Close

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst ... 2 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 63

Thread: Stimulus Plan

  1. #31
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8515

    Default

    visit-red-300x50PNG
    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
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  2. #32
    Phero Guru Rbt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    1,579
    Rep Power
    7195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by idesign View Post
    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).


    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?")



    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...
    The opposite of love isn't hate.
    It's apathy
    .

  3. #33
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8515

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rbt View Post
    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).


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

    routes.
    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.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  4. #34
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8515

    Default

    While I did not write the

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

    read it yourself on the guy's blog.

    Bel.

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

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



    Bel.

    "I'm Tired" by Robert A. Hall


    I'll be 63 soon. Except

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

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

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

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



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

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

    too lazy or stupid to earn it.

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

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

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

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

    their own money.



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

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

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

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

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

    beautiful?


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Wonder why people are dropping

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

    drove me to his camp in 2004.

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

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

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

    tolerance.

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

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

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

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

    I'm tired of being told that drug

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

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

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

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

    I'm tired

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

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

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

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

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

    military. Those are the citizens we need.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I'm tired of people telling

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

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

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

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

    I'm tired of hearing wealthy

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

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

    entitlement, rich or poor.

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

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

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

    I'm

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

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

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

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

    my granddaughter.

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

    state senate. He blogs at

    www.tartanmarine.blogspot.com
    < http://www.tartanmarine.blogspot.com/ >



    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  5. #35
    Phero Guru Rbt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    1,579
    Rep Power
    7195

    Default

    "undocumented pharmacists"

    Now

    that's (sadly) funny.
    The opposite of love isn't hate.
    It's apathy
    .

  6. #36
    Moderator idesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Middle Kingdom
    Posts
    2,400
    Rep Power
    6382

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rbt View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rbt View Post
    "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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rbt View Post
    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...
    You won't see her at the meetings, she's too busy being smart in private.


  7. #37
    Phero Guru Rbt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    1,579
    Rep Power
    7195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by idesign View Post
    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.
    The opposite of love isn't hate.
    It's apathy
    .

  8. #38
    Phero Pharaoh a.k.a.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    1,174
    Rep Power
    8563

    Default

    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.
    Give truth a chance.

  9. #39
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8515

    Default

    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.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  10. #40
    Phero Pharaoh a.k.a.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    1,174
    Rep Power
    8563

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by belgareth View Post
    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.
    Give truth a chance.

  11. #41
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8515

    Default

    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.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  12. #42
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8515

    Default

    More than a bad day: Worries grow that Barack Obama & Co. have a competence

    problem

    Sunday, March 15th 2009,


    Roberts/Bloomberg

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

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

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




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

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



    Yes, it's early, but

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

    nagging doubt about the competency of the White House.




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

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

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


    The charge of incompetence covered the mismanagement of

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

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

    President.


    The tag of

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

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

    their turn at total control.


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

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



    What matters more is

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

    very short honeymoon.


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

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

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

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




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

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

    Treasury bonds. Ouch.


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

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

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

    the banks' toxic assets.


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

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

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

    he defended the spending plans everyone is so worried about.




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

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

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

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

    picked him?


    Which

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

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

    is showing.


    His

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

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


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

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

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

    issued one himself.


    And

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

    am I interested in expanding government's role."




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



    mgoodwin@nydailynews.com
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  13. #43
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8665

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by DrSmellThis; 03-16-2009 at 06:54 PM.
    DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)

  14. #44
    Phero Guru Rbt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    1,579
    Rep Power
    7195

    Default

    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...
    The opposite of love isn't hate.
    It's apathy
    .

  15. #45
    Moderator idesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Middle Kingdom
    Posts
    2,400
    Rep Power
    6382

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by a.k.a. View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by belgareth View Post

    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.


  16. #46
    Moderator idesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Middle Kingdom
    Posts
    2,400
    Rep Power
    6382

    Default

    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


  17. #47
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8515

    Default

    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.

    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  18. #48
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8515

    Default

    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.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  19. #49
    Phero Pharaoh a.k.a.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    1,174
    Rep Power
    8563

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by idesign View Post
    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.
    Give truth a chance.

  20. #50
    Phero Guru Rbt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    1,579
    Rep Power
    7195

    Default

    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...
    The opposite of love isn't hate.
    It's apathy
    .

  21. #51
    Moderator idesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Middle Kingdom
    Posts
    2,400
    Rep Power
    6382

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by a.k.a. View Post
    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.


  22. #52
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8665

    Default

    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 (creator of P H E R O S)

  23. #53
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8665

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by idesign View Post
    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/econo...BCSNAP20090317

    http://abcnews.<br /> <br /> go.co...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/Co...-Election.aspx



    In between, confidence fell in response to some very real economic

    news.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/14/bu...er=rss&emc=rss
    Last edited by DrSmellThis; 03-17-2009 at 08:11 PM.
    DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)

  24. #54
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8515

    Default

    I'm not so sure confidence is

    up. http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/17/news...n=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?
    Last edited by belgareth; 03-18-2009 at 07:54 AM.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  25. #55
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8515

    Default A simple truth!

