

embryonic stem cell research and asked the National Institutes of Health to come up with a funding game plan within

120 days. Yet while the field of stem cell research holds great promise, hype and misconceptions cloud the picture.

Here are a five such misconceptions.


1. George W. Bush killed research on embryonic stem

cells.




Wrong. Bush actually was the first president to allow federal funding.

Bill Clinton had chickened out. A very brief history follows.




In 1974, Congress

banned federal funding on fetal tissue research and established the Ethics Advisory Board to study the nascent field

of in vitro fertilization. In 1980 Ronald Reagan killed the Board, which was friendly to embryonic research,

resulting in a de facto moratorium on funding. Congress tried to override the moratorium in 1992, but George H.W.

Bush vetoed it. Bill Clinton lifted the moratorium in 1993 but reversed his decision in 1994 after public outcry. In

1995, Congress passed the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, banning federal funding on any research that destroys human

embryos.




In 2001 Bush enabled limited funding on embryonic stem cell lines

already derived from discarded embryos; the life or death decision already had been made, he said. He thought more

than 60 lines existed, but within months scientists realized that only about 20 were viable, not enough to do

substantial research.




2. Bush spurred development of alternative sources of embryonic stem

cells.




Sure, in the same way his disastrous invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq

spurred the development of treatment for massive head trauma, or the way his economic policies have encouraged all

of us to do more with less. One doesn't advance a scientific field by handicapping researchers.






Regardless, the biggest advance in recent years has come from Japan by

a researcher not affected by U.S. research funding rules. U.S. federal funding could have led to even more advances

of alternative sources, because funding stem cell research in general can have a synergetic effect across the

various research specialties.


3. Embryonic stem cells are no longer needed.






Wrong. In 2007, Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University in Japan announced

a breakthrough in which adult skin cells could be coaxed back into an embryonic state and thus regain the ability to

branch into any kind of human cell, such as heart, pancreas or spinal cord nerve cell. While a major advance, the

work itself is in an embryonic state, years from practical application.


The work

on these so-called induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells complements embryonic stem cell research; it doesn't

replace it. The iPS cells have a greater tendency to become cancerous. Work on "real" embryonic stem cells is

needed, at a minimum, to understand what iPS cells lack. Many view Yamanaka's technique as brilliant yet worry that

his four-gene manipulation of adult cells might be too simplistic.




Research on iPS cells

is particularly exciting because it opens the possibility of using one's own cells - say, from skin - to produce

pancreas cells to cure diabetes, whereas embryonic stem cells would introduce DNA from a stranger.






4. Cures are around the corner.


Wrong.

Stem cell research is dominated by hype. Remember gene therapy, the insertion of genes into human cells to cure all

types of diseases? Nearly two decades after the first gene therapy procedure, the technique remains highly

experimental and problematic. Stem cell research faces a similar future.


5.

Obama's executive order means "all systems go."




Unlikely. The new rule

eliminates red tape, for now researchers can study any established embryonic stem cell line. Previously, stem cell

researchers receiving private and public funding needed to keep detailed records of spending, down to which

microscope is used for which kind of stem cell. That's history.




But the Dickey-Wicker

Amendment (see No. 1 above) is the law of the land, meaning federally funded researchers cannot create new embryonic

stem cells lines. They can work only on those new lines created with private funding, which aren't that plentiful.

Also, some scientists worry that crucial private funding will dry up with the poor economy and false reassurances

that federal funding is in place.


The furor over stem cells focuses on the definition of

human life, which many believe begins when sperm meets eggs. Yet inevitably lines will be blurred in coming years

when babies are born with the DNA of two sperms or ova transplanted into an egg. Just as humans evolved from

non-humans - with no precise generation in which a non-human gave birth to a human - we may come to understand that

all of nature is a continuum.

a.k.a.
03-17-2009, 10:32 AM
Confidence is

half the game, and its why the stock market has tanked 2000+ points since Obama's been elected.



In conservative markets (such as those you find in text-books) the asset value of stocks is determined by the

expected flow of dividends. In speculative markets (such as the one you find in Wall Street) asset value is

determined by the expected volume of buyers.
In periods of high liquidity, you find large volumes of

money chasing a relatively small number of assets. This inflates the value of the stocks and creates a so-called

"bubble economy".

The most recent economic bubble was created when fractional reserve banks threw huge

volumes of money into the stock market through easy credit and low interest loans. When it turned out that many of

these banks couldn't back up even 8% of the credit they had extended with real assets, the bubble burst. Hundreds

of billions of dollars in value simply disappeared, and now the market is contracting.

Once more, I am sure

most of Obama's critics understand this. But it's always easier to find scapegoats than to take responsibility for

a dire situation.

Rbt
03-17-2009, 10:53 AM
Some real quick thoughts before the

boss catches me goofing off...

1) the economy ie stock market etc seems to me to be more emotionally driven than

"scientifically" driven or fact driven. No matter how good an economic plan you may have, it won't work if no one

supports it "in their gut" so to speak. Somewhat true with any plan come to think of it... Think of the "rallying of

the troops" before a battle.

2) one of my big worries is that, to borrow a Christian reference, I think a lot of

people see Obama as the Second Coming. He is a charasmatic leader, but there are too many putting too much stock in

his magic wand. And those followers are about as much to "blame" for elevating him to that level as he is accepting

it/allowing it to happen. Yes, I can see the point of boosting spirits and all that. Positive thinking, light at the

end of the tunnel and all that... but what is going ot happen when things don't work. Already I see grumblings

about how things haven't changed much, and the guy has only been in office for a few months (and as pointed out,

still doesn't have a frull staff yet). The "rebound" effect could make things a lot worse than they are now.

3)

I can't put all the blame on any one President or party. I still think they have more similarities than

differences. One is pretty much the same as any other when you look at the overall picture. Yes there are

differences, but it's like one wears a red tie and the other a blue tie. Big whoop. Many of the American people

share this blame as well. That have to have the 52" TV with $200 a month cable and the McMansion home. All bought on

credit.


Okay, end short rant. Need to get back to work before *I* join the ranks of the

unemployed...
:run:

idesign
03-17-2009, 07:28 PM
In

conservative markets (such as those you find in text-books) the asset value of stocks is determined by the expected

flow of dividends. In speculative markets (such as the one you find in Wall Street) asset value is determined by the

expected volume of buyers.
In periods of high liquidity, you find large volumes of money chasing a relatively

small number of assets. This inflates the value of the stocks and creates a so-called "bubble economy".

The

most recent economic bubble was created when fractional reserve banks threw huge volumes of money into the stock

market through easy credit and low interest loans. When it turned out that many of these banks couldn't back up

even 8% of the credit they had extended with real assets, the bubble burst. Hundreds of billions of dollars in value

simply disappeared, and now the market is contracting.

Once more, I am sure most of Obama's critics

understand this. But it's always easier to find scapegoats than to take responsibility for a dire

situation.

Sure, that's why the bubble burst - well before Obama was elected - but does not explain the

continuing decline in every segment since 11/2/08. Recovery requires confidence, and that requires a belief in

future prosperity. Nobody has it at this point. Obama and his policies are having a major impact on this.

DrSmellThis
03-17-2009, 07:29 PM
idesign, if what you're

saying is that Obama is pushing too much political agenda through the stimulus bill, I agree totally. That seems

like a good objective criticism that is possible to respond to. He already has a voter mandate to enact his campaign

promises and change things from the last administration, so there is no reason to do it through the back door. That

is a missed opportunity for real change, and it somehow cheapens the importance of a stimulus.

I also share your

concerns about how much stimulus money will end up where it is supposed to, and not just end up as bonuses or

whatever. If it's only 10%, obviously, that would be trouble. This problem is so obvious, that I hope Obama's team

is concerned as well.

However, I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say he doesn't care about the economic

recovery in the slightest. I know the Rush Limbaughs of the world love to say stuff like that about non-republicans.

But he is enacting a stimulus package, after all, and fixing the economy has been by far the dominant use of his

time since he got in. The first thing he did after the election was to put together a bipartisan economic team.

(which was nothing if not an attempt at separating ideology from economics, by the way. But if the fact that no

republican voted for the stimulus package, despite it being close to the republican version, means Obama is being

the partisan ideologue, then OK.)

If you just wanted to argue he is pushing it through too fast, then, again, I

might agree with you, even though I can see why a new president in this situation would want to hurry up with it. We

are in an acute crisis.

Sounds like you are very frustrated with him, and I can understand that, since neither of

our guys won. But it seems that if, even for a minute, he does anything other than enact extreme,

permanent tax cuts in the highest brackets, which is the preferred right wing "solution" for every economic problem

(yet they recently called the lower and middle class tax cuts "welfare"), that media ideologues are going to happily

rain down every possible negative judgement of character upon him. It's the same old rhetoric, like calling people

who don't favor the war -- who disagree -- "unpatriotic".

DrSmellThis
03-17-2009, 07:37 PM
Sure,

that's why the bubble burst - well before Obama was elected - but does not explain the continuing decline in every

segment since 11/2/08. Recovery requires confidence, and that requires a belief in future prosperity. Nobody has

it at this point. Obama and his policies are having a major impact on this.Actually confidence is now up

slightly in the last month since the inauguration, and since the horrible job loss figures were released at the

beginning of the year caused a pessimistic

February:

http://www.reuters.com/article/economicNews/idUSN03BCSNAP20090317

http://abcnews.

go.com/PollingUnit/story?id=7100754&page=1

In addition to that measure the stock market is up slightly

in recent weeks.

This Gallup poll shows consumer confidence in fact rose after Obama's

election:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/111829/Consumer-Confidence-Slightly-After-Obama-Election.aspx



In between, confidence fell in response to some very real economic

news.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/14/business/economy/14econ.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

belgareth
03-18-2009, 06:52 AM
I'm not so sure confidence is

up. http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/17/news/economy/economy_poll/index.htm?section=money_latest

Along

with that, the stock market took another dip today.

To respond to something you said, Doc, we all act and

believe according to our own ideology; you, me, Obama, Bush and anybody else that you can name. The trick is to be

open minded enough to recognise the good and the bad in anybody else's points of view and actions as they all have

them. Blanket statements about incompetence and such are no more than a refusal to see anything except your own

point of view. Refusing to respond to another's point and using statements like disingenuous to

dismiss something you disagree with is most often a ploy to minimize the validity of the argument or

statements.

An example here would be 9/11 and the war on terror. I have never agreed with

the attack on Iraq and have said so repeatedly. However, it was not Bush whos policies allowed the terrorists into

this country in the first place, it was Clinton's. The same with the dotcom bubble and the housing bubble, he

inherited those problems and they were bound to burst someday. I do note that Bush did enact policies that

apparently have help to prevent further attacks on this country and that despite my disagreement with the war in

Iraq, Al-Quaida is greatly diminished in both manpower and ability.

Obama is strengthening

the borders, I commend him for that. The bailouts were done wrong and the people are going to suffer for that. Obama

is attempting o fix that in some cases. He is also doing things strictly for show. Take the 'Help' he is offering

to struggling small businesses. What a joke! The ones that are struggling cannot qualify for SBA loans in the first

place so no matter how much money is offered, the ones that need help are not going to get it. Later he will be able

to point to it and say "Well, I offered it" but the whole thing is meaningless.

I do not

personally believe the bailouts should have happened at all and in the long term are going to make matters worse.

Nationalizing healthcare is a failed idea. The quality goes down every time. This isn't news. We are going to pay

TRILLIONS of dollars for something that we know will not work?

You may disagree with

IDesign about Obama's plans and concerns but I don't. It seems pretty apparent where he is taking us. And in my

ideology bigger government is a poor idea that is bound to fail, it will collapse under its own weight

eventually.

Going back to ideology for just a moment, I believe that the law of the land

has its basis in the constitution. As I understand it, that is where we get our rights and the government gets its

ability to operate. It was written by a group of people in forming this nation with the intent that freedom was the

most important part of living. That was true then and it is still true today. Taking away our freedoms for our own

good, to benefit others or for any other reasons is a violation of the intent if not the letter of the constitution.

You have your beliefs and I have mine. No matter what, we each have a reason for our beliefs but I believe mine are

based on rational consideration of cause and effect, human nature and historical precedence. For instance, the

government keeps growing, the deficit continues to grow as do taxes while our quality of life, education system,

ability to compete in the world marketplace and so on decline. Coincidence or historical fact?

belgareth
03-18-2009, 07:37 AM
545 people vs

300,000,000 people

–very

interesting!!


EVERY CITIZEN NEEDS TO READ THIS AND THINK ABOUT WHAT
THIS JOURNALIST HAS SCRIPTED IN THIS

MESSAGE. READ IT AND THEN REALLY
THINK ABOUT OUR CURRENT POLITICAL DEBACLE.

Charley Reese has been a journalist

for 49 years.


545 PEOPLE
By Charlie Reese
Politicians are the only people in the world who create
problems

and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the
Republicans are against

deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are
against inflation and high

taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high
taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The

president
does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to
vote on appropriations. The House of

Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy,

Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, theFederal
Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators,

435 congressmen, one president,
and nine Supreme Court justices 545 human beings out of the 300 million
are

directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the
domestic problems that plague this country.

I

excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board
because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913,

Congress
delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a
federally chartered, but private,

central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a
sound reason. They have no legal

authority. They have no ability to
coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking
thing.

I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in
cash.
The politician has the power to accept or

reject it. No
matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility
to determine how he

votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy
convincing you that what they did is not their fault.

They cooperate
in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being

is
an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall
of a Speaker, who stood up and

criticized the President for creating
deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force
the

Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land,
gives sole responsibility to the

House of Representatives for
originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker
of the House?

Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party.
She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve

any budget
they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if
they agree to.

It seems

inconceivable to me that a nation of 300
million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by

present
facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a
single domestic problem that is not

traceable directly to those 545
people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise
the power of

the federal government, then it must follow that what
exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is

unfair, it's because they want it
unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it
in the red

.

If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they
want them in IRAQ

If they do not receive social

security but are on an
elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they
want it that

way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to
bureaucrats,

whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to
lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to

regulators, to
whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this
power. Above all, do not let

them con you into the belief that there
exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation,"

or
"politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are

responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by

the
people who are their bosses.

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their
own employees.

We

should vote all of them out of office and clean up
their mess!

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of

theOrlando
Sentinel Newspaper.

a.k.a.
03-18-2009, 10:45 AM
More than just a simple recession,

what we are currently experiencing is a meltdown of the international financial system. Some countries are

seriously considering extreme isolationist policies that would put an end to globalization. (And, as an

environmentalist, I have to wonder if this wouldn't be for the best.)
I don't watch TV and I don't read

speeches. So I don't know if Obama has promised to suddenly make our country prosperous. If he's said such a

thing in public, he certainly hasn't mentioned it in his web site. The stimulus package itself is geared towards

relief and reform. Growth is projected to keep pace with debt and no more. This is the most we can realistically

hope for at this time. And if the Obama administration manages to pull it off, it will be a historic

success.


idesign, if what you're saying is that Obama is pushing too much

political agenda through the stimulus bill, I agree totally. That seems like a good objective criticism that is

possible to respond to. He already has a voter mandate to enact his campaign promises and change things from the

last administration, so there is no reason to do it through the back door. That is a missed opportunity for real

change, and it somehow cheapens the importance of a stimulus.

The first thing that struck me

while reading Obama's budget was that it almost exactly followed his campaign platform. This is the first time

I've seen such a phenomenon since I started following politics back in the early 80's. A politician that actually

sticks to his platform. What a shock!
Yes, it is a political agenda. But he didn't sneak it in through

the back door.

DrSmellThis
03-18-2009, 11:57 AM
I don't know if it's

necessarily a good thing, but it sure feels good to have people from all sides correcting your opinions. :)

belgareth
03-18-2009, 12:56 PM
I

don't know if it's necessarily a good thing, but it sure feels good to have people from all sides

correcting your opinions. :)
It wouldn't be any fun at all if we all agreed, would it? :drunk:

belgareth
03-18-2009, 03:59 PM
Analysis: White House, Dems backpedaling on AIG
AP Special Correspondent David Espo, Ap Special Correspondent – Wed Mar 18, 2009



WASHINGTON – For the

first time since last fall's election, Democrats and the Obama administration are backpedaling furiously on an

issue easily understood by financially strapped taxpayers: $165 million in bonuses paid out at bailed-out

AIG.

Republicans,

struggling to regain their political footing, are content to let Democrats try to dig their way out of this mess on

their own.

Professing

shock at the bonus payments, Democrats have embarked on a hurry-up effort to impose what amounts to confiscatory

taxes on the bonuses, a maneuver that almost surely will be tested in the courts.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner won a strong vote

of confidence Wednesday from President Barack Obama, whose administration has been struggling with the controversy

since the weekend.

But

the mood is less charitable among congressional Democrats. And Republicans have made Geithner their top target, not

surprising given Obama's continued high approval ratings.



"It's shocking that they would — the administration would come to us

now and act surprised about these contracts," said Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the Senate GOP leader. "This

administration could have and should have ... prevented this from happening. They had a lot of leverage two weeks

ago."

That would be when

the Treasury Department decided to make an additional $30 billion available to American International Group Inc.,

the huge insurance conglomerate deemed too big to fail by two administrations.

Which goes to the crux of the Democrats' current

political problem.

Gone

are the days when they could merely bludgeon the Bush administration and promise to seek bipartisan solutions to the

nation's economic problems.

Now, in control of the White House and Congress, they are struggling to come up with an explanation for what

no one in either party seems moved to defend.



Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said AIG stands as a symbol

of "greed and perhaps corruption."

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., scoffed at AIG's claim that the money represents retention pay. "There are

enough bright people in this country that would do the job for an honest salary, and enough honest taxpayers

demanding that we put an end to this stuff. You can bet I'll make sure justice is served," he

said.

But the bonus

payments occurred on the Democrats' watch, and for Republicans, AIG seems politically

providential.

Their

overwhelming opposition to last month's stimulus bill appeared to be gaining little traction as Democrats showcase

every shovelful of dirt that is turned — all in the name of economic recovery.

Criticism that Obama and Democrats are embarking on a

new era of tax-and-spend is undercut by the lack of a budget alternative from Republicans — the party that presided

over a historic run-up in the federal debt earlier this decade when it controlled both the White House and

Congress.

Less than 100

days into the Obama administration, polls have brought little good news to Republicans.

While a recent Pew survey found some slippage in

Obama's support, it also registered only 28 percent approval for the job being done by GOP congressional leaders,

the lowest in nearly 14 years. And a separate survey by CNN and Opinion Research Corp. put support for the

president's handling of the economy at nearly 60 percent.



Against this backdrop, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs sought

to explain AIG.

He told

reporters that Geithner "last week engaged with the CEO of AIG to communicate what we thought were outrageous and

unacceptable bonuses," and "received a commitment to lessen some of the bonuses for senior executives."



Asked directly if Obama

is satisfied that he found out about the bonuses in a timely fashion, Gibbs said: "Yes, the president is satisfied."



The president "has

complete confidence" in his Treasury secretary, Gibbs added, although Geithner's early tenure has been anything but

smooth. The Cabinet official's introduction of a new plan to bail out the financial industry was widely panned, and

his confirmation was held up earlier when it was disclosed he had paid $34,000 in back taxes.



Obama himself has been

vocal on the need to do everything possible to recoup the money paid out in bonuses, and so far, no Democrats in

Congress have tried to hold him to account.



But the Treasury Department isn't immune, even from Democrats.



"I'm outraged by

this," said Baucus in a statement. "At one point the Treasury was in a position to stop these bonuses. Those were

the terms of TARP, terms that I helped draft."



But talk of legislation only leads to more uncomfortable questions for

Democrats.

Sen. Olympia

Snowe, R-Maine, and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., won passage of a provision earlier this year that they said would have

prevented the type of payments now at the center of a storm.



It was dropped without explanation in the final compromise on the

economic stimulus measure, replaced by a less restrictive set of conditions backed by Sen. Christopher Dodd,

D-Conn., and accepted by the White House.



"The president goes out and says this is not acceptable and then some

backroom deal gets cut to let these things get paid out anyway," said Wyden.

_____



EDITOR'S NOTE: David Espo is AP's chief congressional

correspondent.

idesign
03-24-2009, 07:11 PM
idesign, if what you're saying is that Obama is pushing too much political agenda

through the stimulus bill, I agree totally. That seems like a good objective criticism that is possible to respond

to. He already has a voter mandate to enact his campaign promises and change things from the last administration, so

there is no reason to do it through the back door. That is a missed opportunity for real change, and it somehow

cheapens the importance of a stimulus.

I also share your concerns about how much stimulus money will end up where

it is supposed to, and not just end up as bonuses or whatever. If it's only 10&#37;, obviously, that would be

trouble. This problem is so obvious, that I hope Obama's team is concerned as well.

However, I certainly

wouldn't go so far as to say he doesn't care about the economic recovery in the slightest. I know the Rush

Limbaughs of the world love to say stuff like that about non-republicans. But he is enacting a stimulus package,

after all, and fixing the economy has been by far the dominant use of his time since he got in. The first thing he

did after the election was to put together a bipartisan economic team. (which was nothing if not an attempt at

separating ideology from economics, by the way. But if the fact that no republican voted for the stimulus package,

despite it being close to the republican version, means Obama is being the partisan ideologue, then OK.)

If you

just wanted to argue he is pushing it through too fast, then, again, I might agree with you, even though I can see

why a new president in this situation would want to hurry up with it. We are in an acute crisis.

Sounds like you

are very frustrated with him, and I can understand that, since neither of our guys won. But it seems that if, even

for a minute, he does anything other than enact extreme, permanent tax cuts in the highest brackets,

which is the preferred right wing "solution" for every economic problem (yet they recently called the lower and

middle class tax cuts "welfare"), that media ideologues are going to happily rain down every possible negative

judgement of character upon him. It's the same old rhetoric, like calling people who don't favor the war -- who

disagree -- "unpatriotic".

My concerns are twofold Doc. The main concern is this massive deficit

spending, coupled with the huge infusion of cash into the market by the Fed. $1 Trillion just last week.

Yikes.

The other concern is the manner in which this President is going about his business. As an aside to that

I'm concerned that the bulk of Americans are sitting on the sidelines without a clue as to what all of these

policies mean, either economically or politically.

I sat in my chair tonight simply too amazed to be outraged at

what Obama said on TV tonight. When asked about his proposed budget deficits, the first thing he said was that he

"inherited a $1.7 Billion deficit". Maybe true, but not exactly a class act, blaming the last guy is cheap for a

real leader. His next remark was that he'll "cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term". OK. Here's

the kicker, he then began hawking his policy decision to increase the deficit to more than $7 Trillion in five

years! Following up, he said that he'd reduce health care costs of the budget by spending an additional $600+

Billion!

I hesitate to use the word incompetence, but I'll freely toss out the word deception. He simply is

not telling the truth when he says that all of these Trillions of dollars spent on Gov't is going to somehow

magically "turn the economy around". Deficit spending and higher taxes are recessionary, printing money is

inflationary, and the Chinese are complaining about Obama's policies. As our biggest investors, they're

rightfully concerned about what this kind of tax, print and spend orgy will do to our economy and the dollar. Obama

is selling this as "stimulus".

I will allow that, without a set speech or a teleprompter, Obama comes across as a

policy boob parsing his talking points to within an inch of their political life expectancy. Which won't be very

long when the Kool-Aid starts to wear off.

Back to business. I don't know what Limbaugh or anyone else says,

but its fair to assume that someone who institutes policies which have proven to be failures is either blinded by

ideology or beholden to interests. I think Obama is both. I do truly believe that his primary interest is pushing

policy, and not economic recovery.

The GOP version of that "stimulus" package was half of what the Dems passed

and Obama signed. The number of Reps who vote for any bill in Congress is irrelevant, and the Dems know it. Its

one reason why they've been completely shut out from the legislative process, and why these bills are getting

pushed through at the speed of cash in a crackhead's pocket. The last thing they want is anyone knowing what

they're doing. Pushing through bills like this which have huge economic and political impact so quickly, with no

debate, and no time for the public to read and digest, is pure authoritarianism. More on that another

time.

Patriotism is really no issue in this, I don't think. I'm trying to take a technical view of this, and

as much as I dislike and distrust Obama, I'm trying to direct my criticisms to policy. With exceptions I suppose,

I can't help it. :)

idesign
03-24-2009, 07:31 PM
More than

just a simple recession, what we are currently experiencing is a meltdown of the international financial system.

Some countries are seriously considering extreme isolationist policies that would put an end to globalization. (And,

as an environmentalist, I have to wonder if this wouldn't be for the best.)
I don't watch TV and I don't

read speeches. So I don't know if Obama has promised to suddenly make our country prosperous. If he's said such a

thing in public, he certainly hasn't mentioned it in his web site. The stimulus package itself is geared towards

relief and reform. Growth is projected to keep pace with debt and no more. This is the most we can realistically

hope for at this time. And if the Obama administration manages to pull it off, it will be a historic

success.



The first thing that struck me while reading Obama's budget was that it almost exactly

followed his campaign platform. This is the first time I've seen such a phenomenon since I started following

politics back in the early 80's. A politician that actually sticks to his platform. What a shock!
Yes, it is a

political agenda. But he didn't sneak it in through the back door.

Reform is not stimulus, and Obama's

reforms are quite expensive. Growth is historically impossible to predict, especially in this climate. If the

economy recovers under this administration's policies it will be a testament to the resilience of

capitalism.

The Obama campaign was so broad, vague, nebulous and lacking in detail that all he had to do was

spend money where his supporters wanted and he'd be hailed as a success. Its already happened, but the other shoe

is dropping, I hope.

idesign
03-26-2009, 06:04 PM
I've been thinking about the

whole issue of ideology v. economics, and thinking about how much I hated the knee-jerk-Bush-bashing that went on ad

nauseum.

I honestly don't know how to separate dislike of Obama's policies from his political/ideological

foundation. I guess Doc is right.

I'd be willing to cut this guy a break if he piddled around like most

new Presidents with this and that aspect of the same old scene. Unfortunately its not so simple right now. The

economy is pretty much a mess, with plenty of blame to go around, in the public as well as private sector.



I'm as much frustrated with the Congress as I am with Obama, perhaps more so. They were directly involved

with the crash of Freddie and Fannie and did nothing but cover their asses when the bubble popped. As well, they

freakin voted for a bill that allowed AIG bonuses (see Dodd amendment) then showed themselves as very poor actors

when the public became outraged, and they had to follow suit. Some leadership.

And that brings me to part of

the problem with Obama; he's no leader. He's following a formula that's been devised and refined over decades.

Confiscatory taxation and public spending is much more than the transfer of wealth. Its the transfer of power.

We're seeing it in spades now. The gov't has assumed ownership of private enterprise and intends to exert every

bit of control over those assets it can. Just look at the outrageous proposal to tax the AIG bonuses after the

fact. Not only is it blatantly unconstitutional, but its downright frightening to any believer in private

ownership.

The shift from a Republican (in the larger sense) form of gov't to a Liberal "caretaker" gov't

has, up to this point, been mostly gradual. FDR rocked the whole system and started it all, and LBJ pumped it up

quite a bit, and there have been those who checked this trend, like Eisenhower and Reagan. What Obama is proposing

to do is complete the shift in one radical move.

His massive spending, the massive printing of new money, the

massive transfer of wealth to the Federal gov't, the massive increase in debt, all amount to transfer of power.

Our economy is resilient, but who knows how it can bear up under such libertine recklessness.

Part of the

scary scenario is the US economy, and the dollar, on the world stage. Obama is rapidly in danger of becoming a

laughing-stock. The EU is complaining vehemently, China is offering unsolicited economic advice and Americans are

slowly waking up to this reality.

Have you heard about the TEA parties that are springing up? TEA = Taxed

Enough Already. One group has organized 250 of these, and some are drawing as many as 4,000 people. Of course

taxation is only a scratch on the surface

belgareth
04-03-2009, 06:42 AM
The Tax

Poem





At first I thought this was

funny...then I realized the

awful
truth of it. Be sure to read all the way to the

end!

Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table
At which he's fed.

Tax his tractor,
Tax his

mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.

Tax his work,
Tax his pay,
He works for peanuts
Anyway!

Tax his

cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.

Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his

dirt.

Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.

Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he

cries
Tax his tears.

Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his ass.

Tax all he has
Then let

him know
That you won't be done
Till he has no dough.

When he screams and hollers,
Then tax him some

more,
Tax him till
He's good and sore.

Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he's

laid.

Put these words
Upon his tomb,
"Taxes drove me to my doom..."

When he's gone,
Do not relax,
Its

time to apply
The inheritance tax.

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette

Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax

(FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (44.75 cents per gallon)
Gross

Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of

tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate

Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State

Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA) Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee

Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring

& Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle

License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation

Tax

STILL THINK THIS IS

FUNNY?

Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago,

and our nation was the most prosperous in the world.

We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest
middle

class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

What in the hell happened? Can you spell

"politicians?"

And I still have to "press 1" for English!?

I hope this goes around THE USA at least 100

times!!!!!




YOU can help it get

there!!!!

GO AHEAD - - - BE AN AMERICAN!!!!!!