|
12 Oct 10 - 01:37 AM (#3004968) Subject: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: DougR I peeked in on Amos's original thread titled the "Popular Views of the Administration, and thought it might be more appropriate to start a new thread reflecting the actual views of the majority of Americans about the administration. I predicted months ago when his administration, and the Democratic controlled congress rammed Obama Care through with no Republican support that the Novemeber elections would prove to be disastrous for both the administration, and the Democratic Party. Recent polls show that the popular views of the Obama administration are: not very popular. DougR |
|
12 Oct 10 - 09:07 AM (#3005141) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Doug, the real key to becoming enormously unpopular at this time is simply this: Get elected!!! Then wait 6 months to a year. You WILL become very unpopular. People's opinion of you will sink like a rock. I'm not going to bother explaining to you why that is, because you probably wouldn't want to hear it. ;-D But try it. Get elected. Then wait and see.....the shit will hit the fan, and you will be in it up to your ears and maybe right over your head. And you'll wonder just what hit you. |
|
12 Oct 10 - 09:12 AM (#3005143) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk And yet...they keep finding people who actually seem to want to be president!!!!!!! I don't know if that's funny...or if it's just downright sad...but you really have to wonder. It's like putting your head in the lion's mouth. |
|
12 Oct 10 - 09:26 AM (#3005148) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Greg F. Douggie- we're all well aware that you've had a bug up your ass about health care reform and that you subscribe to the "Pull up the laddder, I'm aboard" philosophy of justice and equity. We don't need to hear it all again, warmed over. Why don't you just go back & review your past BuShite bullshit for your own entertainment & save the rest of us the trouble? |
|
12 Oct 10 - 09:45 AM (#3005159) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: SINSULL Many of us are disgusted with politics as usual in Washington. What else is new? I am reeling at the scandal involving Alan Hevesy in NY. He was one of the good guys. Sigh. Health Care reform is long over due. The Republicans did not have to have it rammed down their throats. As usual, partisan politics prevented our leaders from doing what is best for their constituents. Once again, they worried more about being elected than about legislation that would benefit all. The health bill is not ideal. It is the best that could have come out of the bickering at my/our expense. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have anything to be proud of. This same "get re-elected" priority got us into Iraq. It will get us out at a horrible cost. My personal suggestion for ending it is term limits. The Senate was not meant to be a life time guarantee of employment/power. Nor was the house. |
|
12 Oct 10 - 10:08 AM (#3005179) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk My personal suggestion for ending it is to abolish the Democrat and Republican parties and all other damn political parties too, run nothing but independents in future...NO party power structures in place to manipulate and control the politicians and the people...restrict campaign funding to a public purse that funds EVERY candidate running with an EQUAL (and quite modest) amount of funding and media airtime....abolish the Electoral College as well...abolish gerrymandering so the politicians in office can't play those kind of manipulative games with the vote...abolish all corporate and private funding of political campaigns so the rich can't manipulate the process...and restrict the length of a presidential campaign to 3 months (like a Canadian election). And while I'm at it, I'd also like to date Winona Ryder on a regular basis and ride a sightseeing spaceship to Venus! ;-D I figure the chances of either plan happening are about the same. |
|
12 Oct 10 - 10:59 AM (#3005206) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw LH: Right, Why would anybody want to be president? Maybe we need an AI program to run things and we can all blame an inanimate object for not solving all of the insolvable problems. But then the tribalists would start saying the other side wrote the flawed program just to screw us and benefit them. |
|
12 Oct 10 - 11:24 AM (#3005224) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bill D "Recent polls show that the popular views of the Obama administration are: not very popular." If you read the polls 1½-2 years ago, you find that the majority WANTED what Obama said he'd try to deliver. When he tried, the Republicans blocked everything except some watered down versions. Then the Republicans used their own 'successes' in stopping Obama's attempts to get things like comprehensive health care to trumpet Obama's 'relative' failure. Now the **polls** are showing that people are....yes.... dissatisfied with what they GOT, and the picture is being distorted by Republicans who are the reason why so much was not passed. It got so bad that many Republicans actually voted against ideas THEY had originally been for, in order to show Obama 'failing'. ....and then you get crap like Jim DeMint stopping ALL Senate progress in order to keep anything from happening until after the elections! I assume, Doug, that YOU think those tactics are fair and clever? |
|
12 Oct 10 - 11:30 AM (#3005227) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: GUEST,Wesley S My understanding is that both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton had lower public approval numbers at this point in their respective terms. And BOTH managed to get reelected. |
|
12 Oct 10 - 11:34 AM (#3005228) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: beardedbruce "My personal suggestion for ending it is term limits. The Senate was not meant to be a life time guarantee of employment/power. Nor was the house" Absolutely agreed!!! "restrict campaign funding to a public purse that funds EVERY candidate running with an EQUAL (and quite modest) amount of funding and media airtime." Ok, but this means that Obama might well have lost- as was noted, the person spending more money has genearlly won, and Obama spent something like twice what McCain did. "to date Winona Ryder on a regular basis " Less likely! |
|
12 Oct 10 - 11:42 AM (#3005237) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk I have suggested possible remedies for the national problems you face, Sawzaw...remedies that could make it a decent and honorable job being president of the USA, which it is not now. Would you have wanted to be Chancellor of the Third Reich? Or the King of France just before the French Revolution? I don't think so. And neither would I. Your present political order is so deeply corrupt that it's not worth it for any sane human being to take on the job of being its official head of state....still, some are either brave enough or foolish enough to do so...and all that proves is: if there IS a vacuum in Nature or anywhere else, something or someone will always step up to fill it. Remember what Lincoln said: "A house divided against itself cannot stand." Your national house is bitterly divided against itself because of the Democratic and Republican Parties! And that is what is poisoning the political dialogue in America and driving people to extremism and hatred. Those partie machines are the enemies of the American public. They do NOT honestly represent the people who naively vote for them. |
|
12 Oct 10 - 11:47 AM (#3005240) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk I agree, BB, that the Winona Ryder thing is...well...somewhat unlikely. ;-) But we all have our dreams. |
|
12 Oct 10 - 11:50 AM (#3005243) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: pdq "My understanding is that both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton had lower public approval numbers at this point in their respective terms. ~ WesS Another factless statement from someone who doesn't ever bother to look farther than his prejudices for answers. Reagan had about 2/3 of the people on his side most of the time, and left with a big smile and a happy electorate. Obama is at 38% and falling, even though 91% of Blacks stiil say "right on!". He is the lowest rated president ever at this time in his term. The lowest approval rate in the history of the US presidency was Harry Truman at 26%. Jimmy Carter the next lowest, followed by Bill Clinton. Reagan always had the majority of the US people on his side, despite the daily bashing he takes here on Mudcat. |
|
12 Oct 10 - 11:51 AM (#3005245) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Dream on! I can't say that I would NOT agree with you. |
|
12 Oct 10 - 11:58 AM (#3005251) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bill D Term limits are a mixed blessing. Yes, we need to clear out some dead wood at times, but institutions like congress NEED competent, qualified members with some memory & experience of "how it all works". I doubt that any of the proposed term limit ideas would achieve any real improvement in operational OR legislative procedure. We have term limiting procedures NOW...it's called voting. What we need is a revised system about HOW one gets elected...including VERY comprehensive 'campaign finance reform' and complete overhaul of the primaries. Right now, honest, competent people with little money find it almost impossible to compete....and that new %$@%*$!! Supreme Court ruling about treating corporations as 'individuals' is already allowing anonymous money to be funneled to candidate who will be paid shills for corporate or international interests! All 'term limits' would do is make it cheaper to buy new shills each time. |
|
12 Oct 10 - 12:07 PM (#3005259) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Greg F. We have term limits in the U.S. They're called elections. If folks are not happy with their representatives, all they have to do is get off their asses & vote 'em out. The whole term limit BS is nonsense. |
|
12 Oct 10 - 12:09 PM (#3005262) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Heh! ;-D The vital thing to do, in the face of a life which is certainly never perfect, is to always maintain a sense of humour about it, and to find ways of enjoying your life despite the imperfections, and believing strongly in your own part in it. Some presidents have had the ability to do all of that, and it served them well despite the rigors of high office. I don't envy them the job one bit, but there are some people who can handle that sort of thing pretty well. pdq - The certain way to immense popularity in the USA is to somehow get someone else in the world to militarily attack the USA...or just be perceived to have done so. The American public then rallies around the flag and the president's popularity quickly goes through the roof as he bears down grimly and leads the nation off to war. The war then has to go well, of course....if it doesn't, his popularity will soon begin to fall drastically. It's a risky business, but it's always the best and quickest gambit if one wishes to become popular. The other way is to create a big improvement in the economy. That's not so easy as starting a war, but Reagan did it by irresponsibly de-regulating the major lending institutions and thereby creating a vast bubble of phony cash which naturally imploded some time later, and from which North America has never recovered to this day. But that took awhile. So Reagan did not have to pay politically for the catastrophic consequences of his actions. We are still facing those consequences now, and all the presidents since Reagan have been deeply complicit in creating the situation we are now facing. That includes both the Democrats and the Republicans. They don't work for the public. They work for the major banks and the major corporations...the biggest lobbyists, in other words. That's who runs America. |
|
12 Oct 10 - 12:09 PM (#3005264) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Greg F. Ooops. Cross-Posted with Bill. But the "term limits" shibboleth is still bullshit. |
|
12 Oct 10 - 12:15 PM (#3005273) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk The people who really might need term limits (or better yet, jail terms) imposed on them are the CEOs of some of the major banks and major corporations. |
|
12 Oct 10 - 01:43 PM (#3005344) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Stringsinger The largest grievous errors Obama has made is sending troops to Afghanistan, keeping them in Iraq (in spite of his claims to the contrary) and supporting Wall Street culture. Healthcare is one of his tentative accomplishments which isn't relevant since it doesn't "kick in" right away. Republicans offer no solutions, period. They remain the party of "no" purely for adamant political partisanship which doesn't work in a pluralistic society or country. The Astroturf "Tea Party" is run by the Koch's and Armey's and doesn't really reflect the will of the people. I think that you will see this in the next election. This is what I think will happen. Republicans will make gains in Senate and House and because of this, Obama will be elected in 2012. |
|
12 Oct 10 - 02:09 PM (#3005355) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Well said, Stringsinger. It's beyond me why on Earth Obama would have mired himself deeper in Afghanistan...but my guess is that he is merely, like all presidents, obeying the explicit wishes of the mighty military-industrial complex whose influence on national policy greatly outweighs his own. As for Iraq, the USA has no intention on withdrawing from there. They have built a network of permanent huge military bases in that country and they are not leaving...merely attempting to fool the American electorate into imagining there has been some kind of withdrawal of the American presence there. |
|
12 Oct 10 - 02:34 PM (#3005372) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Wesley S PDQ - "Another factless statement from someone who doesn't ever bother to look farther than his prejudices for answers." and "Reagan had about 2/3 of the people on his side most of the time, and left with a big smile and a happy electorate." Here are some Gallup poll numbers that compare Reagans and Obamas number from their second years in office. Reagans highest yearly rating was 60 percent. "By the end of 1981, Reagan's job approval rating had drifted down to 49%. Things got worse for Reagan in 1982. The public's view of the economy remained sour, and the president's ratings during 1982 stayed concomitantly low, in the 40% range, ending the year at 41%." Ronald Reagans job approval ratings Obama's current job approval numbers |
|
12 Oct 10 - 03:26 PM (#3005406) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Amos I think Barack Obama would be the first to say he did not run for office in order to seek approval. A |
|
12 Oct 10 - 05:53 PM (#3005496) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk The decline in Obama's popularity during the first 2 years of his administration is really quite typical of what happens with a great many American presidents, and it's very similar to what happened with Reagan's popularity in his first 2 years. (see charts in Wesley's post above) Reagan's popularity was boosted shortly before the midterm elections in '83 by 2 events: "1983 began for Reagan with a 35% job approval rating -- the worst of his administration -- (but then) things started to look better. His ratings moved back above 50% by November 1983 -- not only because the economy was picking up, but also in part as a result of rally effects associated with the U.S. invasion of Grenada and the terrorist explosion that killed 241 American Marines in Beirut, Lebanon." So, it is just as I said in my post above. To get low popularity ratings moving back up, an American president needs one of two things to happen: either some kind of attack by foreigners on Americans...or a noticeable improvement in the economy. Either of those two things can sometimes be adroitly arranged by an administration and strategically timed to affect a midterm election...or a presidential election...and they sometimes have been so arranged. It's much harder, though, to arrange an economic recovery than it is to arrange a military "crisis" involving some Third World nation...or a group of multi-national terrorists. The CIA and other covert agencies are in the business of arranging things like that when they are deemed expedient. And that's not something new that America invented. Hell, no. ;-) Great military powers have been doing that sort of thing for thousands of years. It does wonders for promoting loyalty and patriotism. |
|
12 Oct 10 - 06:41 PM (#3005528) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Greg F. Douggie: You don't need to constantly remind us that you're a jackass- we're well aware of itt. |
|
12 Oct 10 - 06:51 PM (#3005541) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bill D "Healthcare is one of his tentative accomplishments which isn't relevant since it doesn't "kick in" right away." It doesn't ALL kick in right away. My wife got that $250 refund re:the 'donut hole' this year, and will get approximately $2000 in savings next year as 50% of her name brand drugs will be paid by the manufacturer. THAT is a bit beyond a 'tentative' accomplishment, though it will be years before every benefit is available. |
|
12 Oct 10 - 06:53 PM (#3005543) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Greg F, YOU don't need to constantly remind us that you have NO support for your opinions- since you insist on attacking those who disagree with you instead of presenting information that might support your statements. |
|
12 Oct 10 - 09:59 PM (#3005643) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: DougR Really, Greg? Other than you, who have I attacked? And as far as "presesnting information that might support your statements", when have you ever done that? I think term limits would be a good idea. The problem is determining what the term should be. DougR |
|
12 Oct 10 - 10:07 PM (#3005647) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Donuel While we could all lean forward and repair the deep systemic problems we face as a nation, the psychology of humanity and the power of greed does not bode well for success. Demanding apologies, eating ones words, cease inflicting vicious delegitimzing attacks, is not in the cards but it would be instrumental in allowing gaping wounds to heal. Instead the mob will probably stampede to take America back to Civil War issues, xenophomia, anarchist closure of goverment. One person can sometimes make a difference. IT has happend before. As one person, how do you propose to make a difference at this apex of critical moments in the United Staes of America? hmm? |
|
12 Oct 10 - 10:14 PM (#3005650) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Term limits??? Yeah... The president should get one 6 year term... Legislators??? House members??? 3 two year terms before running for the Senate... Or not... Senate??? 3 four year terms... Of course this would require a Constitutional amendment which are no longer possible... B~ |
|
12 Oct 10 - 10:18 PM (#3005653) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Q (Frank Staplin) Unfortunate that Obama was selected over Hillary Clinton; she would have been much more adept at handling congressional opposition, and fringe groups would probably have been kept less influential. Obama should withdraw in her favor in 2012. Otherwise a Republican is the likely outcome. |
|
13 Oct 10 - 12:51 AM (#3005726) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk "As one person, how do you propose to make a difference at this apex of critical moments in the United Staes of America?" That's a very fair question, Donuel. Being a Canadian, I'm not in a position to do anything about the USA...but...what I try to do to make a difference here is...I try to treat myself and others with kindness and respect and hopefully love, I try to look positively on each day as it comes, and I try to do some things that make me and other people happy each day. It seems to be working quite well for the most part. I wasn't always this attentive to my responsibilities to others, but I have become much moreso of late, given the fact that I realize life is short and I've already lived the lion's share of this particular life. So if I don't do these things now to make my life more positive I might run out of the chance to do them sooner than I think. You never know. |
|
13 Oct 10 - 01:06 AM (#3005731) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw LH: People here in the US have fallen into the habit of drawing up sides and trying to overpower the other side. This is being egged on by the media in order to make money. It could not be any clearer. It's in movies, games, TV, books, news papers. What the hell is not biased anymore. Society works when people find out what they agree on and build from there. People everywhere want basically the same things. There are very few people who purposefully want other people to be poor. Who would not like to see an end to slums and crime and the overall degradation of society brought on by poverty? Who does not want education for everybody? Who does not want affordable health care for everybody? People disagree on how to attain those goals. One side will claim that the other side does not want this or that even when they know it is not true. This is tribal attitude. "I have to go along with my side no matter what or we will not win against the other side" Guess what the results of the battle are? Both sides lose. Every person in the world has good points and bad points. Good ideas and bad ideas. You work with the good parts. Maybe I am weird but I never feel distressed. I feel calm because I do not have to beat the shit out of "the other side" or I am doomed. I think Obama has good intentions and he is a nice guy. He does not want anything bad for anybody. He is certainly not a racist. It is the fact that his methods are not working. The people he has chosen are battlers. I think he is naive about what works and what does not work. He lacks experience. I see him speaking to teachers one day and he has his left fist in the air saying he is going to fight for them. Then I see him talking to parents with his right fist in the air saying he is going to fight the teachers union. Fight fight fight. There has to be a better way. |
|
13 Oct 10 - 01:21 AM (#3005738) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: DougR The Obama who ran for president is not the Obama who is president. Once elected, he, and his liberal cohorts in the House and the Senate believed they had a mandate to move the country in a direction that the majority of the population do not agree with. Legislation that was not popular with the majority of the population (but was popular with the majority party)was passed and now the majority party is in the deep hole they dug for themselves. The Republicans in congress had nothing to do with it, the Democrates did it to themselves. As a result, on November 2, 2009, the Democrates are going to be defeated, perhaps as never before, in the history of our country. If that happens will I be pleased. You bet your booties! DougR |
|
13 Oct 10 - 08:00 AM (#3005909) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Ain't about libersl or conservative, Dougie... It's about: A. A broken system of financing elections B. A broken Seante where the minority rules and... C. A dumber down population more interesting in personal consumption and the overall good for everyone and the nation on the whole... B~ BTW, some well thought out points, Sawz.... Whatever pill that you took to get there you should continue taking... *grin* |
|
13 Oct 10 - 09:12 AM (#3005956) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Sawzaw, I couldn't agree more with what you said. You have clearly expressed the problem. "Society works when people find out what they agree on and build from there. People everywhere want basically the same things." Exactly! Your nation is being betrayed by the battling 2-party system, the money-hungry sensationalist mass media, and the other divisive forces that are deliberately setting the public at each other's throats all the time. It's just a game they're playing. The game is divide and conquer, and they walk away with the profits. And it seems to be getting worse all the time...I suppose because the usual media/entertainment game is always to stretch things to an even more ridiculous extreme than they did last time (as in action movies, for example)...just to get the viewers to tune in one more time. What a sad situation it is. The people in the media should be ashamed of themselves. They are traitors to their own society, and they're doing it for the money. ******* Obama's a very cerebral man and he is probably not accustomed to functioning in a system that relies more upon primitive dramatic histrionics and brief sound bites than upon calm reasoning...so I think he keeps bouncing back and forth between his own basic instincts (to talk calmly and analytically and at considerable length about something) and what his handlers are telling him ("Fire it up! You have to get to people's emotions with simple messages! Get mad!"). He's probably getting confused as hell by now. Who wouldn't be, in his position? ;-) Anyway, I don't think he's really the boss. I think he's the figurehead, and the corporate/banking/military-industrial system that finances and plans all presidential elections is really the boss. So he has to move within the strict limits they place around him, in effect................or.......pay a price nobody would ever want to pay. |
|
13 Oct 10 - 09:43 AM (#3005976) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Greg F. Douggie's, you're finally losing it completely: 1. responding to a post from BeeBee as if it was from me. 2. And as far as "presesnting information that might support your statements", when have you ever done that? You're projecting again, as in: The Obama who ran for president is not the Obama who is president. Once elected, he, and his liberal cohorts in the House and the Senate believed they had a mandate to move the country in a direction that the majority of the population do not agree with.... etc. |
|
13 Oct 10 - 11:20 AM (#3006042) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Right now or nation is being betrayed less by a two party system then by the unrestricted access that the wealthy have to the media, LH... As long as that continues a hundred parties won't change a thing... Thomas Jefferson warned US that for this thing to have any chance of success oft would require that voters be "informed"... I don't believe that Jefferson would have thought that "brainwashed with garbage" and "informed" are one of the same... "We want our country back" is not informed... "We want government off our backs" is not informed... These protests of "Obamacare", when most of the screamers couldn't begin to tell you what the health care reform bill contains is not "informed"... Like they say, "Garbage in, garbage out..." B~ |
|
13 Oct 10 - 11:30 AM (#3006051) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Stringsinger If Republicans are elected in the majority, this will spell disaster for our country because: 1. Republicans today are not bi-partisan. 2. They are the party of big business and screw the working man and woman 3. They cheat and lie to get elected. 4. Dems are punished for miscreant behavior such as Spitzer and Edwards whereas Republicans can stay in office for the same offenses. In fact, they are rewarded. 5. The U.S. Military Junta will have a field day. |