    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.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  26. #56
    Phero Pharaoh a.k.a.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    1,174
    Rep Power
    8563

    Default

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrSmellThis View Post
    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.
    Give truth a chance.

  27. #57
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8665

    Default

    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.
    DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)

  28. #58
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8515

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrSmellThis View Post
    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?
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  29. #59
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8515

    Default AIG...That is a sore spot for me.

    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.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  30. #60
    Moderator idesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Middle Kingdom
    Posts
    2,400
    Rep Power
    6382

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrSmellThis View Post
    idesign, if what you're saying is that Obama is pushing too much political agenda

    through the stimulus bill, I agree totally. That seems like a good objective criticism that is possible to respond

    to. He already has a voter mandate to enact his campaign promises and change things from the last administration, so

    there is no reason to do it through the back door. That is a missed opportunity for real change, and it somehow

    cheapens the importance of a stimulus.

    I also share your concerns about how much stimulus money will end up where

    it is supposed to, and not just end up as bonuses or whatever. If it's only 10&#37;, obviously, that would be

    trouble. This problem is so obvious, that I hope Obama's team is concerned as well.

    However, I certainly

    wouldn't go so far as to say he doesn't care about the economic recovery in the slightest. I know the Rush

    Limbaughs of the world love to say stuff like that about non-republicans. But he is enacting a stimulus package,

    after all, and fixing the economy has been by far the dominant use of his time since he got in. The first thing he

    did after the election was to put together a bipartisan economic team. (which was nothing if not an attempt at

    separating ideology from economics, by the way. But if the fact that no republican voted for the stimulus package,

    despite it being close to the republican version, means Obama is being the partisan ideologue, then OK.)

    If you

    just wanted to argue he is pushing it through too fast, then, again, I might agree with you, even though I can see

    why a new president in this situation would want to hurry up with it. We are in an acute crisis.

    Sounds like you

    are very frustrated with him, and I can understand that, since neither of our guys won. But it seems that if, even

    for a minute, he does anything other than enact extreme, permanent tax cuts in the highest brackets,

    which is the preferred right wing "solution" for every economic problem (yet they recently called the lower and

    middle class tax cuts "welfare"), that media ideologues are going to happily rain down every possible negative

    judgement of character upon him. It's the same old rhetoric, like calling people who don't favor the war -- who

    disagree -- "unpatriotic".
    My concerns are twofold Doc. The main concern is this massive deficit

    spending, coupled with the huge infusion of cash into the market by the Fed. $1 Trillion just last week.

    Yikes.

    The other concern is the manner in which this President is going about his business. As an aside to that

    I'm concerned that the bulk of Americans are sitting on the sidelines without a clue as to what all of these

    policies mean, either economically or politically.

    I sat in my chair tonight simply too amazed to be outraged at

    what Obama said on TV tonight. When asked about his proposed budget deficits, the first thing he said was that he

    "inherited a $1.7 Billion deficit". Maybe true, but not exactly a class act, blaming the last guy is cheap for a

    real leader. His next remark was that he'll "cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term". OK. Here's

    the kicker, he then began hawking his policy decision to increase the deficit to more than $7 Trillion in five

    years! Following up, he said that he'd reduce health care costs of the budget by spending an additional $600+

    Billion!

    I hesitate to use the word incompetence, but I'll freely toss out the word deception. He simply is

    not telling the truth when he says that all of these Trillions of dollars spent on Gov't is going to somehow

    magically "turn the economy around". Deficit spending and higher taxes are recessionary, printing money is

    inflationary, and the Chinese are complaining about Obama's policies. As our biggest investors, they're

    rightfully concerned about what this kind of tax, print and spend orgy will do to our economy and the dollar. Obama

    is selling this as "stimulus".

    I will allow that, without a set speech or a teleprompter, Obama comes across as a

    policy boob parsing his talking points to within an inch of their political life expectancy. Which won't be very

    long when the Kool-Aid starts to wear off.

    Back to business. I don't know what Limbaugh or anyone else says,

    but its fair to assume that someone who institutes policies which have proven to be failures is either blinded by

    ideology or beholden to interests. I think Obama is both. I do truly believe that his primary interest is pushing

    policy, and not economic recovery.

    The GOP version of that "stimulus" package was half of what the Dems passed

    and Obama signed. The number of Reps who vote for any bill in Congress is irrelevant, and the Dems know it. Its

    one reason why they've been completely shut out from the legislative process, and why these bills are getting

    pushed through at the speed of cash in a crackhead's pocket. The last thing they want is anyone knowing what

    they're doing. Pushing through bills like this which have huge economic and political impact so quickly, with no

    debate, and no time for the public to read and digest, is pure authoritarianism. More on that another

    time.

    Patriotism is really no issue in this, I don't think. I'm trying to take a technical view of this, and

    as much as I dislike and distrust Obama, I'm trying to direct my criticisms to policy. With exceptions I suppose,

    I can't help it.


Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst ... 2 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •