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%.
[/
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]
"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.
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.
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% 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
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% 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/) >
"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.
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% 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.
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.
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%, 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!!!!!!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.