|
13 Oct 10 - 11:34 AM (#3006054) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Amos HEre's an unpoular view of Obama and his administration: Obama is a deeply intelligent, well-read and caring man striving to turn the huge mass of the nation away from the course of destruction on which it was set by Reagan, Bush, and the frothing manics of the right extreme. In doing so, he has probably been overly cautious so as not to seem reckless, and at the same time he has been badgered, clubbed, and thwarted at every possible opportunity by the petty, the vengeful, the psychotic, and the lustful who are the glut of Washington life. He is not ruining the country, but trying to reverse a ruination that was set upon it long ago. He is doing pretty well, but not as well as he should be doing. He is a good human being in an impossible position, forging ahead anyway. For these things he should be given dure credit. Instead he is libeled and lied about in every imaginable way by people who have done nothing to better the state of the nation, and who have no shame. A |
|
13 Oct 10 - 12:06 PM (#3006087) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Strings, If Democrats stay in the majority, this will spell disaster for our country because: 1. Democrats today are not bi-partisan. 2. They are the party of big Unions, Big government, Big taxes and Big mandates, and screw the working man and woman, and their children 3. They cheat and lie to get elected. 4. Democrats can stay in office for offenses that many here have said were impeachable, when done by Republicans. In fact, they are rewarded. 5. The U.S. Far Left will have a field day. |
|
13 Oct 10 - 12:22 PM (#3006111) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: GUEST,999 Wild Willy and Georgie managed between the two administrations to get the USA in deep DEEP financial debt. Why would half-way reasonable people expect Obama to fix that in two years? You folks dream lots, or what? |
|
13 Oct 10 - 12:32 PM (#3006116) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: GUEST,999 Interesting to note that most people said similar things but from the other side when Bush's popularity was in the toilet. Y'all gotta learn to work together, because the two-party system has created a situation wherein most of you haven't been invited to the party. I wish you the best of luck. |
|
13 Oct 10 - 12:37 PM (#3006119) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Greg F. BeeBee, that has to rank up there with possible the largest pile of horseshit, distortion and lies that you've posted in - what .... a day or so? You are to be congratulated for outdoing yourself. |
|
13 Oct 10 - 12:43 PM (#3006123) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Jeri For the record, the "Willie" administration was the only time in recent history (or at least that which I remember) the budget WAS balanced. GWB is the one who blew that all to hell. |
|
13 Oct 10 - 12:44 PM (#3006125) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Amos When you paint with broad enough a brush, BB, you can say anything you like, but it becomes meaningless. None of the things you are saying are true about "Democrats" even when they may be true about some Democrats. There are intelligent and reasoning people in the WHite House as well as outside it. Why not speak to them instead of joining the muckrakers and rabble-rousers and the merchants of fog, uncertainty, doubt, fear, and hatred? A |
|
13 Oct 10 - 12:50 PM (#3006131) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: GUEST,999 Well, yes and no Jeri. He inherited a growing debt from Ron, and was able eventually to halt that growth under his administration. Georgie took it to new heights. It's still totally unreasonable that Obama, who's had two years, hasn't been able to clear that up. I think Doug R would agree with me. |
|
13 Oct 10 - 12:53 PM (#3006134) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: pdq We need to get past the usual partisan crap and look at the facts. Here is a graph of federal spending since 1967: What, me worry? |
|
13 Oct 10 - 12:56 PM (#3006138) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: beardedbruce "When you paint with broad enough a brush, BB, you can say anything you like, but it becomes meaningless." What , you mean like the comments HERE about "Republicans"??? None of the things you are saying are true about "Republicans" even when they may be true about some Republicans. There were intelligent and reasoning people in the Bush WHite House as well as outside it. Why not speak to them instead of joining the muckrakers and rabble-rousers and the merchants of fog, uncertainty, doubt, fear, and hatred? Or don't you even see that the statments that are made here about Dems are a lot less vitriolic than those about Bush? Even when Obama has continued the SAME policies that Bush was castigated for? |
|
13 Oct 10 - 01:00 PM (#3006140) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: GUEST,999 From a Google of Presidential Approval Ratings History - Interactive Comparison ... Despite negative economic forecasts and all the rue predicted for Democrats in November, President Obama's approval rating is actually faring better than Presidents Reagan and Clinton at this point in their terms, according to an analysis of data provided by the Gallup polling organization. In a survey of approximately 1,500 adults nation-wide, Gallup said on Oct. 6 that Obama's approval rating was 48 percent. By comparison, Bill Clinton, the previous Democrat to reside in the White House, had a 42 percent approval rating at the same time in his presidency. Republican icon Ronald Reagan, similarly, had an approval rating hovering around 42 percent at this time in his presidency, thanks to the country's languishing economy which was largely credited for a Republican loss of 28 House seats in 1982. |
|
13 Oct 10 - 01:06 PM (#3006145) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Jeri I'd say Clinton inherited the debt from Bush (and Reagan, but the chart doesn't go back that far) and it decreased until it was zeroed out sometime 1997 - 1998, when a surplus began growing. The problem, in my opinion, is also (as GUEST,999's) the two parties are so busy re-enforcing their political identities and sticking to "What makes a good Dem/Repub" that they can't see that extremes just don't work. Don't tax and spend like crazy, then spend some more doesn't work, and tax (mostly the wealthiest) and spend doesn't work... well it DOES work, but it sure pisses off people who don't want it to work or don't like that it does. |
|
13 Oct 10 - 01:07 PM (#3006147) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: GUEST,999 Right on, PDQ. I haven't read the chart but lemme say this, because it ain't rocket surgery. When I was a kid jujubes were four for a penny. Today they cost near 4 cents EACH, if ya get a really good deal. Prices are rising. Economics 101. |
|
13 Oct 10 - 01:16 PM (#3006155) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Jeri Just the jpg of the chart. |
|
13 Oct 10 - 01:20 PM (#3006158) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: GUEST,999 I sit corrected. Thank you. However, before anyone bronzes Clinton, I know for fact he didn't do shit about the price of jujubes. THAT'S the sign of a good leader. imo. And he along with his peers failed to do so. A pox on both their houses. |
|
13 Oct 10 - 01:26 PM (#3006163) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Jeri NOW there's a TAX on Jujubes! (Seriously, a "sugar tax".) I think that's probably Obama's fault. I know where I can get some that... uh... fell off a truck, if you really need some. |
|
13 Oct 10 - 01:33 PM (#3006171) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: pdq The last time the US Federal Government took in more money than it spent was 1959. Book keeping that some people call "clever" has been used to keep the public thinking otherwise. fact: It does not matter that a dollar is "off budget", it is still a dollar that the government spent and it still goes on the National Dept which our children will have to pay. The federal budget has been made to look better than it really is by several dirty tricks, one of them is stealing the excess money collected for Social Security and spending it, returning to the SS fund a huge pile of IOUs. |
|
13 Oct 10 - 01:39 PM (#3006178) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Greg F. The last time the US Federal Government took in more money than it spent was 1959 You betcha, PeeDee! and if the income tax schedule was restored to what it was in 1959- before the Reaganite/BuShite tax cuts for the rich- it would be taking in more than its spending today. Put that in yout TeaBag & smoke it. |
|
13 Oct 10 - 01:43 PM (#3006180) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Q (Frank Staplin) A tax on sugary drinks has been proposed. Increases the cost of Rum and Coca Cola! |
|
13 Oct 10 - 01:57 PM (#3006199) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: beardedbruce 1959 to 2010... 51 years. Let me see.. How many years of that did the Republicans control the Congress? And how many did the Democrats? |
|
13 Oct 10 - 06:22 PM (#3006396) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: pdq This article does a reasonable job of explaining... The Myth of the Clinton Surplus |
|
13 Oct 10 - 09:38 PM (#3006525) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert The entire argument comes down to how the wealthiest country in the world creates a moral and civilized society... Do we do it with "govern"ment??? Or do we do it by letting the corporations, driven exclusively by profits, run the show??? Those are the two choices... Of course, the corporations are spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to create enough of a smokescreen so that this question can not be framed in such a simple manner... But that's what this is really all about, folks... Nuthin more and nuthin' less... B~ |
|
13 Oct 10 - 10:13 PM (#3006540) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw "Whatever pill that you took to get there you should continue taking... *grin* " Ain't no pill. It is being able to see through the bullshit and the way we are being manipulated. People say the corporations are controlling people to buy what they want them to buy. People have control over the corporations by buying what THEY want to buy. You are tired of manufacturing shifting to China? Don't buy the Chinese stuff. People need to be taught how to see through the advertizing that manipulates them like in first grade. Buy a happy meal get a toy. Eat froot loops. Wear Barney socks. Then the dumbass parents buy it to keep JR happy. If people didn't fall for the advertising, it would not work and the advertizing would go away. So you get them in the pocketbook. Lawyers and lobbyists can't work around it. Crooked politicians can't get around it. They would have to provide what we want not what they make us think they want. Yes, we have perfect control but not the willpower like overeating, smoking, drinking too much and spending more than we make. I often ask my wife, a teacher Why don't they teach kids about stuff like the credit card trap and how credit card companys lure young people in and try to keep them under their 18%+ fees for everything they buy. She can't answer because they are busy teaching them other, more important stuff so they can pay that 18%. To me, how to avoid being manipulated is the most basic thing we need to know |
|
13 Oct 10 - 10:21 PM (#3006543) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw PS: I saw a jerk on Link TV giving a lecture on using tribalism to get what you want. I wonder if he gets paid for that? I wonder if Link TV is a corporation? |
|
13 Oct 10 - 10:47 PM (#3006553) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Just about all media these days is corporate pablum... When we first started broadcasting, for instance, there was an attitude that we all owned a share of the public airwaves... And we had strict rules on how they could be used... The corporations back then were motivated less by profit and more by the joy of broadcasting... We actually had a Federal Communications Commission, which was supposed to be an apolitical oversight board and things worked fine until one day Boss Hog woke up and said, "Hey, if I just could own a lot of these licensed broadcasting stations I could consolidate labor" and make more money"... Well, long story short, Boss Hog also figured out that if he owned enough of these broadcasting stations that he could use them to manipulate public opinion??? And his buddies likes that, too, because they could use Boss Hogs media to manipulate public opinion on lots of different fronts... That is what we have today... Boss Hog has packed the FCC with "Yes-men" and consolidated most of the media within a small circle of himself and his buddies and they have never had it so good... Heck, when the Dixie Chicks made a comment about Bush wanting to invade Iraq it was the very next day that Boss Hog had his manipulated masses breaking Dixie Chick records in streets all across the country?!?!?!?.... I mean, what ever happened to "all" of US owning those airwaves and the days when those airwaves were used to entertain us and inform US rather than propagandize US??? The "liberal media" is the BIGGEST of all the BIGASS LIES... It doesn't exist... It is just part of Boss Hog's distraction to keep US from seeing just how much control he has of the entire deal... It is a smokescreen... It is pure bullshit... Until media is returned to the people this is what we are going to have... Corporate ownership of the discussion, the ideas, the agendas and purdy much everything... I mean, yeah... It's great to try to teach kids kids to do right but it's an uphill battle as kids are being bombarded with the corporate fight song from birth... The corporations want kids to get credit cards... They are "profitable"... Hey, if a couple hundred thousand kids drop outta college because they are buried in debt every year, so what??? Right??? That's what Boss Hog want's US to think... We are being fed a steady diet of what Boss Hog wants stuck in our brains... Not a whole lot different from the steady diet of shit that Boss Hog wants Us to eat... Kinda explains why we have the highest obesity rates in the industrialized world... Well, our brains ain't far behind in obesity... Not mine, thank God, but the population on the whole has some very defective thinkerators... BTW, that "jerk" on TV, Sawz, is one of the thousands of Boss Hog's corporation propaganda peddlers... Almost the entire media is made up of Boss Hogs shills... B~ |
|
14 Oct 10 - 05:06 AM (#3006683) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Well, there are many Boss Hawgs, Bobert, not just one. It's a complex situation. There are a very large number of these grossly manipulative advertisers out there working for a very large number of huge commercial concerns, and their collective influence on our governments and lawmakers is massive. It's dominating the agenda, it's dominating the media, and it's dominating most people's lives. As Sawzaw points out, people have the power in their own hands to defeat these entities by not letting themselves BE manipulated, but most people aren't really aware they have that power...or they're too distracted...or they're too lazy and self-indulgent to take up the potential power they have and use it...or they're just confused. It's time that people here on this forum...and in society in general...stopped letting themselves by maneuvered into an "us and them" mentality and driven to these polarized opposite positions that the media concocts (like "liberal" and "conservative", for instance)....and actually listened to one another's deep concerns for a change rather than demonizing and attacking one another and hurling personal insults. Agreed? We are not stereotypes. We are not the monsters that we carry around in our political anxiety closets. We really DO essentially all want the same basic things. We want people to be happy and prosperous. We want people to be safe and to get good health care. We want truth in advertising and honesty in government. We want employment in good jobs for those who need work. We want justice and fairness. We want transparency. We want the truth. Agreed? Let's try, for goodness sake, to understand and respect one another instead of letting ourselves by constantly manipulated into hating and dismissing one another by the few greedy marketing forces at the top of the power pyramid whom you characterize as "Boss Hawg". Don't let them win by turning us against each other and causing us to waste our energy in personally attacking each other when we all truly want a better life for humanity. |
|
14 Oct 10 - 08:19 AM (#3006765) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert You are speaking for yourself, LH, and not someone who has has been raised on propaganda... Our generation may be the very last one that was taught/allowed to think... Thinking kinda comes naturally to us but is foreign to kids being brought up in a highly propagandized world where rote memory is being pushed over critical thinking in our schools... So, yeah... On one hand you are correct but on the the other perhaps giving too much credit to those who you admit "aren't really aware they have the power" to make the changes necessary to bring about "justice and fairness"... As for this forum, I have tried over and over to discuss policies and ideas and been met with "prove this" or "sources please" and when I engage on that request the threads get bogged down into disputes over stupid stuff that is no longer about policies or ideas but one right winged blogger's, who BTW may be getting paid by Boss Hog to do nuthin' but twist stats, views after anothers... This seems to be a purdy predictable way that those here on the right deal with policies and issues that they have no interest in discussin'... These diversionary tactics seem to always produce the same gridlock... And seems that they are always initiated by the same people with the same agendas... B~ |
|
14 Oct 10 - 10:23 AM (#3006839) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: pdq Presidents are held accountable for deficits on their watch. For Reagan, that would be from 30SEP1981-1OCT1989. That period shows an increase in the National Debt of $1.8 trillion Billy Clinton is held responsible for his eight years which covered 30SEP1993-1OCT2001. That period shows a rise in the National Debt of $1.4 trillion The main difference is that Clinton's minions get away with calling a $1.4 trillion dollar defecit an $81 billion surplus. Can somebody explain how that is allowed to go unchallenged in the mainstream news media? |
|
14 Oct 10 - 10:50 AM (#3006857) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: pdq Oh, by the way, the 2010 Fiscal Year ended on 30SEP2010 and, using correct (not doctored) accounting, the National Debt rose... $1.6411 trillion That is for one year!!! Reagan took eight years to run that much red ink and the biased news media have bashed him for that mistaket for the last 25 years. |
|
14 Oct 10 - 10:57 AM (#3006860) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Yes, I know well of that gridlock of which you speak, Bobert. I also know that it will never end.... (smile) ...because that's the way people are. Most really prefer talking to listening. While someone else is talking, they are not really listening to him or her, they're working on the next thing THEY are going to say instead. They're listening to the voice in their own head rather than to the other person, and that makes them unreasonable. This is true in 3-D life too. I have come to a point where I can regard all that with a certain amount of equanimity and be fairly much at peace with the fact that there are always going to be a lot of soreheads in this world, and that other people are NOT necessarily going to see something the way I see it, and there's not much I can do about it. (shrug) Okay. That's life. Why let it drive me crazy? I will try to get along with people in any case, state my view, and accept the fact that others may see it differently...without letting that turn them into my personal "enemies". If I can manage that, then I save myself a lot of stress, right? Having enemies doesn't help me in any way. The reason most people defend their views so strenuously is simply this: their views are part of their own personal identity, and they are very quick to defend their personal identity. If you go to the heart of their personal identify you will find that they, like you, genuinely do want a better and happier world for humanity. But they are usually focusing on it from some other angle, depending on their personal history and background which has shaped the way they see things. In other words: "Peace, brother!" |
|
14 Oct 10 - 12:15 PM (#3006901) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Donuel Being manipulated is not an evil when it is done for the good. The most glaring examples of manipulation like Glen Beck and all the talking heads of FOX ranges from amateurish to expert. Colin Powell held a little vile in front of the UN in an act of wrold wide manipulation. Making policies that hide the truth or limit expression are examples of evil manipulation. Also: Tear, Redefinitions, rewriting history, opposite facts, frosting an issue with religion, emotional outbursts and repetition repetition repetition are the calling cards of right wing manipulation. Humor and facts are the basic manipulation tools of the left. What is missing from this approach is the emotional outburst and repetition. As a hypnotist I would suggest ramping up repitition and emotional presentations and even factual fear to the hilt. |
|
14 Oct 10 - 12:22 PM (#3006907) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Donuel sawz kudos for the change in tone and reason, be it from understanding or a pill. Doug R. thank you for paying for my common defense, mortgage, handicap disability, food and energy needs. |
|
14 Oct 10 - 12:24 PM (#3006910) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Donuel also the roads, water, schools, police, fire department, center for disease control and 4th of July parties. |
|
14 Oct 10 - 12:38 PM (#3006917) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Be more than happy to "listen" to people who have real thoughts, LH... But if all they are doing is regergitating bumper sticker policy position propaganda, count me out... You can't have a discussion with someone who is eat up ignorant... "We want our country back", "Obama is trying to take our guns", "We want freedom" are ***not*** policy positions... PDQ's rightie stats about "deficits" are not helpful because they are crafted by paid statisticans to to twist information into soethging it clearly isn't... I mean, I'll talk policy as long as we are dealing will facts rather than bullshit... I can smell right winged corporate bullshit a mile away... B~ |
|
14 Oct 10 - 12:38 PM (#3006918) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk And the public libraries. And the conservation areas and parks. All achieved through taxation. All achieved by socialism, without which it is simply impossible to even have a modern and functioning society. We (at least in the USA) need a new understanding of a few basic words in the language. "socialism" is one of them. The word socialism is constantly misused by American politicians and pundits for propaganda purposes in order to scare people who have, it seems, little or no idea of what socialism actually is. It's not an all-or-nothing proposition. It is a normal social thing that takes care of certain societal necessities that can't be taken care of in any other way. |
|
14 Oct 10 - 01:59 PM (#3006976) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw "when it is done for the good." Who decides that? Which tribe? News flash to Bobert: Link TV bills itself as being untainted by corporations. They regularly air the "documentary" movie about how evil corporations are. Boss Hogg is a Democrat, on yer side. |
|
14 Oct 10 - 02:03 PM (#3006980) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Amos Let's not get all loosey goosey about the word socialism, LIttle Hawk. There is a world of diffwerence between socialism as the word is used to describe the form of government, and the word as used to describe the socially compassionate attributes of a republican form of government. The key difference is the ownership of themeans of production, which in a democratic republic is private ownership. A socialist country owns the factories, mines, and utility plants. A |
|
14 Oct 10 - 03:03 PM (#3007028) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Please use "socially compassionate" in a sentance. Mugger on the street: "Please be socially compassionate and hand over your wallet before I blow your fucking head off." |
|
14 Oct 10 - 03:33 PM (#3007052) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk What you are speaking of is "all-or-nothing" socialism, Amos, and it is precisely that interpretation of the word that I object to, Amos. I believe in a system that embraces both socialism and capitalism, using each in the areas best suited to them, and doing so through a democratic and representative form of government with a strong set of civil rights enshrined in law. That is basically the system already in place in most of the western world, the only problem being that the major banks and major corporations are not being properly regulated at present, and they have a degree of influence which they should not have over public policy. They also OWN the mass media outlets! Words are tricky. Words can be used to confuse and misdirect. The only way to avoid being misdirected by a word such as "socialism" is for the one using the word to be allowed to fully explain exactly what he means when he's using it. And that requires a patient listener, right? I have explained what I mean when using it. Are most TV watchers patient listeners? Is patient listening being encouraged by the mass media? Are patient explanations given proper air time? I think you know the answer to those questions! ;-) "No." Obama is a very patient explainer, but he's talking to a public that is mostly unaccustomed to patient listening, because it requires far too much mental effort! On top of that, Obama's sitting in the belly of the beast there in Washington. Because of that, I fear that he is very restricted in what he can really do, despite having the best of intentions. |
|
14 Oct 10 - 03:48 PM (#3007061) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk By the way, when it comes to owning the means of production in a country...that is, the factories, the mines, and the utility plants, I would be in favour of most of them being owned privately. By "most", I mean probably at least 95% of them. I do, however, think it is wise if the largest public utilities, such as Hydroelectric power, for example, are publicly owned and regulated...or at least partially so, so that people can choose either one or the other. In Canada, for example, we have a publicly owned broadcasting outlet (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation - CBC) alongside thousands of privately owned radio and TV stations. People can choose to listen to one or the other or both. When they choose CBC radio (which many do) they get a radio program with NO advertising, and with all kinds of wonderful information and art programs and great music that you CAN'T get on the privately owned stations, because it's not deemed profitable enough! This is a very good alternative for listeners, and people can choose for themselves what they like to listen to. That's democracy! Again, as you see, I am not speaking in "all-or-nothing" terms when I speak of socialism. All-or-nothing approaches are usually detrimental to a society, in my opinion, and they are usually embraced by political fanatics, not by democratically motivated individuals. |
|
14 Oct 10 - 04:02 PM (#3007077) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: DougR Donuel: You are welcome. Pdq: You answered your own question: because the mainstream media is biased to the left. DougR |
|
14 Oct 10 - 04:29 PM (#3007092) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Greg F. ...the mainstream media is biased to the left. Ah, Douggie, you old asshole, you - you mean like Fox news and the Wall Street Journal perhaps? The shibboleth of the "Left Wing Media" tho dear to the hearts of the mindless right since Tricky Dick Nixon is complete and utter bullshit. But what else would one expect from ol' Douggie-boy? |
|
14 Oct 10 - 05:11 PM (#3007109) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Hey, if being a socialist is not having yer danged credit card hit every time you rive out of yer driveway, havin' a cop stop someone from robbin' you, having fire department put out yer fire then count me in... In other words, "Privatize this!!!" B~ |
|
14 Oct 10 - 05:25 PM (#3007126) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk You don't have to be either "a socialist" or "a capitalist", you just have to be a free thinking human being who is flexible enough to see the good in both socialism AND capitalism, and to see how to use both to create a decent and prosperous society. The Right and the Left will forever bitch about how the media are mainly serving the purposes of the other side. And the media take delight in reinforcing those divisive attitudes, because it fuels conflict, causes controversy, and that draws in more listeners. People are attracted to controversy. The media in the USA, however, are on average so much farther to the Right than the media in Canada or western Europe, that for someone to complain that they are serving "the Left" verges on the utterly absurd. ;-D Be that as it may, people believe what they wish to believe, don't they? And that depends mainly on their past cultural background, not their powers of reason or objectivity. |
|
14 Oct 10 - 07:51 PM (#3007262) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Oh, bull, LH.... The right has had control of the media since they convinced the FCC to allow one company to own 1100 radio stations... Who owns these stations, LH??? Poor people??? Middle class working people??? Black people??? Muslims??? Liberals??? Get real!!! You ain't runnin' for no office so you can get that Melba Milk Toast crap and stuff it... It's 100% Prime Bullshit... There was a time in the 60s and 70s when you cold have argued that point and maybe had a leg to stand on... These days the media is owned 100% by the corporatists who don't like regs... That means they don't like liberals... Like I said, "Get real"... Come on over the bridge to the millenium... It won't hurt... B~ |
|
15 Oct 10 - 10:43 AM (#3007780) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Salt LAke Tribune "Rep. Jim Matheson signed a letter to the White House on Tuesday requesting a personal meeting to urge Obama to "reverse a decision" by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to cut next year's CUP funding... ...said he would be happy to help the White House find wasteful spending elsewhere, while insisting that the CUP must be finished for taxpayers to see a return on their spending.The law is explicit: cutting this funding won't save taxpayers one dime, since the federal share is paid back with interest by Utah water users, If no water is delivered, then Utahns won't have to pay, and hundreds of millions of dollars will have been wasted." Federal taxpayers already have pumped $450 million into the project, money the delegation argues would be paid back if the government continues to fund the six-unit project, which eventually will bring water from eastern Utah's Uinta Basin to the Wasatch Front's Bonneville Basin. So far, the project has funneled water as far as Strawberry Reservoir. A final segment would bring it through a massive tunnel to a finished pipeline linking it to a water-distribution network along the Wasatch Front." We need turtle tunnels not water tunnels for humans. Only turtle tunnels save or create jobs. |
|
15 Oct 10 - 11:17 AM (#3007801) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk You must have forgotten to read my final paragraph, Bobert! Yes, the mass media chains are owned by a few fabulously rich people, and they dutifully spout the propaganda that pushes the marketing and controlling agenda of those rich people. But even more importantly, the media play the divide and conquer game all the time. They do that by constantly provoking "liberals" against "conservatives", Democrats against Republicans, Blacks against Whites, Christians against Muslims, and so on. Wherever they can find a sore point and a division, they pour salt onto the wounds and drive people into further conflict. That gets ordinary people like you and Sawzaw to waste your energy fighting with each other on some forum rather than joining together to take on the real forces that are oppressing you. Now do you get what I'm talking about? The media DO like liberals...just like they like conservatives...because without BOTH liberals AND conservatives they can't play the great divide and conquer game that disempowers all of you and lets their rich bosses walk away with the spoils. There are well known "liberal" shows and personalities who ridicule conservatives. There are well known conservative shows and personalities who ridicule liberals. You know their names and their personalities. You cheer for the ones who ridicule the other side. That's the way the nedia wants it. They do not want agreement and concord, they want conflict between ordinary people, because conflict between ordinary people moves the agenda of the rich and powerful forward every time. More police state. More security. More laws. More war. Less civil rights. More fear. More control. That's the name of the game. Divide and conquer. "You can always get one half of the poor to kill the other half of the poor for you." - Boss Tweed in Gangs of New York |
|
15 Oct 10 - 12:03 PM (#3007842) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: pdq Ken Salazar was a poly sci major in college and went on to get a law degree. He is a lawyer and political hack. He has no knowledge or background in conservation, science or natural resource management. He reminds me of the power-hungry Carol Browner who was a Leftist dropout from UC Brekeley. How does one person have the power to end this water project in Utah? Who gave Salazar the power to declare a 6 month moritorium on oil drilling in the Gulf? |
|
15 Oct 10 - 01:02 PM (#3007877) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Amos Sawz: HEre are some examples of "socially compassionate" activties which are not profitable in themselves but which are NOT socialism: Public Libraries Fire Departments Trash Collection and Waste Processing Sewers Public Water Works Port Management Public Parks Management Playgrounds to name just a few. You don't HAVE to be an asshole, you know. A |
|
15 Oct 10 - 01:34 PM (#3007897) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Those are precisely the kind of things I am talking about when I use the word "socialism", Amos...socially compassionate and useful services which are funded by our taxes and managed by different levels of government. Things like, as you said, Public Libraries Fire Departments Trash Collection and Waste Processing Sewers Public Water Works Port Management Public Parks Management Playgrounds Schools Highways etc... Those ARE ALL forms of socialism, Amos, and they are very good forms of socialism which work extremely well in a predominantly capitalist society. You are simply being an obstreporous, nitpicking, pestiferous bandar-log when you say that they are not socialism. Be off with you, sir! Get thee hence to a Starbucks and see if you can impress the other latte-drinkers with your verbal sophistication and your sesquidpedalian adventures in obfuscation. ;-D (I say that with a smile on my face and a twinkle in my pretty brown eyes...) |
|
15 Oct 10 - 06:50 PM (#3008077) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert I don't feel I am wasting my time with Sawz, LH... I think of him as a sparring partner... And he is very good at that... lol... As for the divide and conquer??? Yeah, that ***is*** what they think they are doing and with most folks that is exactly correct... Doesn't work with e because I really don't give a rat's ass about Dems or Repubs but policies... I'm kinda a policy wonk... Of course we are now living in some very difficult times with Reaganomics dieing a slow but sure death and only the fringers like Sawz and his buddies keeping it alive thru any means necessary... But t will die... Maybe not this year but it is such a bogus economic system that even George Bush I once coined it voodoo economics 30 years ago and he hit the nail on the head... There will come a point in time when even Sawz will give up on trickle down/supply economics that milks all the wealth to the already wealthy... BTW, LH... We have something called "Smart Tag" 'round these parts... It's a little box that when you go thru the toll gates deducts money from yer credit card... Boss Hog would like these things implanted in everyone so that when you go to the park to walk yer dog you walk thru a gate and "bango"... Back yer car out of the driveway and "bango"... Take a deep breath of air and "bango"... Go up to a drinking fountain and "bango"... Get arroused and "bango" (that was a joke to see if yer paying attention...lol...)... But really... There is no end in sight to privatization... But, hey, I'm an open minded guy so hey... If they want to do that, fine... Just be sure that everyone is provided a decent paying job and all will be fine... B~ B~ |
|
15 Oct 10 - 07:01 PM (#3008088) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk That Smart Tag device sounds like what the corporates have been dreaming of, Bobert. Imagine...a penny a breath...10 cents for a fart...25 cents for a sneeze...10 bucks for an orgasm... I bet they've got science labs working on it right now. |
|
15 Oct 10 - 08:31 PM (#3008148) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw "ordinary people like you and Sawzaw" Thank you Bobert. you were kidding about all that see a shrink stuff? I knew it. It is just trolling for jollies to Bobert. |
|
15 Oct 10 - 08:33 PM (#3008151) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Hey, Bobert, what do they do if you don't HAVE a credit card to bill, call a swat team to hunt you down as a known subversive? |
|
15 Oct 10 - 08:49 PM (#3008156) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw All you flinty, sharp eyed Saints and superior people who are above the ordinary people like LH [whom I like to spar with over the sainthood status of Imperial Canada] and I, still ain't figgerd out who Jim Matheson is and who supports him. It's a real trifecta. Here we got the "good" party against the "evil" party. Turtle tunnels winning out over tunnels for people and unfair campaign financing all in one snowglobe of human turmoil. It exemplifies the futility of tribal politics. Meanwhile the media, authors and talking heads get richer off of the conflict they promote. I am going to go downstairs and heat up a can of turtle soup. |
|
15 Oct 10 - 09:02 PM (#3008159) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Well, sheet fire, son... Everybody got a credit card... The crdit card companies see to that... Heck, couple hundred thousand kids quit college every year 'cause of them... Boss Hog Visa is thinkin' about issuin' 'um to new borns... But firget that plastic stuff... Boss Hog Vias gonna just take the baby before it leaves the hospital and implant one of them Smart Tag thingies in the baby in case it uses the automatic door to get out of the hospital... But good news... The push/pull doors will still be free until 2016... And what about "Free Fart Fridays"??? Yup, save 'um up, folks 'cause Boss Hog Visa gonna have on Friday a month where you can really stink up the joint... Of course, in order to get your Free Fart Friday yer gonna have to sign a contract to not go with Corporate Pig Master Card for at least one year... But wait!!! If you sign up today for Free Fart Friday Boss Hog, being the benevolent hog that he is, will also throw in 2 free "silent sams" to be used in church that can be used anytime you need 'um... Sorry ya'll... Ol' hillbilly gotta get signed up quick 'cause they said this was a limited offer... BTW just call 1-800-Fart4Fre and be the envy of all of yer neighbors... B~ |
|
15 Oct 10 - 09:52 PM (#3008189) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk They're both evil parties, Sawz! ;-) Now, as for Canada, well...we have more or less 5 parties here, and I think they are all somewhat evil. It's a little hard to tell which order to rank them in, though. The most evil one is often the one that's in power, since it's easire to accomplish evil objectives when in power than when out of power. The very reasonableness of this country, though, tends to limit the lengths of evil that they can go to once in power. The present Conservative government is one of the worst we've had so far, in my opinion, but they're still not half as bad as either the Democrats or the Republicans. It would be like comparing Woody Allen to Al Capone. ;-) Bobert, you better tell Spaw about that 1-800-FART4fre thing ASAP. |
|
15 Oct 10 - 10:12 PM (#3008192) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Actually, LH... 5 parties is a lot better than 2 ... Makes folks do that coilition stuff... You know, talk to each other and make deals... The US is outta the compromising and deal making business... Take a super majority (60%) to get anything done that is positive (or negative)... That is a serious problem 'cause these super majorities only come around about every 40 years or so and then we get stuff like Medicare or Civil Rights and then we go another 40 years of gridlock... The problem here is that we have progressives who wiggle these super majorities once a generation and put thru stuff that, yeah, tries to redistribute the wealth back to the working class... The recent health care reform bill is one of those... Then the righties get all pissed off and throw "socialism" around as if public libraries is like Stalin or Mao-ish and get the least educated all lathered up and then its another 40 years before anything else gets passed that moves the US closer toward being a civilized nation... I guess the silver linin' is that the rednecks never quite can convince 60% of the people that their ideas make any sense so, in spite of the corporations blasting away with their propaganda, we still have at least 41% of the population that can still, ahhhh, friggin' think beyond the propaganda... But, hey, I will be the first to admit that I am gettin' a little scared that the corportist's stars might be linin' up in a manner that they just might buyout the last remnants of what used to be a constitutional democracy and we will be revisiting Germany in 1933.... I mean, progressives that I know have always been willing to find "common ground" but the righties??? Not so... They have no interest in compromise... So, yeah, I envy yer 5 parties... We are kinda screwed and even though there are a lot of progressives in the Dem party, there aren't enough and they don't have the micropphone... The US is basically screwed... B~ |
|
15 Oct 10 - 10:22 PM (#3008198) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Yes, 5 parties is good, because as you say, it means that the power must be shared between several points of view, and no one party can easily dominate the agenda. The best thing about the present Conservative party in power is: they do not possess a majority. Thank God! They must bargain with some of the other parties to pass legislation. |
|
16 Oct 10 - 01:31 AM (#3008256) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Bobert, obviously shitfaced and stoned tonight because his supreme intelligence has been questioned and his ego bruised, is gonna love this. Attorney General Eric Holder has announced that the U.S. government will "vigorously enforce" federal law against marijuana if California voters elect to legalize the drug next month. In a letter to former administrators of the DEA, Holder stated that the Department of Justice "strongly opposes Proposition 19." "If passed, this legislation will greatly complicate federal drug enforcement efforts to the detriment of our citizens," Holder wrote. "Regardless of the passage of this or similar legislation, the Department of Justice will remain firmly committed to enforcing the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) in all states." The letter was released at a press conference Friday morning at the L.A. Sheriff's Headquarters Bureau. Sheriff Lee Baca said that his deputies will work with federal authorities to continue to pursue marijuana violations even if Prop. 19 passes. District Attorney Steve Cooley, who is running for attorney general, said that if he is elected and Prop. 19 passes, he will likely advise law enforcement agencies that the initiative is unconstitutional. In response, the Drug Policy Alliance, a pro-19 advocacy group, argued in a press release that the voters will get to decide state law. "There is nothing in the United States Constitution that requires the state of California to criminalize anything under state law," said Stephen Gutwillig, the group's California director. "If California decides to legalize marijuana through the passage of Proposition 19, nothing in the Constitution stands in the way." While marijuana will continue to be illegal on the federal level, Gutwillig predicted that the U.S. government will not have the resources to pursue marijuana violations at the local level. L.A. City Attorney Carmen Trutanich also appeared at the morning press conference, where he argued that Prop. 19 is "exactly what the cartels need." In fact, according to a recent Rand Corp. study, Prop. 19 would drive Mexican cartels out of the California market, cutting into their profits by around 2-4 percent. If the federal government does not take steps to prevent interstate smuggling, then California-grown pot could dominate the entire U.S. market, cutting cartel profits up to 23%. On Thursday, Trutanich wrote a letter to U.S. Attorney Andre Birotte, asking the Department of Justice to seek an injunction to prevent Prop. 19 from going into effect. Trutanich also asked whether the federal government would withhold federal funding from the city for "any reason arising out of enactment of Proposition 19, such as for an alleged failure to meet our drug-free workplace obligations." In Holder's letter, which is dated Wednesday, the attorney general does not go into such specifics. He does say, however, that the DOJ "is considering all available legal and policy options in the event Proposition 19 is enacted." Awwwwwwwwww Mannnnnnnnn! That Obama is a real party pooper. |
|
16 Oct 10 - 08:48 AM (#3008373) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Actually, Sawz... Ol' Hillbilly was neither "shitfaced or stoned" last night... Ya' see, I'm staying with my son-in-law's mother-in-law's house and showing the utmost respect to her and her house... But today is our last day in NC so maybe tonight will be different tho getting "shitfaced or stoned" ain't something I engage in too often these days... Okay, may a couple beers and a *single* puff from the "peace pipe" but neither gets me either "shitfaced or stoned" so... ...guess again... B~ |
|
16 Oct 10 - 10:33 AM (#3008422) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Having any law at all against people smoking or otherwise injesting marijuana if they want to is absolutely asinine. It plays directly into the hands of organized crime, and in no way protects the public. It is repressive, dictatorial, unnecessary, ineffective, and stupid to criminalize the use of marijuana. Anyone in government who supports the criminalization of marijuana use is a damned fool, at least as applies to that particular issue. And I would like to add to that: I do NOT smoke or injest marijuana, and I have no desire to, but I don't believe in stopping other people from doing so, because in a genuinely free society that is THEIR business, not mine or anybody else's. They should also be allowed to privately grow it for their own use, because THAT is their business too. And not anybody else's. If the cops stopped worrying needlessly about people growing or smoking marijuana, they could get something USEFUL done with all the time and money they would save. If it was legal to grow marijuana at home for your own use, the big drug cartels could not make a profit from it, and they'd lose that business! ***** Bobert, you slut, I see you grabbed the 100th post! ;-) |
|
16 Oct 10 - 10:49 AM (#3008432) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Ok Bobert, I apologize for accusing you of being shitfaced and stoned at your Son in law's Maw in law's house. LH: What will the murderous drug cartels do when weed is legalized and their source of income is kicked out from under them? Do they get a job and become Sunday school teachers or what? |
|
16 Oct 10 - 11:02 AM (#3008440) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Sawzaw - They will do what organized criminals always do. They will shift their attention to other profit-making areas such as: prostitution, car theft, smuggling, fraud, protection rackets, crack cocaine, heroine, etc. Your point is a pointless one. I am not trying to protect organized crime....I am trying to protect the civil rights and lives and freedom of the millions of perfectly ordinary, harmless people who use marijuana and who are NOT criminals, and I am trying to HELP the cops fight REAL crime instead of wasting their valuable time on something that simply doesn't matter. Organized crime people can only be dealt with in two ways: 1. deprive them of a lucrative business opportunity (Remember the grand opportunity they were given by Prohibition? They were deprived of that opportunity when Prohibition was ended.) 2. prosecute them and imprison them with the full force of the law...but DON'T prosecute their victims in the ordinary public! |
|
16 Oct 10 - 11:27 AM (#3008449) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw LH: If we legalize such and such the crime will go away. Just ask NAMBLA. Pimps will disappear and become staunch members of society if we legalize prostitution. The morally superior Canadian government has that figured out. |
|
16 Oct 10 - 12:14 PM (#3008474) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Sawzaw, you are being a silly man... ;-) Get serious. Number one: I am not a representative of the Canadian government. The Canadian government has NOT legalized marijuana and our police are also stupidly wasting their time persecuting users here. Number two: I speak for ME, not for my government. My opinions are MINE, not Canada's. Rethink the whole thing, okay? You are talking to an individual here, not a nation. Regarding prositution, it is indeed a far better idea to legalize and regulate prostitution than to keep it illegal. That has been done in Nevada and in Holland (but not in Canada) and that legalization has resulted in far less crime in regards to prostitution and far safer working conditions for the prostitutes. It has also resulted in far better medical protection for the prostitutes. It has not benefited the pimps. You cannot eliminate prostitution by bringing in laws, it will always be with us, but you can greatly improve the situation by legalizing and regulating it to protect the workers. The real crux of this matter, Sawzaw, is that you want to force other people to live the way you choose to live...to live by your ideas of what's moral and what isn't. You wouldn't like it if someone tried to force you to live their way, but you want to force them to live your way. That's not freedom, pal, that's a dictatorship according to YOUR personal tastes and your desires. I don't smoke marijuana. I don't want to. But I will not interfere with another person's freedom to do it if they like to. It doesn't hurt anyone else if they do! And I don't want to hire a prostitute. I don't need that. But if another person wants to hire a prostitute, I will not interfer with his freedom to do that or her freedom to do that work either. It doesn't hurt anyone else if they do! Things that don't hurt anyone else and that are done by the free choice of the adult person involved are NOT crimes. They are lifestyle choices. No person has a right to force others to adopt his lifestyle choices....nor to restrict others from adopting their lifestyle choices. It is only fear that motivates you to control others, Sawzaw, and it's an irrational fear....either that or it's just self-righteousness. I refer you to your Bible...Love casts out fear. And self-righteousness is a sin. Jesus showed no prejudice against prostitutes. Neither should you. |
|
16 Oct 10 - 02:43 PM (#3008560) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw So give us a lecture on self-righteousness. Even better lecture Bobert on self-righteousness. Would it be ok if your daughter was a prostitute? If your son smoked grass? |
|
16 Oct 10 - 02:53 PM (#3008571) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw "Everybody got a credit card" So do I. Three of them. I get rebates from mine. I just got one that pays me a 3% rebate from purchases at Home Depot and Lowes. 1% on everything else. I got a $2k rebate on my Chevy pickup and my wife got $3K back on her last Pontiac. 3% on gas. All just by buying things we had to buy anyway, not crap we don't need. The secret is having the will power to not overspend and pay it off every month. Also it is much easier than buying with checks or cash and online. |
|
16 Oct 10 - 04:55 PM (#3008638) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Sawzaw - It wouldn't worry me at all if my son smoked grass. Most of the finest friends (and best people) I've known in my life have smoked grass or do smoke grass, and it didn't make any of them into bad people. I'd be quite disturbed if my daughter became a prostitute, but I'd also be quite disturbed if she did a variety of other things, like... - join the Republican Party - join the Conservative or Liberal parties of Canada - enlist in the roller derby - become a female boxer - join the army - dye her hair green and spike it - get multiple body piercings etc..... So I'd be disturbed. Fine. It would still be her decision once she reached age 18, and it would be her business as a self-governing adult, and I would have to accept it even if I didn't like it. I am not here to avoid all possible disturbances, Sawzaw, I am here to allow other people, including my children, the freedom to be whom they honestly wish to be. And what do I get in return? The freedom to be who I honestly wish to be. You betcha! I am here to govern myself, not to govern you or my daughter or my friends or the guy who lives across the street. If people don't steal, lie, assault others, commit fraud, murder, rape, bully or commit other obviously anti-social acts (most of which are listed in the 10 Commandments), then I have no bone to pick with them. They are free beings who must decide for themselves how to live. If they do not deliberately hurt someone else just to please themselves, then they are not breaking the basic laws of human morality...and civil law should not bother them. There are various collective customs we follow (such as our conventional ideas about clothing and nakedness), and that gets complicated...but it's another discussion. It's not a moral question in that case. It's a question of what people are generally used to, that's all. **** You're absolutely right about the credit cards. I have 4 of them. I get discounts on stuff through all of them, I don't overspend, and I always pay them off right on time, so they get no interest payments from me. All it takes is a little self-control. People need to realize that the power is in their own hands, and they can use these things in a way that benefits them. |
|
16 Oct 10 - 05:30 PM (#3008649) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Dear Mr Obama: You should have listened to the American people when you were shoving stimulus and health care reform down their throat. That's what you get for playing tribal politics. Time for the "we know what's best" elitists to wake up. API Analysts in both parties say all major indicators tilt toward the Republicans. President Barack Obama's policies are widely unpopular. Congress, run by the Democrats, rates even lower. Fear and anger over unemployment and deep deficits are energizing conservative voters; liberals are demoralized. Every day brings fresh evidence of Democratic officials virtually abandoning House members whose re-election bids seem hopeless. Republicans are expanding the field to pursue races that once appeared unattainable. In the coming week, Republicans or GOP-leaning outside groups plan to spend money in a 82 House races that they see as competitive or within reach of a last-minute upset. Democrats, desperate to hold their losses to three dozen seats, plan to run TV ads in 59 races in the remaining days. But their chief House campaign committee has recently canceled millions of dollars worth of advertising for struggling Reps. Steve Driehaus and Mary Jo Kilroy of Ohio, Suzanne Kosmas of Florida, Betsy Markey of Colorado and Steve Kagen of Wisconsin. They are shifting some of that money to incumbents once considered safe, such as Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva. But in a sign of the election's volatility, they also are helping viable incumbents they had expected to be trailing significantly — South Dakota Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, for example. The Democrats' House campaign committee raised almost $16 million in September and has $41.6 million in the bank. That's a big fund raising advantage over the GOP's House campaign committee. But the figures are misleading because heavy spending by outside groups, which often hide their donors' identities, clearly favors Republican candidates... |
|
16 Oct 10 - 07:48 PM (#3008717) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw LH: I have seen people with well behaved, polite and successful children. I have seen people with spoiled, lazy, children that are dead weights on society. I suppose that the children made the choice. |
|
16 Oct 10 - 09:01 PM (#3008765) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Yeah, me too, Sawzaw. There have got to be 10 billion different reasons why some kids turn out great and others don't. I can't possibly track them all down, but I think some of them are a result of good parental guidance (or lack of it) while others are a result of the intrinsic character of the child, regardless of the parental guidance or lack of it. Still others may be a result of societal forces around the child. We can all think of examples at either extreme. Parenting is the most complex job and the biggest responsibility in the world, in my opinion. A lot of people have children who probably shouldn't...because they're just not mature enough themselves yet. I don't know what anyone can do about that. It's just the way of the world. People like to have sex... One of the things one has to deal with and learn to accept, not just now but since the world began, is that things aren't perfect out there. Or "in here". ;-) And they never will be. That gives us something to aim for, eh? It's a good motivator. |
|
16 Oct 10 - 09:43 PM (#3008778) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Well, well, well.... So now it's down to more government in our lives that Sawz wants... Hmmmm??? The boy can't seem to make up his mind if it's more government or less that he wants... I mean, what if Boss Hog woke up one day and thought that dock-sider shoes didn't quite fit into Boss Hog's plans for his perfect world??? I mean, then yo got cartels makin' 'um is Chinese seat shop and bringin' them shoes into the country on mules from Mexico... I mean, LH is right... You are being silly, Sawz... But beyond that you have no moral compass as to what government shoudl do or not do... You just and pick and choost from yer own persaonl menu what you like or don't and think that should be enough... Problem is that you don't seem to have a clue waht the word or concept of what "freedom" means if you want to set the rules to yer likin' and screw everyone else... Totally inconsistent philosophy... BTW, I'm home now... Sucked down a couple chilly ones and got reaquainted with Mr. Peace Pipe... But I ain't "shitfaced"... Maybe a little buzz from the hit of pot... As fir crime and cops... The rich stole hundreds of billions of dollars from some rather innocent people with the crappy mortgages they ***sold*** to the working class... Rather than us cops to bust folks doin' stuff where there are ****no victims**** why not spend that money going after the real croooks??? B~ |
|
17 Oct 10 - 01:49 PM (#3009245) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw "more government in our lives that Sawz wants" How did you twist my words into that? You want government to control your health care and mandate people buy insurance but you accuse me of wanting it. What was Fannie and Freddie's part in that big rich man ripoff? At the behest of the Dodds and Franks in the Democrat controlled Congress they bought every shit smeared scrap of paper presented by the banks. And did they get a bail out? I never hear abut the GSE bail outs from the moral left wingers only the wall street bail outs. I didn't suck down anything except some hot home made soup and I don't own a peace pipe so I am aware of reality. Reality is tough but you need to try it sometime. Reality: The two largest housing GSEs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac own and/or securitize upwards of 70% of the residential mortgage loans in the United States. In 1999, The New York Times reported that with the corporation's move towards the subprime market "Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980s. In 1995, Freddie Mac began receiving affordable housing credit for buying subprime securities, and by 2004, HUD suggested the company was lagging behind and should "do more." Senior and Executive Vice Presidents at the two organizations will get retention bonuses, most of which have nothing to do with performance. Fannie Mae executives will receive bonuses between $470,000 and $611,000. Freddie Mac has not yet released the exact amounts, or even a range, for their anticipated bonuses. The Freddie Mac plan pays bonuses in four installments with only the final payment having anything to do with performance. The government has invested more taxpayer dollars into the two mortgage-backers than it has into AIG. Last year, the two institutions lost about $108 billion. Unlike AIG, where the CEO has asked bonus recipients to return at least half of their bonuses, there is no such compromise at Fannie Mae. (remember that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have made large political contributions in recent years, and even our president was one of the top three benefactors while in the Senate) The CEO of Fannie Mae, Herb Allison, said in a company-wide email today, that eliminating the bonuses would jeopardize our ability to fulfill the mission the government has given us to address the housing crisis. My moral compass does not include illegal moonshine and smoking illegal pot. I don't lecture people on morality while doing illegal things and bragging about it. |
|
17 Oct 10 - 02:03 PM (#3009261) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw More reading for the economics perfesser: The Federal National Mortgage Association—FNMA or Fannie Mae was founded as an agency of the federal government as part of the New Deal in 1938. Its function was to create a secondary market for mortgages, meaning that Fannie Mae, rather than originating loans to homebuyers, would buy mortgages (and their expected payment streams) from community banks and thrifts. In 1968 Fannie Mae was transformed into a private-sector company with shareholders, and its official connection with the government was transferred to the Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA or Ginnie Mae). The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) was chartered in 1970 as another government-sponsored enterprise in the secondary mortgage market; it too is owned by shareholders. The ostensible purpose of Fannie and Freddie is to promote homeownership. The two GSEs buy mortgages and bundle them into mortgage-backed securities, which are sophisticated derivatives that slice and dice the incoming monthly mortgage payments such that outside investors can (in theory) limit the risk of their real-estate investments. By providing a huge and liquid secondary market for mortgages, Fannie and Freddie make it more lucrative for others to originate mortgages. Make no mistake about it: The official mission of Fannie and Freddie is to cause banks to lend to applicants who would be rejected in the absence of government meddling. This point needs to be stressed as analysts wonder, "Why did banks make so many bad loans?" All of this raises an obvious question. How exactly do Fannie and Freddie achieve their goal of promoting more mortgage origination than would have occurred in a free market? The answer is that these GSEs enjoyed implicit—and now explicit—government backing. Until quite recently, the official position of the federal government has been that Fannie and Freddie were private companies, earning private profits to be distributed to private shareholders. No taxpayer money stood behind them. However, investors suspected the GSEs were too big and too symbolic to be allowed to fail. Consequently, investors were willing to lend money to Fannie and Freddie—by buying bonds issued by these two GSEs—at lower interest rates than these same investors would have charged a truly private firm that performed Fannie's and Freddie's operations. Because their bonds were presumably guaranteed by the "full faith and credit" of the U.S. government—meaning the IRS and printing press— Fannie and Freddie were able to gain a huge share of their market; they directly owned or guaranteed roughly $6 trillion in mortgages. |
|
17 Oct 10 - 06:39 PM (#3009441) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: DougR Sixteen more days and counting! DougR |
|
17 Oct 10 - 07:03 PM (#3009456) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: pdq Yes, on November 2 the public will tell Obama what they think of his administration and the Congressional Democrats. I looked at a whole buncha web sites and even Dem-leaning ones concede at least 5 Senate seats. Dick Morris, architect of Clinton's re-election campaign in 1996, says Dems will lose bigtime. The American people are being insulted by the Democrat attack ads that are so vile and so trurthless that we want to send a message to the bastards who are running them. Christine O'Donnell, Meg Whitman, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman and Sharron Angle are all more intelligent than VP Joe "Foot-In-Mouth" Biden and they are being attacked unmercifully by the news media, showbiz activists and even by NOW. The public does not see devil horns when they look at Sarah Palin nor do they see a witch when they look a Christine O'Donnell. All these ladies are normal Americans and most of us would be proud to have any one of them represent us in Congress. |
|
17 Oct 10 - 07:20 PM (#3009472) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Well, Sawz... You want the government to go out and bust pot smokers and protitutes... Right??? I mean, sho nuff sounded like that in yer post... Then I point out that the government does that... And you go "huh"??? That's what I mean... You want lots of government to enforce laws that you ***like***... That is inconsistent with the anti-government crap that you and the rightie bloggers that you post say you want??? What next is it that ya'll want the government to do fir you... Hey, here's one fir ya' to ponder... Close down all government funded schools??? B~ |
|
18 Oct 10 - 12:46 AM (#3009590) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Sawzaw...the question of legality vs illegality is an interesting and complex one without one simple answer. On the one hand, it's simply unwise to do anything illegal...not because it's necessarily immoral or morally wrong....but merely because it puts you in danger of the forces of the law. Let me explain that. In most societies there are some laws that are stupid, archaic, unjust, and just downright wrong. Why? Well, because human beings are imperfect, and imperfect beings sometimes enact stupid, unjust, archaic laws that don't actually make any sense, but are the result of cultural prejudices or muddled thinking. That, in my opnion, is the case with the marijuana laws...just as it was once the case with the laws banning alcoholic beverages during Prohibition. In both cases you had a stupid, unjust, oppressive, and totally impractical set of laws enacted by people with good intentions, but people having no idea how foolish they were being when they passed those laws...laws which could only make the situation far worse and provide a windfall for organized crime. However....and this is a BIG however....I personally do my utmost not to break even a stupid, unjust, and oppressive law for one simple reason: NOT because I respect that law! No sir. I obey that law because I don't wish to put myself at risk of the forces of the law who are people with little imagination and little mercy. Why should I risk my own freedom by violating their stupid, unjust law???? It's far easier and wiser for me to obey it even THOUGH I know it's a stupid and unjust law. So I obey it. People are foolish to imagine that civil law is the ultimate moral authority in life. It isn't. It wasn't made by God, it was made by men, and men make mistakes. I do not worship the temporal decisions of men nor take them as gospel, but I do realize that I would put myself at unnecessary risk by breaking a stupid law, therefore I obey it even though it is asinine...as in the case of the illegality of marijuana....and also because I'm not interested in getting high anyway. But I don't imagine for a moment that the forces of the law hold any high moral ground in enforcing such an asinine law. They don't, and the law is wrong. Bobert obviously feels that he is willing to risk the illegality of smoking marijuana because he likes the stuff. Fine with me, but he is, of course, risking an entanglement with the law. That doesn't make him immoral, it just means he's facing a legal risk that I am not facing. He's not boasting about smoking grass, he just happens to like it. Fine with me. It's not a moral issue at all, it's a legal issue, and I don't care one way or the other, but I do hope he doesn't get in any trouble for it, because he's not a criminal. The law is a bunch of established cultural ideas and habits that have been written down, and cultures are often very foolish about a number of things they do. To make marijuana illegal is, in my opinion, utterly foolish, and the law that does so is a useless one that helps nobody, but only robs people of free choice in a matter where they should have free choice. It is a bad, undemocratic law, a violation of personal freedom. Period. There are some bad laws in all societies, and it behooves all men of conscience to speak out against them vigorously and work for their repeal. Your American revolutionaries knew that, and that's why they finally revolted against the English crown. Mere technical legality under any regime is not necessarily truth OR justice! Remember that. |
|
18 Oct 10 - 08:16 AM (#3009732) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Yeah, LH. but I don't speed anywhere except on the interstate where you have to... If it says 35 I do 35 (or less)... I also don't cheat on my income taxes... I mean, if the law says I can donate some piece of junk car to the Salvation Army and take a big tax deductaion I don't do it... Might of fact, I don't take any tax deductions for charities I give to... I mean, I think everyone breaks some law... Even jay-walking is illegal but people do it but, like you, I walk to the corner and cross when I'm supposed to... BTW, ya'll... Sounds as if California is going to vote to legalize pot... That is a start even if Obama says he'll bust you anyway... This is one area where the Repubs (and some Dems) will be put in an uncomfortable position... But I do undersatnd the Obama administration's position on this... I mean, it would be hypocritical on my part to support states being able to pick and choose from a menu of federal laws to enforce (or not)... I don't believe that states should be able to do that no matter what the law is... That's the kinda thinking that brought us the Civil (which it wasn't) War... Meanwhile, I will continue taking a risk... B~ |
|
18 Oct 10 - 10:16 AM (#3009792) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk You're quite right, Bobert, that everyone breaks some law now and then, no matter what their pretensions are. We have all jaywalked or exceeded the speed limit or broken some other law at some time or another. That's life. Like I said, people are imperfect beings....and civil laws are imperfect also. There are cases where a civil law does not properly fit the real life situation, and everyone knows that, but cops STILL feel that they must enforce it because that's what they're trained to do. This can lead to some very silly and unnecessary situations from time to time. |
|
18 Oct 10 - 10:41 AM (#3009803) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Well, back to "unpopular views" of the Obama administartion... Here's one that the Repubs and righties will hate: The Obama administration actually decreased the annual budget deficit for 2010 from the $1.4T that represented the budget that Bush left for 2009 to $1.3T... Now, of course, the righties won't gove Obama any credit for this and will change the subnect to use the national debt figures which don't reflect that progress... Might of fact, the righties will use every concievable accounting trick in the book to twist reality into their usual mythology... But, hey... Facts is what they are regardless of the rightie blogger cut 'n pastes that Sawz will certainly post following this encouraging bit of reality... But then again, Sawz don't do reality... B~ |
|
18 Oct 10 - 11:01 AM (#3009827) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk The primary REAL purpose of any political party power structure is to maintain and enlarge its power. That's what wrong with the idea of political parties, and that is what makes them corrupt. They seek power, first and foremost, and they do it by attacking competing parties in any way possible...fair or foul. That's what you see happening. Your media sources and pundits mostly encourage that divisive process. The best thing that could possibly happen would be to abolish all political parties from here on in, have only independents run for public office, and form a legislature from those elected independents after the election. They could then elect from amongst themselves a president, and a vice president...whoever they collectively decided was best for those jobs...in a free vote of all elected members. Legislation could then be proposed by any seated member, discussed and debated by all seated members, and voted upon. This would be a far more honest and responsible system than a party-based system. It wouldn't be immune to corruption...but it would be far less prone to it. Most importantly of all, it would stop dividing the public into 2 hostile factions who detest each other! And that is the major problem with your present system...it is based on hostile divisions. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I hear Americans endlessly fighting their usual partisan battles and I think, "Yeah, right. It's like listening to people on the Titanic bitching about how to arrange the deck chairs, while the ship plows on steadily toward the iceberg." We have the same problem in Canada. The political parties themselves have ruined our democracy and turned it into an unrepresentative joke that is held in contempt by the vast majority of the voters. |
|
18 Oct 10 - 11:51 AM (#3009872) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Bobert: "You want the government to go out and bust pot smokers and protitutes" You can knock it off with the I sad bullshit Bobert. If somebody did that to you you would be yelling BIGASS LIE. If you want to claim I said or I want something, quote me. Again let's go by facts. Bobert: "Sawz don't do reality" Bobert: "That's what Obama did... He bought a "beater", refurbrished it the best he could and over a hundred people been flyin' on that sumabich ever since" Not your kind of reality Bobert. |
|
18 Oct 10 - 12:46 PM (#3009910) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Leased/bought??? Who cares, Sawz??? Bottom line, it was a used plane... I really don't get yer fascination with this??? As fir pot and prostitution??? Hey,s if you think both should be legal then my apologies... If not, then you think the mean ol' gov-mint should be engaged in enforcing prohibition laws... One or the other... B~ |
|
18 Oct 10 - 12:59 PM (#3009917) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Try to stop seeing each other as the classic "liberal" or "conservative" cultural stereotype that bounces around in your imagination, and you'll do much better at communicating clearly with one another... ;-) |
|
18 Oct 10 - 02:48 PM (#3010009) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Anybody who brags on their accuracy should care if what the said was right or wrong. Anybody except a blowhard that is. "no brag just fact" Yer doin' a heckuva job keeping the location of the Lake Pontchartrain Dam hidden from those terrorists that want to blow it up though. "if you think both should be legal then my apologies" Again, I never said anything about what should be. Keep on saying what I want or what I said without quoting me. I can play the same game if you want. You keep slipping farther away from reality. I try to find something I agree with in what you say and I say so when I can find it. However you do the opposite. Apparently think that disagreements are better and more constructive than agreements. |
|
18 Oct 10 - 05:39 PM (#3010115) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert You are projecting again, Swaz... I mean, when you get bored you find threads that have long been gone, resurrect them with new and im unimproved Saws-attacks on me... Hey, I'm a counterpuncher... You don't punch at me and you won't get punched back... Pure and simple... Until you quit yer little ballgame then expect incoming 'cause I ain't gonna take yer crap and not fire back... And, LH... You ain't this all knowin', all seein' innocent bystanding sayer of wisdom... You don't mind gettin' on that both side's horse and riding it... Problem is that there are times when standing on the sidelines ain't the right thing to do... Like in Germany in the 30's... I mean, what we have here ain't about Dems and Repubs as much as the wholesale theft of the American democracy... Yeah, in this election that means that money is going to the Repubs in amounts that have never been seen... maybe you think all is fair in love, war and politics and choose not to stand up and say, "Man, this is fucked up... The Repubs have a news network that blairs Repub propaganda 24/7 that is very much not how he "public'airwaves were ever intended to ne used... You have a Supreme Courth that has decided that corporations are no entities but people and are throwing hundreds of millions diollars secretly attacking every Democrat in the country and then you have the RNC... The Dems have the DNC and maybe $10M for labor unions... I mean, given that the candidate that spend the most wins 90% of elections it is wrong for anyone to say "Both sides are guilty and should play nice"... I mean, there are times to sit on the sidelines... This ain't one of them... I don't give a rat's ass if you don't like Dems or Repub or whoever... We have a seriouasly flawed system of financing elections and it has come down to one side getting so much corporate cash that is isn't really an election anymore... It is a purchase... There hasn't been anything like this since maybe the 1890s when the robber barons tried to buy the government... Looks like this time they are going to pull it off... B~ B~ |
|
18 Oct 10 - 06:00 PM (#3010133) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Sounds to me like you are just clinging negative emtions, searching high and low for something to fight about with Sawzaw (or someone else on the "right"), Bobert, and you are miffed that I'm attempting to be a peacemaker. I am NOT evenly balanced between Right and Left. I'm very much to the Left, as you know, and I do NOT stand on the sidelines, I speak out, but that doesn't stop me from recoginizing some good points that I may share in common with ANY person I'm talking to, regardless of what side of the political line they are on. (I share a great deal in common with you, and less with Sawzaw...but still a goodly amount.) I can see the good in other people whom I disagree with, but you get annoyed when I point it out. Well, I can take that, cos they got mad at Gandhi and Martin Luther King over that too! ;-) And they got mad at Jesus, because he loved EVERYONE! Your experience of love and respect starts with you, Bobert. Just like it starts with me or anyone else. If you wait for the rest of the world to change first and wait for them to extend the first kindness and understanding to you, you might wait for a loooooong time, brother. They might be just as stubborn as you are about it. You might wait forever. I agree wholeheartedly with your final comments about corrupt election financing. Yes, that is the problem. The elections are bought and paid for in advance for by the richest in the land...and that goes for sure regardless of whether it's a Democrat or a Republican who gets elected. Both those parties are bought and paid for, as are all our Canadian political parties...by the richest in the land. |
|
18 Oct 10 - 06:04 PM (#3010136) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: beardedbruce LH, You mean that Canada has the same level of government that the US has- The best than money can buy? |
|
18 Oct 10 - 06:12 PM (#3010139) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Absolutely!!! ;-D Only we have 5 parties to play with up here, which is more fun in some ways, and it spreads the hostility around more ways too, which means we're under less stress over it. The worst possible setup for national stress (short of a dictatorship) is a 2-way party split right down the middle. |
|
18 Oct 10 - 06:50 PM (#3010167) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert This has nuthin' to do with Swaz. LH... Heck, he has staslked me from one website to another... He has quoted stuff that I have said on other websites... That is called cyber-stalkin... I mean, this is about policies... I believe that government best represents the interetss of the working class... Right now, the Dems seem to be the only party that has any interest in trying to creat a levl playing field... The Repubs are 100% in Boss Hog's pocket... They have resisted every concievable piece of legioslation that would benefit the working class and are trying to overturn the largest step forward for the working class since Medicare in trying to undo a bill that would deal with 50 million people without health insurance... Is it the best bill??? No... Will it help our country become more competitive and lower health costs??? Yes... That is a policy... Now Obama finally has done something that Bush never did in 8 years and that is lower the annual deficit... He should be applauded by all... But the Sawz think that using the vast cash that the right has to twist and distort is the way to go rather than say, "nice start"... That is policy... Hey, I don't give a rat's ass if it's bb or pdq or Kent ot Sawz... I don't give a rat's ass if a Dem, a Repub, a Bull Mooser does something right they are going to get credit from me for doing it... This year is the year of the lie and the Repubs have mastered it... You should hear the nightly baombardment of Dems on the TV paid for by who knows... Major attacks, too... And 100% lies... Am I angry??? Were the folks angry when the Nazis came for their friends... Heck yeah, I am... The Republican Supreme Court has been involved in the hteft of one elcetion and just so they won't have to be caught in that trick-bag again they have become legislators and opened up a clear path for the corpoartions to own every Congressman or woman out there... This has nuthin' to do with Sawz... Might of fact, I don't give art's as about Sawz... Or the other corportists here except beardedbruce who is my friend... It's all about telling the truth, trying to dispell the myth and the misonformation that Boss Hog is propagating and hoefully gettiong folks to see that it is about policies... If we can't discuss policies then we are indeed lost but Sawz won't do that... He will bring up stupid stuff that I said on another website 5 years ago rather than to get into a policy discussion... Fuck Sawz... In spite of what you think or he thinks, it ain't about either of you... Its about how we create a more just nation where rednecks don't teach their kids to harrass other kids who are different, where people have a right to the "pursuit of happiness' and where the corpoarte pigs don't win 100% of the time... Yes, I'm pissed... I would have been pissed had I been a German in 1933 and my favorite art teacher was fired because he was a Jew... These aren't times for sitting in the middle contemplating rocks... B~ It's about |
|
18 Oct 10 - 07:29 PM (#3010191) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert BTW, that last reference about my favorite art teacher being fired for being a Jew was in reference to one of my favorite painters, Paul Klee, who was indeed fired for being a Jew... B~ |
|
18 Oct 10 - 07:31 PM (#3010192) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert BTW, again... Both Dr. King and Ghandi knew when it was time to step up to the plate... B~ |
|
18 Oct 10 - 10:41 PM (#3010296) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk What exactly would you like me to do, Bobert? ;-) (Keep in mind that I live in Canada, I am happy to be here, and I have no intention of moving back to the USA...I was living there once for ten years, don't wish to return there again!) Whatever it is you would like me to do, though, keep in mind that I do not do what other people want me to do, I do exactly what I want to do. But I'm just curious if you had something you'd rather I was doing, so I thought I'd ask what the heck it was... I do realize that you are facing a lot of totally aggravating shit down there during this Congressional election, and I sympathize, believe me. I also empathize. It's a pity your election campaigns aren't limited, as ours are, to only a 6 week period (if I remember right...I think it's 6 weeks). There's a lot less time here for the unscrupulous in political parties to promote hatred and engage in dirty politics, cos our campaigns are so much shorter in duration than the American campaigns, and that's regulated by Canadian law. Sawzaw is stalking me too, by the way...on just one specific issue. He keeps pretending that I am representing the whole nation of Canada when I speak and being some kind of official spokesman and defender for it. I'm not. ;-D I represent me, period. My opinions are not the offical or unofficial views of Canada, they are the private personal opinions of me. I regard the Canadian government as a big disappointment and an embarrassment, frankly...but it could be worse!!! Way worse. So I count my blessings that it isn't. |
|
19 Oct 10 - 02:04 AM (#3010337) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Hey LH, When ever you get up on your high horse about how much better Canada is better than the US, I remind you about the things you keep forgetting. It seems to me that you are representing Canada with your comparisons. Would you like it if I kept bringing up how Canada is inferior to the US in some respect? I have complimented the things I consider better in Canada. I have agreed with you whenever possible. I have been through Canada to Alaska and back. I have been all around Nova Scotia and the Canadian side of the great lakes Gaspe, Toronto, Monteral Quebec. I would like to go all the way to Inuvik and Moose Factory one day. If you want to claim I am stalking you go ahead. If I go back and find where you have claimed Canada to be superior in some aspect I guess you think that is stalking. To me it is showing someone how wrong they are. At least you don't hurl personal insults at me like Bobert does. I say when I agree with Bobert. I say when Bobert is wrong and how he is wrong and present the facts. He lights up stink bombs like "redn**ks are disgusting little hypocrits" and dares anybody to prove him wrong. Then when someone proves him wrong he gets into an ad hominem attack mode rather than to counter with anything factual. I am not a tribalist. I see the right and wrong things in everybody. I go by facts and things that exist. Reality. Not facts based on scenarios about Cartoon characters or dead actors or movie fiction. Is that a problem? I originally came here looking for lyrics for songs to sing around the campfire and I noticed all this crap about Bush is Hitler which drew me in. I state my opinion and am immediately attacked as being a Bush supporter. A hated individual. Every time I criticize Bush it is ignored. People here just have an agenda and they do not want to hear anything from anybody that disagrees. That is not the way society works. It is the way that society does not work. It is the way society breaks down into "us or them" "there is no wat we are ever going to get along with them so will will just have to fight and overpower them. |
|
19 Oct 10 - 02:21 AM (#3010341) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw For some reason my last post was cut off: That is not the way society works. It is the way that society does not work. It is the way society breaks down into "us or them" "there is no way we are ever going to get along with them so we will just have to fight and overpower them". Muslims and Jews? Hutu and Tutsi? Bloods and Crips? Everybody can see what senseless conflicts those are but they continue to practice the same thing It is sad that people have forgotten how to get along when we all want basically the same things. We just disagree on how to achieve them. |
|
19 Oct 10 - 09:37 AM (#3010586) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Well said, Sawzaw. ;-) You have explained yourself well. Okay, I won't accuse you of stalking me. There are certain good points and bad points about all countries, I think. Well.....most of them! Anyway, both Canada and the USA have certain better points than the other in certain respects. I just sort of freewheel around and comment on what I see happening, so if there's some comparative point I see, then I mention it, and that's really all there is to it. I think, for example, that the American elected Senate is a better idea than the Canadian appointed Senate, because the people should have a say about who gets to be a senator and whether he or she remains one! As it is now, the Canadian political party that is in power just gets to practice patronage by appointing a few new senators who will back THAT party in future votes against the other parties. That's not good. The American system is way better when it comes to that. Another thing that the USA has going for it is a certain kind of brash adventurous spirit that charges out and takes things on. That can be good, provided it's aimed at a worthwhile target. Canadians tend to be less proactive in that sense, so that's another good point for the USA. |
|
19 Oct 10 - 09:38 AM (#3010587) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: GUEST,999 I spent two months in Inuvik one week. The ONE good thing I can and will say about Bush is that he's been quiet about the present administration. I don't hate Bush. I feel he was manipulated. Companies got rich from kids getting killed in Iraq--an ill-defined war the parameters of which the world public has never been informed. The present US debt was caused mostly by that war, and little seems to have changed. People who don't like Obama might wish to cut him a bit of slack. He got stuck with the debt just as surely as did most people. Interesting that Halliburton is still going strong, but wtf. To put some perspective on Canada vs United States: I received this email from a friend this morning and thought y'all might enjoy it. "STEPHEN HARPER was visiting an Ontario primary school and the class was in the middle of a discussion related to words and their meanings. The teacher asked Mr. Harper if he would like to lead the discussion on the word 'Tragedy'. So our illustrious leader asked the class for an example of a 'Tragedy'. A little boy stood up and offered: If my best friend, who lives on a farm, is playin' in the field and a tractor runs over him and kills him, that would be a tragedy. Incorrect,said Harper. That would be an accident. A little girl raised her hand: If a school bus carrying fifty children drove over a cliff, killing everybody inside, that would be a tragedy. 'I'm afraid not',explained Harper, that's what we would refer to as a great loss'' The room went silent. No other children volunteered. Harper searched the room. Isn't there someone here who can give me an example of a tragedy? Finally, at the back of the room, little Jo hnny raised his hand and said: If a plane carrying you and Mr. Ignatieff and Mr. Layton and Mr. Duceppe and yourself were struck by a 'friendly fire' missile & blown to smithereens, that would be a tragedy. Fantastic, exclaimed Harper, and can you tell me why that would be a tragedy? Well, said Johnny, it has to be a tragedy, because it certainly wouldn't be a great loss, and it probably wouldn't be a fu**ing accident either!" As a btw, I too have travelled extensively in both the US and Canada. The political map is all wrong. North America is north-south in both a geographical sense and an economic sense. That said, y'all go back to cheering for whatever. I agree with Will: ALL politics is apple sauce. Have a nice day. |
|
19 Oct 10 - 10:00 AM (#3010606) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk LOL!!!!!!!!! Great Canadian political joke! For Americans who might not get it: Stephen Harper is the present prime minister of Canada. Ignatieff, Duceppe, and Layton are the leaders of 3 other political parties in Canada. The general public is quite annoyed with all of them most of the time, because they do not serve the general public, they serve a bunch of special interests. ;-D |
|
19 Oct 10 - 10:03 AM (#3010609) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert "Facts", sawz... You wouldn't know them if they bit you on yer ass... No, you don't present "facts"... You present what some rightwinged blogger's so-called facts... It ios a fact that the Obama administartion cut the annual deficit by $100B... Even a very right winged newspaper reported it but rather than give credit you plug into the twisted version that the Republican Party wants you to ***believe***??? And, so, belive you do... I mean, when it comes to sound policy you take the mythological side over and over and over, Sawz... Continuing tax cut to wealthy produces jobs??? No, it won't... Cutting taxes is the way to fight the deficit??? No, it isn't... The list goes on and on where you take the uneducated mythological side??? Facts??? But when this is pointed out to you you find menaingless stuff like what kind of gun it was that Donnie Rumsfeld gave Saddam or what kind of plane Obama used... Who cares??? The country is sufferring the effects of 30 years of a bad economic idea and has brought US to crisis... That is the real issue... Not sideshow BS... You are just playing games to try to keep the real discussions from occuring... But then again that is the entire Republican strategy to get back in power... Blame Obama for ya'll's messes... And when that is brought to yer attention it's sideshow time om ya'lls part... Normal... B~ B~ |
|
19 Oct 10 - 10:35 AM (#3010648) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp "Facts - You wouldn't know them if they bit you on yer ass" Oh, yeah...what a great way to start a conversation! That's just guaranteed to get things off on the right foot! ;-D Yer a real dimplomat, Bobertz. You oughta come to Chi-town and talk to the local gorillas like that, you'd never have a dull day! No siree. You lookin' for some real aggravation, man? You want some in-yer-face arguin'? Well, I got a little free time next week, see? I'll bring down a set of brass knuckles and a baseball bat and we can talk "politics" all day, bust up the furniture, knock out a few teeth, give the P-vine somethin' to really get ticked off about, and maybe get you kicked out of the house fer a month or so. Ha! Then you and me can go down to the local boozery, kick some redneck ass, and drown our sorrows in cheap hooch till the cows come home. If the cops show up, I'll just flash my badge. No problemo. Can you take noogies, man? I deliver fierce noogies when I put a guy in a headlock, but I bet you can take 'em. Rock on, Roscoe. I'll see you soon, okay? - Chongo |
|
19 Oct 10 - 11:48 AM (#3010729) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: GUEST,999 Here ya go, Chongo. Just received this one from another friend. "HEAVEN AND HELL While walking down the street one day a Corrupt Senator was tragically hit by a car and died. His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance. "Welcome to heaven," says St. Peter. "Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we're not sure what to do with you." "No problem, just let me in," says the Senator. "Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from the higher ups. What we'll do is have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity." "Really?, I've made up my mind. I want to be in heaven," says the Senator. "I'm sorry, but we have our rules." And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him. Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people. They played a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and the finest champagne. Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly guy who is having a good time dancing and telling jokes. They are all having such a good time that before the Senator realizes it, it is time to go. Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises. The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens in heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him, "Now it's time to visit heaven...��� So, 24 hours passed with the Senator joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns. "Well, then, you've spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now choose your eternity." The Senator reflects for a minute, then he answers: "Well, I would never have said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in hell." So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell... Now the doors of the elevator open and he's in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage. He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls from above The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulders. "I don't understand," stammers the Senator. "Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now there's just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable. What happened?" The devil smiles at him and says, "Yesterday we were campaigning, Today, you voted.." Vote wisely." |
|
19 Oct 10 - 12:16 PM (#3010759) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk That is an excellent parable for our times. |
|
19 Oct 10 - 12:56 PM (#3010794) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Well, come on down, Chongz... As for the local redneck joints??? They purdy pitiful... These rednecks 'round here ain't hardly worth kickin' on but... ... maybe me an you can go a couple rounds before retiring to the trailer fir some weed, whites and wine... Maybe invite some of my hillbilly friends over... Sorry, but they ain't got too much redneck in 'um and ain't into fightin'... But they fun to party with even if they don't know the joys that come with bustin' up yer knuckles on someone who is willin to return the favor... Yeah, hillbillies just missed that day in school... B;~) |
|
19 Oct 10 - 02:51 PM (#3010871) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp Sounds like a fun way to spend the day, Bobertz. I'll take a trip down there soon as I clear up a little problem here in Chi-town with a coupla gorillas that are too stupid to take "no" for an answer. Shouldn't take too long. - Chongo |
|
19 Oct 10 - 03:09 PM (#3010880) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Careful, Chongo. You DON'T want to mess with the Democratic Machine in Chi town- they still have a number of "shovel-ready" projects you could be a part of... |
|
19 Oct 10 - 03:25 PM (#3010898) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp No kiddin'. I know all about it. - Chongo |
|
19 Oct 10 - 04:16 PM (#3010936) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Cool, Chongz... I was just gettin' me a case of autumnal depression and this chears me up... But leave them shovels behind... Brass knuckles okay but hittin' folks with shovels is rude... B~ |
|
19 Oct 10 - 05:53 PM (#3011013) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp Yeah, okay. I would not want to be accused of bein' rude. Now, I had an idea here. For unpoplar views of the Obama Administration, y' know? What I figger we should do is interview all the maples, oaks, cedars, birches, chestnut trees, fir trees, redwoods, and all them other trees that don't get no mention in the poplar press. About time the other trees had their say. We have heard plenty enough from the damned poplars by now. They are just a splinter group anyways, and their bark is way worse than their bite. - Chongo |
|
19 Oct 10 - 06:27 PM (#3011039) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert I donno about maples, Chongz... I mean, you look at a 6 foot tall maple and what you don't see is that that 6 foot tall tree allready has a root system that goes out 15 feet in all directions... You know, kinda hoggin' all the water from everything else... I kinda think that trees should share but the maple, like Boss Hog, ain't interested in sharin'... Now the cedar is 180 degress from the maples... It has a nice tap root and not much fiberous stuff so it's kinda thinkin' green and not trying to leave too muc of a carbon or root footprint... Yeah, tell ya' what, I'll interview the cedar... Heck I got a couple three of them right here on the farm and we're real tight so reckon thet ain't gonna try to BS me... BTW, I donno about ineteviewing but one redwood 'casue ya' know what Spiro T told us abpout 'um, "ya see one and you seen 'um all" so I reckon that means that they all gonna stick to one story... But poplras suck anyway... They are weed trees... No, not that kinda weed... B~ |
|
19 Oct 10 - 07:31 PM (#3011087) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert But nevermind that stuff... This is about unpopular views of Obama which the corporate media seems to have down pat... I mean, even Obama reducing the annual budget deficit by $100B got headlines in the Charlotte Observer that were negative against Obama... They read something like this... "Debt Plagues Obama, Repubs Pounce"... Now if you were to compare the headlines with the story you'd have to go, Huh?" so I guess that having the annual budget deficit fall by $100B must not have been to popular with the corporate media... Maybe they would have been happier if the deficit went up, I donno??? Couple weeks ago when the Dems were closing the gap in the polls the "liberal' (ha) Washington Post did about the same thing with the headline which went kinda like this: "Repubs Still Zeroing in on Taking Back the House"... Huh??? The rest of the story was about the dems closing to within 4% points... Why not, "Dems Closing Gap"??? That is why this election cyle is so frustration... I mean, Obama could find a cure for cancer tomorrow and the headlines would read, "Obama Trying to Put Doctors Out of Work"... So, it seems that the only folks who are going to find good news welcoming when it comes to Obama are just folks who go stright to page 17 in the newspapers where some truth can be found... B~ |
|
19 Oct 10 - 07:40 PM (#3011100) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: GUEST,999 "That is why this election cyle is so frustration... I mean, Obama could find a cure for cancer tomorrow and the headlines would read, "Obama Trying to Put Doctors Out of Work"..." Brilliant, Bobert. Couldn't have been put better. |
|
19 Oct 10 - 07:51 PM (#3011116) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: pdq "...Obama reducing the annual budget deficit by $100B got headlines in the Charlotte Observer that were negative against Obama..." One could get a headache trying to expalin the difference between "budget deficit", "public debt", "intergovernmental debt", "budget items", "off-budget items" and the "National Debt", but here is a fact: The National Debt has gone up by 3 trillion dollars in the last two years and finding some way to say that Obama has reduced it is just plain horsepuckey. |
|
19 Oct 10 - 10:21 PM (#3011193) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: GUEST,999 ". . . is just plain horsepuckey." Doug, is that YOU? |
|
19 Oct 10 - 10:43 PM (#3011198) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: pdq CBS News is hardly a source of Republican-biased reporting, so here is their take on the... Obama's 3 trillion dollar deficit |
|
19 Oct 10 - 10:44 PM (#3011199) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert No, pdq, only righties get a headache figuring out exactly what an annual deficit of surplus means... It's the easiest of all of them because all it is is like yer check book: debits and credits... In other words: Revenuse - expenditure... But then their is the national debt which is "carried over" mush like a small business might carry a debt over... That get's real tricky because the bonds that the government has sold come due with various rates of interest and so there is this constant influx of new cash coming in to buy new bonds or notes and another steady stream of cash goin' back out... So, yeah, the national debt can go up becaause of these factors in a year where the government reduced the debt from the prvious year' debt but in the long run... ...we do need to get a grip on debt... I give Obama credit for reducing the annual deficit... Esecially in these times of less revenues coming into the government and increased costs of unemployement... Hey, I really wouldn't care if the anti-Oama folks didn't get up and cheer but a begrudging, "Ya got lucky" would at least acknowledge the facts on the ground... B~ |
|
20 Oct 10 - 01:08 AM (#3011230) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Actually, Bobert, the medical profession is (in my opinion) absolutely terrified that someone might find a real cure to cancer, and they would move heaven and Earth to prevent that from happening, because THINK of the money they would lose! There already are (in my opinion) real cures out there for cancer, and they don't involve radiation, chemotherapy or surgery. They don't involve drugs either. You ain't gonna hear a peep about any of them from mainstream medicine, except for various attacks upon anyone proposing such cures. So you're darned right that if Obama found a cure for cancer, they would attack him for it. You betcha. They'd destroy him if he dared to do such a thing, because it would threaten a multi-billion dollar racket that is presently being practiced by the MDs and the drug companies and the AMA. They will one day be seen the way the medieval doctors who bled everybody are now seen....as quacks. In my opinion. I am glad I am not in Mr Obama's shoes. |
|
20 Oct 10 - 01:31 AM (#3011233) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: DougR No, Guest 999, that's not me. I guess it's a copy cat. Bobert: I think it's hilarous that you are trying to convince folks that Obama is a deficit hawk. The only thing that would be more unbelievable would be if you believed it. The only consolation defenders of the Obama administration might have is; they brought it on themselves. Can't blame Bush for it. DougR |
|
20 Oct 10 - 09:18 AM (#3011401) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert I don't know why you would find it "hiaroius", Dougie, seein' as Obama has just done with his 1st budget as president what George Bush was able to do in any year of his administration... That might not make Obama a "deficit hawk" but it seems if we look at those folks out there who define themselves as deficit hawks all we are seeing is chin music and no action... In other words, it's one thing to talk the talk but quite another to walk the walk... Right now yer side is hopelessly stuck in the talk stage of the deal... B~ BTW, LH... You absolutely correct about a cure for cancer... The health-care/industrial complex is quite dependent on cancer... The bills for my late wife Judy's treatment were almost $400,000... That's on shit load of cash... |
|
20 Oct 10 - 09:27 AM (#3011406) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk That's incredible, Bobert! In Canada the treatment would have been free...no charge to you....but the Canadian medical establishment would still make all that money, of course, they would just draw it from the collective tax pool, because the government would pay them. Be that as it may, the load is tremendously easier on the individual citizen that way, because the cost gets spread around evenly among 22 million people, and we aren't all sick at the same time!!! Thus it costs me WAY less a year to have full medical coverage through public health insurance than it costs the average American to get it through buying private health insurance. Americans spend MORE per capita on health costs than citizen of any other nation in the world....17% of the whole yearly budget!, and yet, the USA ranks 37th in health care among the nations of the world. You never hear an American politician say "peep" about it, except for Dennis Kucinich. They'd rather perpetuate the popular myth that the USA has the best health care in the world...and the best everything else too, of course. And people believe it!!!!!! All that proves is that if a lie is told often enough, as the Nazis discovered, it will be believed by nine of out ten citizens. |
|
20 Oct 10 - 09:32 AM (#3011411) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Greg F. Now, there ya go again, Bobert- as Senile Ronnie used to say- trying to change Douggie's mind with facts. In the throes of his regular delusions, he wouldn't recognize a fact if it reared up on its hind legs and bit him on the ass. |
|
20 Oct 10 - 12:57 PM (#3011595) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: pdq "...the USA ranks 37th in health care among the nations of the world..." That is an opinion, not a fact. I'm sure Abu Dabi has the finest health care in the world because they have enough oil money they could divide it evenly and every citizen would be a multi-millionaire. |
|
20 Oct 10 - 02:43 PM (#3011671) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw "I won't accuse you of stalking me." LH: If my question about prostitution bothered you, it was not personal, just designed to hit home. I was just trying to point out that there are limits to freedoms. You are quite obviously a Libertarian which is fine. But there are limits even for libertarians just like there are limits on Government, how fast you can drive, how much taxes you can pay. |
|
20 Oct 10 - 02:49 PM (#3011674) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Yoo Hoo Little Hawk. I thought you were not speaking for Canada. Why are people smuggled out of Canada to the US for medical treatment if everything is free and easy? |
|
20 Oct 10 - 03:20 PM (#3011692) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk People go both ways across that border for medical treatment that they can't get at home, Sawzaw. They go to the USA from Canada and to Canada from the USA. They also go to Mexico, France, and Cuba to get treatments they can't get in Canada or the USA. All these people have their own specific reasons for seeking treatment in some other country, those reasons may be good ones, and each one has a unique story. If you wish to find out all the reasons involved, you will have to speak to those individuals, not to me. The only part I can tell you about is my part, which is: In Canada I can get full medical treatment from a doctor or a hospital at no additional cost, and I pay quite a modest sum in my yearly taxes for that privilege, so I happily choose Canada over the USA when it comes to that. I can't get absolutely anything here, but I can certainly get most of the things I need, at a cost I can easily afford. As I've pointed out before, I will compliment the USA on what the USA does well, just as I will compliment Canada on what Canada does well. I am not speaking for Canada, I'm simply observing what's happening around me. Both countries do certain things very well. Both countries do certain things not so well. Canada is also far down the list for medical treatment in the world. I think we are at number 35 or around there. France is number 1. I'm well aware that there are limits on freedoms, and I would not describe myself as a Libertarian, because I most certainly do not believe that "the least government" is necessarily "the best government". The necessary limits on freedoms in any society are the limits set to prevent people from harming others and/or harming the property of others. Those limits would apply to behaviours such as: assault slander fraud murder rape theft dangerous driving property destruction kidnapping arson vandalism slavery etc... I am entirely in favor of a government limiting people's freedom to commit such harmful and offensive acts. Any society places some necessary limits on freedom, and that suits me fine. |
|
20 Oct 10 - 04:46 PM (#3011761) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Yer figure is off, LH... We are spending way more that 17% of our budget on health care.... It's 17% of our entire Gross National Product!!! This is one reson why the US is no longer competetive with it's industrialized countyerparts... B~ |
|
20 Oct 10 - 05:08 PM (#3011785) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Yes, you are right, Bobert. I used the wrong terminology. It is pretty astounding that the country which spends the largest percentage of its yearly budget in the entire world, 17% on health care!, ranks 37th in the quality of health care given. What that indicates is that there's something terribly wrong with that health care system and that your public is being ripped off. Here is a color chart which shows at a glance the comparative level of quality of health care in nations across the world: quality of health care around the globe It ranges from the best (dark blue) to the worst (red). As can easily be seen, France, Spain, Italy, Austria, Greece, Saudi Arabia (surprise!), and Japan have the best health care. The worst are mostly countries in southern Africa (no surprise there). The USA is about at the same level as much of Latin America, although Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, and Cuba are all somewhat better, as is Canada. |
|
20 Oct 10 - 05:10 PM (#3011786) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Excuse me....not "yearly budget"...GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT. |
|
20 Oct 10 - 05:34 PM (#3011807) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Yeah, and that is a lot of money... Ike might have warned US of the militray/industrail complex but the health-care/industrial complex makes the militarty/industrial complex folks look like kids scamblin' for crumbs... And yer right... For what??? Crappy health care??? The righties will come along and say, " Obamacare this, Obamacare that"... That just a bunch of crybabies who rmember well what Gingrich told his buddies back in the 90s and that is if the Dems get health care reform into place that the Repubs would suffer for years... Well, it's not in place yet and we expect the Repubs to try to sabatouge it in any way they can but Gingrich's warnings still hold true... When we are insuring everyone and costs come down Obama is going to look the Dems are going be seen as heros... (But, Boberdz... It going to bankrupt the government...) No, it isn't... The cost of the program for 10 years is less than half of the pile of cast that Wall Street has just sitting collecting dust... B~ |
|
21 Oct 10 - 12:18 AM (#3011988) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw "The USA ranks 37th in health care among the nations of the world" Canadian official Danny Williams opted to have his heart surgery in the U.S. instead of in his homeland Williams, premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, apparently needed surgery on a leaky heart valve, a problem discovered when doctors detected a heart murmur. According to news accounts, he chose to have the surgery done in Florida, where he could take advantage of a minimally invasive through-the-armpit procedure that promised to leave no scar on his chest and would allow for a speedier recovery |
|
21 Oct 10 - 08:21 AM (#3012117) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Not even in the Top 20 in infant mortality... I mean, lets get real here... Our health care sysytem is way too expensive and, unless we are part of the upper 5%, then it get rationed out to the rest of US... Dick Cheney wake up feelin' poor and he get's eeen... Me??? Call the doctor and it's maybe next week unless I want to sit in the waiting romm of the emergency room for 6 hours to be seen and every possibly misdiagnosed... Been there and done that and the Tee-shirt reads "6 hours in ER and I'm sicker now"... B~ |
|
21 Oct 10 - 10:19 AM (#3012189) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk As I told you, Sawzaw, we have Americans who come up to Canada for medical aid too. And they also go to France, Mexico, Cuba, Italy, all over the place for medical help they can't possibly get in the USA. But you'll never hear about any of those people on your media, because your media are in denial just like the rest of you seem to be, and their main job is dispensing false propaganda to keep you that way. There's a multi-billion dollar medical industry lobby group in your country that desperately seeks out the very, very few Canadians they can find who go to the USA for medical help and they publicize those few cases in your media....and they probably pay some of those Canadians a hefty bribe to give a testimonial about an incident like that one you posted. We don't do that in Canada because, frankly, we're not that insecure about our own situation that we feel we need to bribe anyone to prove to anyone else how good it is. But...we're still not near as good as France, Spain, Italy, Austria, Japan or Saudia Arabia...and I'm not a bit afraid to admit that. I KNOW Canada isn't number one in the medical field. Canadians face reality and aren't devastated by it. Americans seem unwilling to do that one simple thing, because they simply can't bear it, having been raised to believe they live in "the greatest country on Earth". Your country has a serious ego problem. It thinks it's "the best" at everything. It's not. Neither is any other country. We are all very good at some things, less good at other things. |
|
21 Oct 10 - 10:55 AM (#3012207) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Donuel Perhaps its only the imagined fear of the 2% wealthy and the .03% ultra wealthy but they are the only ones who are claiming CLASS WARFARE by Obama. Its been the FOX talking point for months now. The rest of us are either fighting to survive what is left of the economy after the successful robbery of the treasury by Bush Wall St. cronies, dealing with health care costs, foreclosures, robbed pensions or hunger. The right wing responds with abolish social security, abolish unemployment insurance, abolish minimum wage, abolish the Education Dept. and a host of other similar wonderful ideas. If there is any class warfare the rich apparently got in the first strike. It reminds me of the Bush doctrine of preventative war. For gods sake tell me why the rich felt it necessary to attack? You might say greed is the reason but they already had more money than god. You might say all the people on Wall St. , except a few ignored or fired whistle blowers, all felt that since everybody else was doing it (going along with preposterous schemes) it was OK. That is basicly the excuse that Germans used after WW2. |
|
21 Oct 10 - 11:02 AM (#3012214) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Donuel Remember the chants of we're number ONE! The US may still be near the bottom of math scores, infant mortality and a number of other measurments, but need I remind you America is STILL NUMBER ONE in other areas such as the NFL, Hedge Fund managers and NASCAR. |
|
21 Oct 10 - 11:45 AM (#3012250) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Yup. Number one at inflicting fatalities on Third World people too, I would think. Number one on toppling foreign governments through CIA-arranged and assisted coups. And number one in imprisoning their own citizens. Impressive! |
|
21 Oct 10 - 07:05 PM (#3012569) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Joe Gibbs is running Toyotas, Donuel... And, fir the record, the US is also in 1st place on inflicting deaths in non-3rd World countries... I mean, lets give credit where it is due... B~ |
|
21 Oct 10 - 11:19 PM (#3012721) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw LH: Why would anybody risk going to country with an inferior health care system when theirs is better? You want it both ways bub. Belinda Stronach seeks cancer care in US When Liberal MP Belinda Stronach needed a mastectomy and breast reconstruction following her breast cancer diagnosis earlier this year, she headed to California. |
|
21 Oct 10 - 11:35 PM (#3012729) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Bobert: "I mean, lets give credit where it is due..." Here, his administration has saved millions of lives," Geldof wrote in Time Magazine as he accompanied Bush on an Africa trip last February. CAPE TOWN, South Africa — In her AIDS-scarred South African township, Sweetness Mzolisa leads a chorus of praise for George W. Bush that echoes to the deserts of Namibia, the hills of Rwanda and the villages of Ethiopia. Like countless Africans, Mzolisa looks forward to Barack Obama becoming America's first black president Jan 20. But — like countless Africans — Mzolisa says she will always be grateful to Bush for his war on AIDS, which has helped to treat more than 2 million Africans, support 10 million more, and revitalize the global fight against the disease. "It has done a lot for the people of South Africa, for the whole of the African continent," says Mzolisa, a feisty mother of seven. "It has changed so many people's lives, saved so many people's lives." Mzolisa, 44, was diagnosed with the AIDS virus in 1999 and formed a women's support group to "share the pain." In 2004 she received a U.S. grant to set up office in a shipping container and start a soup kitchen from the group's vegetable garden. She stretches her $10,000 in annual funding to train staff to look after bedridden AIDS victims, feed and clothe orphans, and do stigma-busting work at schools and taxi ranks. Hundreds of similar small grass-roots projects are being funded by the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, alongside higher-profile charities and big state clinics. Bush launched the $15 billion plan in 2003 to expand prevention, treatment and support programs in 15 hard-hit countries, 12 of them African, which account for more than half the world's estimated 33 million AIDS infections. The initiative tied in with a World Health Organization campaign to put 3 million people on AIDS drugs by 2005 — a goal it says was reached in 2007. Congress last year passed legislation more than tripling the budget to $48 billion over the next five years, with Republicans and Democrats alike hailing the program as a remarkable success. But the task remains enormous. More than 1.5 million Africans died in 2007 (the U.S. death toll is under 15,000), fewer than one-third had access to treatment, and new infections continued to outstrip those receiving life-prolonging drugs. In most African countries, life expectancy has dropped dramatically, and only a few, like Botswana, have started to turn the corner again. And with no end in sight to the global financial crisis, there are fears about whether all the funding approved by Congress will be delivered. There continue to be detractors who say the U.S. administration should have channeled the money through the U.N.; that it has placed too much emphasis on faith-based groups and abstinence; that it has trampled on women's health by shunning anything associated with abortions; that it has concentrated on AIDS treatment at the expense of prevention; and that it has diverted attention away from bigger killers like pneumonia and diarrhea. Helen Epstein, an AIDS expert who has consulted for the U.N. and the World Bank, says both the U.N. and PEPFAR have failed disastrously on prevention by preaching abstinence until marriage and failing to recognize that in some African cultures it is the norm to have several simultaneous long-term relationships. Critics say money could be better spent She says the money would be better spent on strengthening African health care systems rather than focusing on a single disease. Johanna Hanefeld at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine says her research in Zambia indicated that the U.N. Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria was more effective in using HIV programs as a lever to improve health care and staff training, rather than scattering cash among many non-governmental groups, faith-based or other. PEPFAR ambassador Mark Dybul dismisses criticism that the funding is too narrowly focused. "In Africa you can't tackle development goals unless you tackle HIV/AIDS," he says, citing the devastation wreaked on professions like nursing and teaching. Besides PEPFAR, Bush has launched a five-year, $1.2 billion initiative to cut malaria deaths in 15 African nations by half. Dybul also says it is unfair to accuse the U.S. of overemphasizing abstinence because PEPFAR is a major supplier of condoms to the targeted African countries. For instance, PEPFAR figures show 60 million condoms going to Zambia, 40 million to Rwanda, 145 million to Ethiopia in the past five years. Some critics, like rockers-turned-advocates Bono and Bob Geldof, have become admirers. "The Bush regime has been divisive ... created bitterness — but not here in Africa. Here, his administration has saved millions of lives," Geldof wrote in Time Magazine as he accompanied Bush on an Africa trip last February. "The administration and Bush himself deserve a lot more credit than they received for getting this job done," says Josh Ruxin, assistant professor of public health at Columbia University. Desperately poor Rwanda, where Ruxin runs a health care project, now has more than 100 centers where people can receive AIDS testing, counseling and treatment, up from just two in 2002. "I am heartbroken overall by the Bush administration," Ruxin said in a telephone interview. "But from my perch here in Rwanda, it is impossible to deny the results and achievements of PEPFAR. Many Rwandans were made Republicans because this was the first administration that has taken an interest and done something here." Ruxin hopes Obama will learn lessons from PEPFAR's first five years — in particular to end the emphasis on abstinence and start funding groups who work with prostitutes and carry out abortions. PEPFAR's biggest single success story is the fortyfold increase in the number of Africans receiving life. |
|
22 Oct 10 - 10:44 AM (#3013018) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Great, Sawz... Bombs and bullets are a much more humane way of killing people than AIDS... Me thinks you need to run yer thinkerator thru the wash... Seems to be a tad on the gummed up side... B;~) |
|
22 Oct 10 - 01:22 PM (#3013118) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Sawzaw, an individual person goes to any country where there is a specific practitioner who they think they would like to go to. It isn't necessarily a question of the country...although it might be...more often it is a question of which specific doctor...or which specific treatment the person wishes to seek. You can't change the basic fact, already established by worldwide surveys which are well-documented, that the USA stands at about number 37 worldwide in quality of health care, Canada at about number 35, and France at number 1. Nevertheless there are going to be French citizens who decide to go to some other doctor in some other country, just as there are American and Canadian and British citizens who decide to go to some other doctor in some other country....and there are THOUSANDS of unique individual reasons why people make such decisions. To pick someone like Belinda Stronach to prove or disprove anything about basic health care in Canada and the USA is irrelevant. It has nothing to with anything except Belinda Stronach. You are the guy who wants to talk in all-or-nothing terms, but cherrypick some individual case to justify an entire position. That's not rational. Look at the entire picture instead of cherry-picking some individual case and pretending that that changes the entire picture. I don't want it "both ways"...I'm simply willing to study the entire picture rather than fixate on one detail that appears to support my argument and ignore the rest. It's like there's an elephant standing there, Sawzaw, and the elephant is obviously gray, and I'm saying "That elephant is large and he's gray." and you're pointing at a teeny little mole on the elephant's right flank and you're saying, "No, look! The elephant is tiny and he's dark brown!" ;-) Those 2 Canadian politicians you mentioned are 2 moles on the elephant's flank. Virtually everyone living in Canada likes our health system a lot better than the American one, and gets their health care here at far less cost, and it's just as good, if not better. You can't change that, but you can rave on about the mole on the elephant's flank if it makes you feel good. Belinda Stronach is also very, very rich. She could afford to get health care on the Moon if they had a clinic there, so I guess she'll go anywhere she wants, right? Maybe you'll hear about her going to Saudi Arabia one of these days if she hears about a doctor she likes there. Or Japan. Or France. Or Austria. Why not? It would be a fun trip, right? And if you can afford to go anywhere, you probably do. Hell, there's a doctor in Italy I'd love to see if I could afford to. He's an oncologist who doesn't believe in the conventional ways of treating cancer. I've read some stuff he wrote, and was I very impressed....so if I had need to, I'd probably go and see him....IF I could afford to. NOT because he's in Italy. Because it's him, period. I'd go to whichever country he was located in...if I could afford to. |
|
22 Oct 10 - 01:43 PM (#3013142) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw "And, fir the record, the US is also in 1st place on inflicting deaths in non-3rd World countries..." How come your record doesn't include lives saved by the US? You are fair and balanced aren't you? |
|
22 Oct 10 - 01:57 PM (#3013154) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw "and yet, the USA ranks 37th in health care among the nations of the world." If the ranking of a nation does not have any bearing on choosing a country for health care, Why do you bring it up? Evidently 36 nations that have better health care than the US. Maybe if you were in a country that was 68th, it would be justifiable to go higher up to the measly USA. Methinks your ranking comment displays a superior attitude. How many MRI machines per capita do they have in Canada? |
|
27 Oct 10 - 12:51 AM (#3016445) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Obama's Last-Ditch Strategy The Daily Beast - Tue Oct 26, 12:26 am ET Obama's Last-Ditch Strategy With the GOP riding high, the White House seeks solace in tight Senate races and the undecided vote. Richard Wolffe on Team Obama's final midterm moves and the wedge issues they'll push next year. Plus, midterm predictions from the Election Oracle. With one week left before the midterm elections, Obama's senior advisers can now see the contours of a landscape they all concede is vastly different from the one they traversed just two years ago. But the news, they insist, is not all bad. Despite widespread predictions of a Republican blowout, Obama's team claims that early voting data and the latest polling shows hills as well as valleys. "It's not consistent," said one senior Obama aide. "In places where we have a strong turnout operation, we'll do OK and better than expected. Pennsylvania, Ohio and even Illinois is improving. In other places, where the turnout operation is weak, we're in trouble." "Many of the House districts," the aide said, as a matter of fact. Sure enough, in Senate races across the country, the contests have grown closer in these final weeks. In Colorado, the recently appointed Senator Michael Bennet has closed a high single-digit deficit against Republican Ken Buck to turn the race into a technical dead heat. In Pennsylvania, Democrat Joe Sestak has done something similar to cut his deficit against Republican Pat Toomey. But elsewhere, the trend seems to be running in the other direction. In Obama's home state of Illinois, his friend Alexi Giannoulias is struggling to close a small but consistent gap against Republican Mark Kirk. That race, like so many others, remains well within the polls' margin of error. So it's no surprise that President Obama's final campaign swing next weekend takes in Philadelphia and Chicago. What's less expected: He's ending his tour in Cleveland, where Democrats hope a strong late showing by Governor Ted Strickland could help tip the balance in a handful of House races in a battleground state that continues to tilt toward the GOP. In searching for hopeful signs on a bleak horizon, Obama's team also points to surveys showing a huge portion of the voting population that remains undecided. According to a recent Associated Press poll, as many as one third of likely voters are undecided and say they could change their mind. Of those persuadable voters, 45 percent favor Republicans versus 38 percent who favor Democrats. Two years ago, just 14 percent of voters were undecided at this point, according to another Associated Press poll.... |
|
27 Oct 10 - 12:55 AM (#3016447) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Bobert: "Great, Sawz... Bombs and bullets are a much more humane way of killing people than AIDS..." ..and even more dangerous, and far more lethal, is Bobert on a riding lawnmower! GfS |
|
27 Oct 10 - 01:37 AM (#3016459) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: DougR Anybody going to a celebratory party on election night? DougR |
|
27 Oct 10 - 09:04 AM (#3016679) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Greg F. Good ol' Douggie- inane, puerile & irrelevant, as always. |
|
27 Oct 10 - 09:11 AM (#3016686) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert What, Dougie, are we going to be celebrating??? The predicted outcome of the Thomas/Alito/Robert's activist court ruling in "Citizen United"???? 90% of politican who spend the most $$$$ win... Duhhhhhhh.... $$$$ in = garbage out... B~ |
|
27 Oct 10 - 11:05 AM (#3016790) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: beardedbruce "$$$$ in = garbage out..." YES!! Just look at the 2008 election! |
|
27 Oct 10 - 11:51 AM (#3016825) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Democrats getting outspent? Not so fast By JEANNE CUMMINGS | 10/26/10 7:27 PM EDT Updated: 10/27/10 9:05 AM EDT To hear top Democrats tell it, the party is being wildly outgunned this year in the fight for campaign cash as Republicans rely on outside groups to funnel money to GOP contenders. But the numbers tell a different story. It's true that conservative third-party groups are outspending their Democratic rivals. But the Democrats still have a sizable cash advantage in their party committees – making this year's elections a lot more of a fair fight than Vice President Joe Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi let on. So far, the latest figures show that the Democratic Party machinery has outraised its Republican counterpart in this campaign cycle by almost $270 million. And even when outside spending on television advertising and direct mail is added to the mix, Republicans still haven't closed the gap. The money race totals come to $856 million for the Democratic committees and their aligned outside groups, compared to $677 for their Republican adversaries, based on figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. Included in that total: conservative groups have spent $169 million on ads attacking Democratic House and Senate candidates, compared to $80 million by liberal-leaning groups, based on figures as of Tuesday morning. Of course, plenty more will be spent in this final week of the campaign. The GOP-leaning outside groups have vowed to invest about $325 million this cycle, a sum that could be difficult to achieve with just seven days to go to Election Day. Liberal groups and unions also have pledged tens of millions of dollars more in spending. But the David-and-Goliath tone of some Democratic messaging hardly reflects the party's own financial strength and ability to defend itself, at least tactically. "When you look at the national party committees coupled with the state party committees, the Democrats are whopping the Republicans," said Dave Levinthal, a spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44216.html#ixzz13ZhZcvnW |
|
27 Oct 10 - 12:39 PM (#3016883) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Another bogus stat by one of our renouned bogas stats folks... How much "Citizens United" $$$, bruce??? I mean, there is perhaps more of that $$$ being spent on attack ads agaisnt Dems than the entire amount of $$$ being spent combined by the parties... That means one boat load of cash but guess what??? Ya' give up??? Clarence "nice tits" Thomas and Co. think that is peachy because almost all that cash is going to their boys... And it doesn't have to be reported... No one knows how much or where it is coming from and Repubs are eating up this new brand of democracy, which of course, is no more democratic than what we in the US think about when describing corrupt 3rd World dictatorships... Yeah, unlimited cash... Undisclosed cash... A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one... Maybe this is the kind of government you envison, bruce - you know, with foriegn countries being able to buy up seats in Congress - but it ain't what the Founding Fathers had in mind... B~ |
|
27 Oct 10 - 12:48 PM (#3016896) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: beardedbruce "And even when outside spending on television advertising and direct mail is added to the mix, Republicans still haven't closed the gap. The money race totals come to $856 million for the Democratic committees and their aligned outside groups, compared to $677 for their Republican adversaries, based on figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. Included in that total: conservative groups have spent $169 million on ads attacking Democratic House and Senate candidates, compared to $80 million by liberal-leaning groups, based on figures as of Tuesday morning. " TRY to read the post before making your comments, Bobert. |
|
27 Oct 10 - 01:01 PM (#3016920) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Another bogus stat by our renouned bogas stats guy: "The West Bank has the highest density of any place in the Middle East" Democrats Retain Edge in Campaign Spending New York Times October 26, 2010 Even with a recent surge in fund-raising for Republican candidates, Democratic candidates have outraised their opponents over all by more than 30 percent in the 109 House races The New York Times has identified as in play. And Democratic candidates have significantly outspent their Republican counterparts over the last few months in those contests, $119 million to $79 million. Republican-leaning third-party groups, however, many of them financed by large, unrestricted donations that are not publicly disclosed, have swarmed into the breach, pouring more than $60 million into competitive races since July, about 80 percent more than the Democratic-leaning groups have reported spending. As a result, the battle for control of the House has been increasingly shaping up as a test of whether a Democratic fund-raising edge, powered by the advantages of incumbency but accumulated in the smaller increments allowed by campaign finance law, can withstand the continuing deluge of spending by groups able to operate outside those limits, according to an analysis of political spending by The Times. It is difficult to provide an accurate, up-to-the-moment comparison that includes all three streams of campaign money — money spent by candidates, money spent by party committees and money spent by outside groups — because candidates have had to file financial reports that cover only up until mid-October. Moreover, certain types of so-called issue advertisements, which do not explicitly urge voters to cast their ballots one way or another but still attack or praise candidates ahead of the general election, had to be filed with the Federal Election Commission only beginning in September, or 60 days before voters go to the polls. While activities like television and radio advertisements and mass mailings are reported to the commission soon after they are purchased, other kinds of spending, like get-out-the-vote efforts, are not. In mid-October, however, based upon the campaign finance data available, Democrats actually had the spending advantage in about 60 percent of the 109 competitive House races and had invested, collectively, about 10 percent more money into the contests than Republican candidates and their aligned groups had over the previous few months. Those outside groups have proven crucial, though. Expenditures by Republican-oriented independent groups in carefully selected races have been financial difference-makers in dozens of cases, more than enough to help put the Republicans within striking distance of recapturing the majority, especially considering the political headwinds faced by Democrats. With the Democratic and Republican Congressional campaign committees essentially battling each other to a draw, Republican-leaning groups have used their financial heft to broaden the political map. Since July, they have put $100,000 or more into more than 80 percent of the races in play, many more than Democratic-leaning groups, who have invested $100,000 or more in about half of the competitive races. Only in the last two weeks or so have Democratic-oriented groups finally begun to come close to matching the spending of their counterparts on the right. But in many cases they appear to be playing defense, rushing to bolster Democratic candidates in races in which Republican outside groups had been swamping them.... |
|
27 Oct 10 - 02:03 PM (#3016987) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Greg F. Democrats getting outspent? Not so fast So how many dozen different threads do you inted to post the same lies and bullshit to, Brucie? Mud Elves take Note |
|
27 Oct 10 - 02:09 PM (#3016996) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity BeardedBruce: "TRY to read the post before making your comments, Bobert." You mean he either can't read or spell and write correctly???? So what is he supposed to do??...be a social worker????? (Wink to Bobert), GfS P.S....or is that just a co-incidence? |
|
27 Oct 10 - 02:11 PM (#3016998) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Once again, bruce... I did read your blog/op ed... Who cares??? It is bogus in that no one knows how much $$$ the "Citizen's United" folks have poured into the races... Not you, not yer buddy Clarence Thomas and maybe God ain't even keepin' track... That is reality here... Proclamations from you, Swaz or the entire right winged blabosphere doesn't change the reality that these people can spend as much as they like without diosclosure... B~ |
|
27 Oct 10 - 02:11 PM (#3017001) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Greg F. "-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert - PM Date: 27 Oct 10 - 09:11 AM What, Dougie, are we going to be celebrating??? The predicted outcome of the Thomas/Alito/Robert's activist court ruling in "Citizen United"???? 90% of politican who spend the most $$$$ win... Duhhhhhhh.... $$$$ in = garbage out... B~ " Sorry if I am trying to respond to Boabert's false statements with the facts. |
|
27 Oct 10 - 04:18 PM (#3017109) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Why does Bobert "hate" Clarence Thomas? |
|
27 Oct 10 - 05:09 PM (#3017153) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Greg F. Possibly because Uncle Thomas is the least qualified individual ever to hold a seat on the Supreme Court? Or because he's a sexual predator? Or because he's an idiot? |
|
27 Oct 10 - 05:37 PM (#3017172) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Or all three... Thomas is a mental midget who has an obsession with women's breasts... I mean, even the righties know deep down inside that Clarence "Can I touch 'um" Thomas ain't got a lot on the ball in terms of intellectual curiosity... He always just follows the righties in his votes... I don't belive he has ever broken... I mean, not once... That has to be a record fir a justice pushin' 20 years on the bench... In other words, he is a reliable "yes" man for the Republican Party... I mean, I think that the Supreme Court should have folks who can think for themselves... As for false statements, bb... Your proclamations that I have made false statements are just that: "your proclamations" and nuthin' else that has any sembelence to reality... I wonder sometimes if you even bother reading all of the news or just pick and choose who and what you want to read... You seem to have lots of, ahhhhhh, gaps in yer knowledge base... B~ |
|
27 Oct 10 - 05:51 PM (#3017183) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity 200...BTW (the circuit court of appeals just went against Arizona's law to provide proof of citizenship, to vote!.....This is America??? GfS |
|
27 Oct 10 - 06:35 PM (#3017225) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Well, yes it is if those laws are so restrictive as to be just hidden ways to supress certain voting populations... Virgina, where you can buy an assualt weapon with no background check, where you can drive away from having been convicted of ____ (fill in any number) of DUIs on a motor scooter without a license, without a helmit and without any insurance put people thru the hoops to get a Virginia drivers license... They make you send $35 to an outfit that "certifies" your birth certificate??? Like you can have a real birth certificate but until this private company says its real then it's no license... How do they know if it's real??? I mean, there is so much bogus stuff going down right now about IDs that it is beyond comprehenion... It's just $$$ to campaign donors who run the bogus certifying company... Not even any competition... This company gets $35 outta everyone that comes into the state to get a license, even if they have allready had a license here in the past... Grrrrrr!!! Well, I refused to give $35 to a private company... I wrote then Governor Mark Warner and said it was a scam and he musta have agreed with me 'cause he had one of his people call the DMV and arrange for me to get my license with a bonified original birth certicate... B~ |
|
27 Oct 10 - 11:40 PM (#3017417) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Hey Bobert. How did a mental midget work his way up to the position of being nominated? And as for false statements, where is the documentation on the "Bad Gas" you were going to supply for $2.95? |
|
28 Oct 10 - 12:20 AM (#3017425) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Bobert: "Well, yes it is if those laws are so restrictive as to be just hidden ways to supress certain voting populations..." Yes, the law was to keep illegal aliens from voting in OUR elections. OK, you can go back now, and finish your dinner, over the sink! GfS |
|
28 Oct 10 - 01:18 AM (#3017446) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: DougR The really sick thing about liberal posts on this thread is that they really don't see why the Republicans are going to overwhelmingly win the election Tuesday. It's because the policies of the Obama Administration are popular with ONLY 20% of the population (liberals). It's sick because they REALLY don't understand what their problem is. Their problem is they support a liberal agenda and that simply is not going to prevail in the United States. No way. DougR |
|
28 Oct 10 - 08:36 AM (#3017631) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Yo, Dougie... The reason that the Repubs will do well is because after you throw in 24/7 anti-Dem programing and the massive amounts of undisclosed "Citizens United" cash from overseas and Boss Hog's corporation that this election has allready been decided... 90% of candidates who spend the most win... It is a wonder that any Dems will survice this unprecidented Clarence "Love them tit's" Thomas's America where elections are bought... Yo, GfinS, Illegals don't get to vote... Period... Bogus argument,,, B~ |
|
28 Oct 10 - 12:02 PM (#3017785) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Bobs: "Yo, GfinS, Illegals don't get to vote... Period... Bogus argument,,, ..and how do you know if they are ILLEGAL??????? ask them nicely not to vote???...or are they citizens???...Arizona can't even do that now!..and its bullshit!...I mean a guy crawls over the fence, or hires a coyote, to break our laws, illegally takes a job(away from an American citizen), feels entitled to be here,(with an attitude), illegally pays no taxes, and you expect him to tell you the truth??!!??!!??! Dinner is awaiting.....but over the sink, again! GfS |
|
28 Oct 10 - 07:41 PM (#3018104) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Well, how do they register to vote, GfinS... Don't go telling me that Arizona doesn't have basic standards for being able to register to vote 'cause that dog won't hunt... Every state has 'um... What I think is occuring at voter precincts is that Arizona may be requiring too much ID stuff in order to vote... Here in Va. you are on the voter rolls and you gotta show either a "voters card" or a driver's license in order to vote... That seems logical, inspite of the fact that this is Virginia... But now if Virginia, for instance, wnated proof of birth to at the precinct to vote then I'd dare say that that requirement wouyld be extreme and intended, at some level, to be an overt attempt to stop certain folks from voting... I mean, if you had to have these documents in order to get on the eligible voters rolls then that oughtta be it... B~ |
|
28 Oct 10 - 07:52 PM (#3018115) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Bobs: "What I think is occuring at voter precincts is that Arizona may be requiring too much ID stuff in order to vote..." In all fairness, you probably are not aware of how BAD the problem is there, in Arizona. Its bad...real fucking bad! If you are NOT aware of how bad, then I could see your point, but it is mega-bad! Something needs to be done!!..and I can't see the Feds doing shit! GfS |
|
28 Oct 10 - 08:14 PM (#3018133) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert The problem right now with the feds, Gfins, is that states liike Arizona are hell bent on trying to put Obma in a box and are picking and choosing which federal laws they want to enforce... This is creating some ver bad local policies all over the country tyhat neerss to get straightened out but probably won't for years to come as the Repub/Tea Partiers will delight in using Pick-'n-chose which federal laws they like to poke Obama and Dems until they get a Repub in the White House anf then they will follow suit... Purdy stupid game that the right is playing with "federalism: here... Obey like lap dog any Repub in the White House and then become assholes when the Dem is in... But that is the strategy and Obama is the appeaser and they know they can get away with it... If I were Obma, I'd order the National Guard in to enforce the Civil Rights Act and make states run fair elections... But I ain't Obama... B~ |
|
28 Oct 10 - 09:12 PM (#3018160) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert ...but, at least in this case, this is more about the prison/industrial complexz in Arizona using SB1070 as a way to extract as many federal tax dollars (yours and mine, GfinS...) to get folks locked up in their facilities... Hmmmmmmmmm???? Seems that the Arizona priosn/industrail folks have been funneling money to Jan Brewer going back quite a ways... And when folks put that kinda money into a candidate then they want a return on their investment... Fact: The border crossing are down by less than half of the crossings some 10 years ago and down considerably since last year and the year before... So, kinda makes sense that if ya' built bigass new detention facilities (possibly thinking that other states would send their prisoners to you - for a profit on yer side - but with state budget shortfalls states are instead cutting priosn times *thta* you might consider trying to buy the governor... Me thinks that Jan Brewer is bought and paid for by Arizona's "prison/industrial complex"... All this shit about how "America" is being assaulted by Hispanics comin' over the border in hords is, ahhhhh, propaganda... Ain't happenin'... So, it's down to "papers"... I mean, this was the exact same thing that happened in Germany in 1933 to the Jews and we now stand back and say, "That was some messedf up stuff" but we allow ourselves to be brought to deny facts about the immigration situation/issue in order to promote the inaceration industry??? Beam me up, Scotty... The ordinary folks have been re-programmed by the crooks... B~ |
|
28 Oct 10 - 09:59 PM (#3018182) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Does Bobert want to "lynch" Justice Thomas? I mean he knows he Thomas is guilty of every accusation. No trial, No report to file. Ignore Bubba, Jesse Jackson and Edwards, They are only hapless Democrats with normal animal instincts. Just focus on the Republicans that disagree with you. |
|
28 Oct 10 - 10:19 PM (#3018195) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Amos I watched Barack Obama go up against Jon Stewart (available on Comedy Central's website). He was collected, humorous, competent and smart. He was also articulate and civil. It was good to see him speak for himself without the gross distortions of others in between, and I found him to be impressive and competent. I think he deserves support in continuing what he has begun to accomplish. He's doing good things, one step at a time. A |
|
29 Oct 10 - 01:08 AM (#3018238) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: DougR Amos: You appear to be the only person who thinks Obama did well on the Stewart show. I thought it was pathetic. That's supposed to be a comedy show. He used it to try to defend his agenda and, instead, looked like a weak "Dude." (Stewart's descriptive word, not mine.) DougR |
|
29 Oct 10 - 01:23 AM (#3018241) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Amos Lightfoot: "I watched Barack Obama go up against Jon Stewart (available on Comedy Central's website). He was collected, humorous, competent and smart. He was also articulate and civil. It was good to see him speak for himself without the gross distortions of others in between, and I found him to be impressive and competent. I think he deserves support in continuing what he has begun to accomplish. He's doing good things, one step at a time." Are you referring to Barack or Jon??? GfS |
|
29 Oct 10 - 11:44 AM (#3018562) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw I watched Barack Obama go up against Jon Stewart. It was a disaster for Obama. Nothing but excuses and alusions to things they have done that we don't know about. What happened to the transparency he promised? A piss poor leader with nothing but excuses who blames others for his unfulfilled promises. He says the American people just don't understand. He just does not understand the American people. Yer doin' a heckuva job Larry. unemployment only went to 9.6% |
|
29 Oct 10 - 02:54 PM (#3018740) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Amos Wow. You guys must have been watching the O'Reilly show. Or, projecting your predispositions with an awful lot of bitter, hate-filled energy. The guy is ten times as smart and well-spoken as your dingbat Texan friend was, and he's done a lot more good. A |
|
29 Oct 10 - 09:04 PM (#3019026) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert People gonna see what they want to see, Amos... I mean, people made fun of Columbus... And Einstein... Just jealous... Obama is cool and 100 times smarter than any of the folks here who routinely try to put him in their box... Like my dad used to say, "Consider the source"... I mean, arguing with retards is, at times, purdy retarded in itself... B~ |
|
29 Oct 10 - 09:54 PM (#3019059) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Amos I'll tell ya this much. If I have two evaluations of the same person and one of them is rancorous and spiteful, bitter and demeaning, and the other assesses the individual's ability in positive terms, I am much more inclined to believe the latter as being closer to the truth. Why? Because the emotional bands around hatred are distortive and tend to make for false perception. Looking at something or someone with benevolence will give you much deeper perception into what you are looking at. To hate and demean someone as basically decent as Obama, you have to arm yourself with a lot of hateful and bilious notions first. A |
|
29 Oct 10 - 11:04 PM (#3019084) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw "Obama is cool and 100 times smarter than any of the folks here who routinely try to put him in their box" So how does that make him a good leader? I wouldn't mind having him as a lawyer or a salesman or a PR man but that does not qualify someone as a leader. If whining that people just don't understand which implies they are not smart enough and they talk about me like I'm a dog which implies he is perfect and any criticism is unjust makes one a leader, then why aren't people following? Clinton was a better leader than Obama. He knew how to work with people instead of declaring he is smarter than them so he has the final say. Most people say he is a nice well intentioned guy but they are loosing faith in him as a leader. Has he even made a dent in the Jewish Palestinian peace process? Has he contained Iran? North Korea? Venezuela? Personally I think he is a nice guy but when he starts his last eight years crap, not so much. Now he needs to talk about the last two years. We would be better off with a Repub congress and a Dem Pres like it was under Bubba. A lot got done then and things were not to bad until the last year when the Cole got bombed, the internet bubble burst and gas started climbing. |
|
30 Oct 10 - 12:15 AM (#3019104) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Amos You're putting a lot of words in his mouth--things he didn't say. What he said was, considering the pile of shit he was handed, he's gotten a lot done. That's true. He's made major steps on his agenda despite every counter-effort Bush, Cheney and Rover could throw. So, good on him. It isn't enough by far, but compared t the slack-jawed glazed frat-boy who sent the economy into the shitter, he's done a lot of good. Give him some time and he'll do more. A |
|
30 Oct 10 - 02:01 AM (#3019131) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Amos, your rhetoric is just that. I would rather have results than excuses. Jon Stewart was a big supporter of Obama. Now he takes cheap shots at him like he was Erkel. How quickly things change. Shepard Fairey, creator of the iconic Barack Obama 'Hope' poster, is no longer feeling quite so smitten with the prez, the New York Post reports. Washington is too intertwined with corporate America, Fairey said at a recent show opening. I had a lot of hope for Obama, but it's not panning out. He's not pushing hard enough. Lady Gaga Beats President Obama to 10 Million Facebook Fans |
|
30 Oct 10 - 08:41 AM (#3019218) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert The health care reform bill was a monster bill and will one day be looked upon as significant as Medicare itself... That was no easy task given the broken legislative system that favors the minority and the countless millions of dollars that the health crae industy threw at negative ads for the entire year it took to get it thru... Obama will get a lot of credit for that when historians look back on his administration... Finacial reform??? Okay, not as big but still very significant... Restoration of the original purpose of the Department of EPA will also be viewed as bold and couragous... Yeah, the Repubs will try to undo a lot of the regs that have been put in place to protect our natural resources but for the first time in a long time my friend who work there are pround of what they are now doing... So to poo-poo Obama's accomplishments is just sour-grapes... Nuthin' more and nuthin' less... B~ |
|
30 Oct 10 - 10:08 AM (#3019250) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Before Sawz jumps on my wording, let me correct something... The health care reform bill itself was not a "monster bill"... The passing of it was a monster achievement... As in large... As in difficult... As in historical... B~ |
|
30 Oct 10 - 12:06 PM (#3019307) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Amos Sawz: Rhetoric, shmetoric. His administration has made headway in spite of intense, even perfervid opposition from haters and stoppers. Fact. Health care, economic reform, etc. A |
|
30 Oct 10 - 02:14 PM (#3019401) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw "Intense, even perfervid opposition from haters and stoppers" More rhetoric. In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is incorrect reasoning in argumentation resulting in a misconception. By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor. An appeal to emotion for example. Let's take the word haters in Amos's statement. Does it imply that anybody that opposed anything in the bill and wanted changes is hateful? Yes it does and it attempts to turn people against anyone who opposed the bill by describing them as hateful, via rhetoric. |
|
30 Oct 10 - 02:21 PM (#3019404) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw the countless millions of dollars that the health crae industy threw at lobbysts who wrote the bill the way they wanted it. A monster achievement for the medical and insurance companies. It's right there on PBS if you care to look. SEN. MAX BAUCUS: Our plan does not include a public option. BILL MOYERS: Take a close look at that woman sitting behind Montana Senator Max Baucus. He's the Democrat who's the Chairman of the Finance Committee. Liz Fowler is her name. And now get this. She used to work for WellPoint, the largest health insurer in the country. She was Vice President of Public Policy. And now she's working for the very committee with the most power to give her old company and the entire industry exactly what they want: higher profits, and no competition from alternative non-profit coverage that could lower costs and premiums. I'm not making this up. Here's another little eye-opener. The woman who was Baucus' top health advisor before he hired Liz Fowler? Her name is Michelle Easton. Why did she leave the Committee? To go to work -- where else? -- at a firm representing the same company Liz Fowler worked for WellPoint. As a lobbyist. It's the old Washington shell game. Lobbyist out, lobbyist in. And it's why they always win. They've been plowing this ground for years, but with the broad legislative agenda of the Obama White House, it's more fertile than ever. The health insurance industry alone has six lobbyists for every member of Congress, and more than 500 of them are former congressional staff members. Just to be certain Congress sticks with the program, they've been showering megabucks all over Capitol Hill. From the beginning, they wanted to make sure that the bill that comes out of the Finance Committee next week puts for-profit health insurance companies first, by forcing the uninsured to buy medical policies from them. Money not only talks, it writes the prescriptions. In just the last few months, the health care industry has spent 380 million dollars on lobbying, advertising and campaign contributions. And a million and a half of it went to -- don't hold your breath -- Finance Committee Chairman Baucus, who said he saw "a lot to like" in two proposed public options but voted "no." SEN. MAX BAUCUS: My job is to put together a bill that gets 60 votes. Now I can count and no one has been able to show me how we can count up to 60 votes with a public option in the bill. BILL MOYERS: Of course not. They can't get 60 votes. Not when the people who want a public alternative can't possibly scrape up the millions of dollars Baucus has received from the health sector during his political career. Over the last two decades, the current members of the Senate Finance Committee - you're looking at them -- have collected nearly 50 million dollars from the health sector. A long-term investment that's now paying off like a busted slot machine. Not that we should be surprised. A century ago, muckraking journalists reported that large corporations and other wealthy interests virtually owned the Senate, using bribery, fraud, and sometimes blackmail to get their way. Jokes were made about the Senator from Union Pacific or the Senator from Standard Oil. This fellow in particular was out to break their grip. His name was David Graham Phillips, and one day in 1906, readers of COSMOPOLITAN MAGAZINE opened its March issue to discover the first of nine articles by Phillips titled "The Treason of the Senate." He wrote: "Treason is a strong word, but not too strong, rather too weak, to characterize the situation in which the Senate is the eager, resourceful, indefatigable agent of interests as hostile to the American people as any invading army could be..." The public outrage provoked by Phillips and other muckrakers contributed to the passage of the Constitutional amendment providing for the direct election of Senators, who until then were elected by easily bought-off state legislators. Of course, like water seeking its own level, big money finds its way around every obstacle, and was soon up to its old tricks, filling the pockets of friendly politicians. Today none dare call it treason. So how about calling it what it is: a friendly takeover of government. A leveraged buyout of democracy. Outrageous? You bet. But don't just get mad. Get busy. |
|
31 Oct 10 - 04:30 AM (#3019826) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Bobsie: "The health care reform bill was a monster bill and will one day be looked upon as significant as Medicare itself... " That's why, in the most recent poll, 68% of all Americans want it repealed or amended! GfS |
|
31 Oct 10 - 09:09 AM (#3019921) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert The average American has been so deluged with propaganda that only 68% is questionable... A recent ABC poll asked people if their taxes had gone up or down under Obama and a whopping 61% said they hasd gone up??? Well, fact is that $300B of the stimulis bill went for tax cut for 95% of tax payers??? Ya' see, GfinS what happens when the liars get ahold of the microphone and won't share it with the truth tellers??? This is exactly what alot of us have been saying over and over and over... The corporate media flat out doesn't want the truth getting out... It would have been nice for ABC to, at the very least, mentioned the tax cuts that 95% of the working pulic recieved under the stimulis bill somewhere along the way... Little late now to give the voters that infomartion that an "informed electorate" needs to make "informed choices" on election day... No, the public has been sufficeintly propagandized to the point where even the truth can't get into their little pea sized thinkewrators... I mean, just about every issue out there is the same... One one hand there is the truth and on the other cpomplete fabrications that Boss Hog has stuffed in everyone's heads with his constant barrage of lies and propaganda.. This is what happened during the health care reform debates... Reality is that if we had modeled our reform closer to our competitors we would be able to reduce costs but, no... Those "costs" are a large part of the profits that the health care/industrial complex wants and now will get until the US has the balls to fix it... Is this bill better than nothing??? Yeah, it is but it won't bring down cost significantly... Might get US in the 15-16% of GNP range when a single payer system would have gotten US into the 9% range... But the lies came fast and furious and stuck so even Dems were scared to push for single payer... Thus, the country was not served... The health care insudtry was served but not the country... And in the words of the late Walter Cronkite, "And that's the way it is..." B~ |
|
31 Oct 10 - 12:04 PM (#3020027) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity For you, Bobert: From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 31 Oct 10 - 04:25 AM Hey, I got a great idea..Why don't we give our entire paychecks to the government, and they can give it all away, and maybe even give you an allowance!.... Oh, you mean the far left already thought of that?? Shucks! GfS |
|
31 Oct 10 - 01:58 PM (#3020108) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw "even Dems were scared to push for single payer" Seen that Bill Moyers segment yet Bobert? "A recent ABC poll asked people if their taxes had gone up or down under Obama and a whopping 61% said they hasd gone up???" So every body that says their taxes have gone up are too stupid to know? "tax cut for 95% of tax payers" So how many of that 95% paid any taxes to begin with? Just because they were tax payers doesn't mean they ended up owing or paying any taxes. What percentage of the population are tax payers? "the public has been sufficiently propagandized to the point where even the truth can't get into their little pea sized thinkewrators" That is you Bobert. One only has to look at your Bobert "facts" to figure that out. You are a firm believer in the "Clinton Surplus" Myth. You cannot explain why the National debt went up every year of the claimed surpluses except to call the Treasury Dept, headed by Tim Geithner a right wing mythology site. To his credit, Obama has recently changed the shady accounting rules that allowed people to claim a surplus where there was a deficit. Unlike you Bobert, I am going to back up my words with something other than personal attacks: The Obama Administration also made four significant accounting changes, to more accurately report the total spending by the Federal government. These changes would make the debt over ten years look $2.7 trillion larger, but that debt was always there. It was just hidden. Understanding on-budget and off-budget deficits Social Security payroll taxes and benefit payments, along with the net balance of the U.S. Postal Service are considered "off-budget." Administrative costs of the Social Security Administration (SSA), however, are classified as "on-budget." The total federal deficit is the sum of the on-budget deficit (or surplus) and the off-budget deficit (or surplus). Since FY1960, the federal government has run on-budget deficits except for FY1999 and FY2000, and total federal deficits except in FY1969 and FY1998-FY2001. In large part because of Social Security surpluses, the total federal budget deficit is smaller than the on-budget deficit. The surplus of Social Security payroll taxes over benefit payments is invested in special Treasury securities held by the Social Security Trust Fund. Social Security and other federal trust funds are part of the "intergovernmental debt." The total federal debt is divided into "intergovernmental debt" and "debt held by the public." For example, in FY2008 an off-budget surplus of $183 billion reduced the on-budget deficit of $642 billion, resulting in a total federal deficit of $459 billion. Media often report the latter figure. The national debt increased by $1,017 billion between the end of FY2007 and the end of FY2008. These on-budget and off-budget items essentially amount to accounting gimmicks and schemes. In reality, what really matters is how much money comes in and how much money goes out. The federal government publishes the total debt owed (public and intragovernmental holdings) at the end of each fiscal year and since FY1957, the amount of debt held by the federal government has increased every single year. According to the CBO, the U.S. last had a surplus during fiscal year (FY) 2001. From FY2001 to FY2009, spending increased by 6.5% of GDP (from 18.2% of GDP to 24.7%) while taxes declined by 4.7% of GDP (from 19.5% of GDP to 14.8%). The drivers of the expense increases (expressed as % of GDP) are Medicare & Medicaid (1.7%), Defense (1.6%), Income Security such as unemployment benefits and food stamps (1.4%), Social Security (0.6%) and all other categories (1.2%). The drivers of tax reductions are individual income taxes (-3.3%), payroll taxes (-0.5%), corporate income taxes (-0.5%) and other (-0.4%). The 2009 spending level is the highest relative to GDP in 40 years, while the tax receipts are the lowest relative to GDP in 40 years. The next highest spending year was 1985 (22.8%) while the next lowest tax year was 2004 (16.1%) The U.S. budget situation has deteriorated significantly since 2001, when the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecast average annual surpluses of approximately $850 billion from 2009-2012. The average deficit forecast in each of those years as of June 2009 was approximately $1,215 billion. The New York Times analyzed this roughly $2 trillion "swing," separating the causes into four major categories along with their share: * Recessions or the business cycle (37%); * Policies enacted by President Bush (33%); * Policies enacted by President Bush and supported or extended by President Obama (20%); and * New policies from President Obama (10%). CBO data is based only on current law, so policy proposals that have yet to be made law are not included in their analysis. The article concluded that President Obama's decisions accounted for only a "sliver" of the deterioration, but that he "...does not have a realistic plan for reducing the deficit..." Presidents have no Constitutional authority to levy taxes or spend money, as this responsibility resides with the Congress, although a President's priorities influence Congressional action. The CBO reported in October 2009 reasons for the difference between the 2008 and 2009 deficits, which were approximately $460 billion and $1,410 billion, respectively. Key categories of changes included: tax receipt declines of $320 billion due to the effects of the recession and another $100 billion due to tax cuts in the stimulus bill (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act or ARRA); $245 billion for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and other bailout efforts; $100 billion in additional spending for ARRA; and another $185 billion due to increases in primary budget categories such as Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, Social Security, and Defense - including the war effort in Afghanistan and Iraq. This was the highest budget deficit relative to GDP (9.9%) since 1945. The national debt increased by $1.9 trillion during FY2009, versus the $1.0 trillion increase during 2008. The Obama Administration also made four significant accounting changes, to more accurately report the total spending by the Federal government. The four changes were: 1) account for the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ("overseas military contingencies") in the budget rather than through the use of "emergency" supplemental spending bills; 2) assume the Alternative Minimum Tax will be indexed for inflation; 3) account for the full costs of Medicare reimbursements; and 4) anticipate the inevitable expenditures for natural disaster relief. These changes would make the debt over ten years look $2.7 trillion larger, but that debt was always there. It was just hidden. |
|
31 Oct 10 - 02:45 PM (#3020149) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Bobert: "The average American has been so deluged with propaganda that only 68% is questionable... A recent ABC poll asked people if their taxes had gone up or down under Obama and a whopping 61% said they hasd gone up???" http://biggovernment.com/publius/2010/10/30/anchorage-cbs-affiliate-caught-on-voicemail-conspiring-against-alaskas-gop-senate-candidate/The average American has been so deluged with propaganda that only 68% is questionable... Must be that ol' pesky Fox news, huh, Bobert...you know, those right wing propagandists!!! The left is so squeaky clean! Maybe you're the one who has been propagandized! GfS |
|
31 Oct 10 - 02:56 PM (#3020161) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Sorry last post took the link wrong...... Bobert: "The average American has been so deluged with propaganda that only 68% is questionable... A recent ABC poll asked people if their taxes had gone up or down under Obama and a whopping 61% said they hasd gone up???" http://scaredmonkeys.com/2010/10/31/msm-liberal-bias-cbs-affiliate-ktva-caught-on-voice-mail-conspiring-against-alaska-republica Must be that ol' pesky Fox news, huh, Bobert...you know, those right wing propagandists!!! The left is so squeaky clean! Maybe you're the one who has been propagandized! GfS P.S...as you read the article, Fox was NOT implicated, neither was CNN |
|
31 Oct 10 - 06:21 PM (#3020312) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: DougR Bobert:How can you possibly believe that passing the "monstrous" health care bill ...oops ...the health care bill wasn't, in your opinion, "monstrous", the passing of it was. Well, in view of the fact that an extra large majority of the population wants to see the bill repealed, you again, appear to be in the minority. Passing the bill wasn't a big deal. Heck if you've got the majority vote in the house the senate, own the White House, and if you don't mind pissing off a sizable majority of the population, it's a cakewalk! I suspect, come this Tuesday, there will be a lot of Democrats who will be muttering to themselves, "hmm, was it really worth it?" If major polls can be believed, an awful lot of Democrat congresspersons and senate persons are going find out what being unemployed really means. DougR |
|
31 Oct 10 - 08:53 PM (#3020396) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Amos I do not believe that the majority of the US, were they consulted on the actual policies, would want the bill repealed. Say, Doug, what specifically do you think should be repealed? A |
|
31 Oct 10 - 09:21 PM (#3020410) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw 53% Favor Repeal of Health Care Law, 46% Say Repeal Likely Monday, October 25, 2010 A majority of voters continue to favor repeal of the new national health care law, and the number who sees this outcome as likely has reached a new high. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 53% of Likely U.S. voters favor repeal of the health care law, including 43% who Strongly Favor repeal. Forty-two percent (42%) oppose repeal of the bill, with 32% who are Strongly Opposed. (To see survey question wording, click here.) Since Democrats in Congress passed the law in late March, support for repeal has ranged from a low of 53% to a high of 63%. But now 46% of voters say it is at least somewhat likely the law will be repealed, up six points from earlier this month and the highest level measured since tracking of the question began in April. Still, that includes just 13% who say it's Very Likely the law will be repealed. Forty-five percent (45%) say it is not very likely the law will repealed, showing no change from earlier this month. The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on October 22-23, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology. Forty-three percent (43%) of voters say repeal of the bill would be good for the economy, showing little change over the past two months. Thirty-four percent (34%) say repeal of the law would be bad for the economy, while another 16% say it would have no impact. Just 26% think repeal of the law will lead to the creation of more jobs, down four points from early October and the lowest level measured since April. Thirty-nine percent (39%) disagree and say repeal of the bill will not lead to increased job creation. However, 36% are not sure. Sixty-five percent (65%) of Republicans expect the health care law to be repealed, as do 47% of voters not affiliated with either major political party. Only 30% of Democrats believe the law is likely to be repealed. Overall, 37% say the health care plan passed by Congress in March will be good for the country, the lowest level of confidence found this month. Fifty-three percent (53%) say the law will be bad for the country. Recent polling shows that only 43% of all Likely Voters say someone who voted for the health care law deserves to be reelected. Fifty percent (50%) oppose their reelection. |
|
31 Oct 10 - 10:46 PM (#3020446) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Amos Sawz: Read what I wrote. The madding crowd, electrified by falsified information and Repub venom, may say anything. If they were consulted on the issues, about which most of them do not know the first thing, they would think differently. What were the survey questions being used? Did they go into the particulars of the policy? Or did they ask, "Do you agree the Health Care Bill is a baaaad thing?" What sort of intelligent response would you expect>??? A |
|
31 Oct 10 - 11:31 PM (#3020464) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Rhetoric Amos Rhetoric. You still operate under the assumption that anybody who disagrees with you is stupid, uninformed and out of touch. Show us the poll that brought you to your belief Amos. "I do not believe that the majority of the US, were they consulted on the actual policies, would want the bill repealed." Why do you believe that? How did you make that judgement? Show us the poll that brought you to your belief Amos. Or is it something you just have in your head. |
|
31 Oct 10 - 11:47 PM (#3020467) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is incorrect reasoning in argumentation resulting in a misconception. By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor. An appeal to emotion Emotional triggers: madding crowd electrified falsified information Repub venom a baaaad thing You're on a roll Amos. |
|
01 Nov 10 - 02:40 AM (#3020514) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity I guess we'll know shortly. If the American public love the bill, and thank all those who voted for it, I suppose they'll be re-elected with open arms and warm wishes....if not, well that might be a clue. Being as the American public was virtually ignored during the debates, and finagling to get it pass, I'm sure we'll find out the feeling on the matter from them(us)...and it's only two days away! I personally wouldn't vote FOR anyone who passed a bill, any bill, who at least didn't READ it first! ......but that's just me. I like to be represented, not Lorded over!...and TOLD what I have to accept, when the clowns telling me that, didn't even read it..and frankly, don't know what the hell their talking about!..Throw that jerk-off out! Gosh, I hope that doesn't sound THAT unreasonable! All that being said, I guess we're now waiting for the Republicunts to sell us out, as well!...Gee, maybe they really didn't learn a damn thing!....Anyway, the die is cat, the agenda has been lined out, now we get distracted, into thinking either party can 'fix' it. Inflation will be going up, dollar values down(as I said it would about a years or so ago.....and America will decay into default of its debts and morality!..with the buzzard politicians picking through the rest of the carcass! GfS |
|
01 Nov 10 - 02:41 AM (#3020515) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Amos Sorry, Sawz, I don't buy your bait. Show me the actual poll, and it will be quite clear that it was an emotional reaction, not a reasoned conclusion. As for your crude assertions about my assumptions, they are in error. What specifically do you think is wrong with the Health Care bill? A |
|
01 Nov 10 - 10:09 AM (#3020716) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Seein' as my pudder is down ( and prolly will be fir some time) and that only an occaional trip to town to the library will get me here then I am appointing Amos as my "proxy"... As fir turning my entire paycheck over, GfinS??? That's exactly why I put the "in" in GfS... Hey, look... Let's getn real... Our taxes are lower now than any time in the last 30 years and lower than any of our competitors in the industrialized world... That is the real story here but if yer so Tea Party barinwashed that those facts just aren't convient then, yeah, why not just kill all taxes and privatize everything down to the air we breath and th sidewalks that we walk on... That is the only alternative... If you and yer Tea Party folks want that then please just say so and quit playing games... B~ |
|
01 Nov 10 - 11:20 AM (#3020760) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Amos I looked over that Rasmussen BS page and it is a well-crafted piece of meretricious folderol. It cites percentages favoring and opposing a gross generalization called the HEalth Care Bill, and in no wise discusses the particular provisions of the bill or how it works and what people think about those policies. THis means that the opinions being surveyed are responding to a general impression, colored by media, sniping and the various mudslinging from assorted asswipes. There's no way of telling whether even with that it is at all representative, or of what. Smoke and mirrors, and a lot of used bathwater. A |
|
01 Nov 10 - 11:47 AM (#3020781) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Are you addicted to rhetoric Amos? Can you speak in a normal tone or is it uncontrollable? It ads nothing to your credibility. Rather it detracts because rhetoric is a logical fallacy. Are you a down to earth person or a wordy windbag? "What specifically do you think is wrong with the Health Care bill?" It does nothing to contain the cost because it was crafted by the drug and health care industries via lobbyists. It is too large and complicated hidden containing crap like new 1099 requirements. It could be done with smaller bills addressing each area instead of a "Monster" bill that no one person can figure out. Therefore each piece would have a wider approval and less arguments or it would fail based on our democratic system. Nancy Pelosi said we have to pass this bill to find out what is in it. Obama said Lobbyists would not run things. He said all of the negotiations would be out in the open on CSPAN. Except for the one meeting where he made no compromises and claimed the Repubs would not compromise, He has not kept his word. Yet he brags about his great historic accomplishment that people just don't understand which implies they are to stupid to understand. That is a red flag to anybody that does critical thinking on their own and naturally they come to the conclusion that it is being rammed down their throat. You can't understand it either Amos but you don't want to appear to be one of the stupid people so you echo whatever Obama says. |
|
01 Nov 10 - 11:56 AM (#3020788) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Greg F. Editorial Health Care and the Campaign Published: October 23, 2010 Republican candidates and deep-pocketed special interests are spreading so many distortions and outright lies about health care reform that it is little wonder if voters are anxious and confused. Here are a few basic facts that Americans need to keep in mind before they go to the polls, and afterward. First, most aspects of the reform do not go into effect until 2014. Second, things are indeed bad out there: The costs of medical care and insurance premiums are (still) rising, and some employers are (still) dropping coverage. But for that, you should blame the long-standing health care crisis and the current bad economy. Health reform is supposed to help with these problems. Here is a look at the claims being made on the campaign trail — and the distortions they contain: PURE NONSENSE: John Raese, the Republican candidate for the Senate in West Virginia, is claiming that the law will require patients to go through a bureaucrat or panel to reach a doctor. That is flat out untrue. You will still choose your own doctor or insurance plan without interference. Nor, despite other claims, will the law provide subsidized insurance to illegal immigrants. They are precluded from using even their own money to buy policies on new exchanges. The Obama administration will not be compiling a federal health record on all citizens, including each individual's body mass index, as Ann Marie Buerkle, a Republican running for a House seat in upstate New York, has claimed on her Web site. The administration is offering incentives to doctors to record various vital statistics in electronic medical records and report the data in the aggregate, to help understand national health trends. WE CALL THAT CAPITALISM: Republican politicians never tire of denouncing health care reform as a "government takeover" — or socialism. What is true is that the law relies heavily on private insurers and employers to provide coverage. It also strengthens regulation of those insurers and provides government subsidies to help low- and middle-income people buy private insurance on the exchanges. Those exchanges will promote greater competition among insurers and a better deal for consumers, which last time we checked was a fundamental of capitalism. WHAT ABOUT MCDONALD'S? Conservative commentators pounced after the fast food chain and several other large employers that provide skimpy, low-cost policies to their workers warned that they might drop their health plans entirely if forced to comply with the new law. They particularly objected to a requirement that they begin raising the low annual limits on what their plans are willing to pay for health care. In response, the administration has granted some 30 waivers for one year (Rush Limbaugh promptly accused the administration of allowing these employers to "break the law") and has signaled willingness to smooth out other bumps on the road toward full reform. In 2014, all plans will have to meet minimal standards and large employers will have to provide coverage or pay a stiff fine. WHAT ABOUT MY PREMIUMS? Some Republicans are also claiming that health reform is driving up premiums. There have been sharp increases in some states, primarily in response to soaring medical costs. Some insurers may also be trying to increase their profits before the reform law holds them in check. A few very welcome provisions that take effect early, like requiring insurers to cover preventive care without cost-sharing, will play a minor role in premium increases for next year. Reform has also energized federal officials and many state regulators to challenge and force down big increases sought by insurers. The Justice Department just filed suit against Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan for allegedly using its market power to drive up costs for its competitors and its own subscribers. MEDICARE SCARE TACTICS: Republican candidates routinely and cynically charge that the reform law will "cut" $500 billion from Medicare — leaving the clear implication that benefits will be reduced. In reality, the law will slow the rate of increase in payments to health care providers over the next decade, and benefits for most beneficiaries will be as good or better than they are now. The only beneficiaries apt to see a change are those enrolled in private Medicare Advantage plans that will lose their unjustified subsides. Many of these beneficiaries, roughly a quarter of the Medicare population, may have to pay more for their plans or may lose the extra benefits, like gym memberships or dental care, that the subsidies pay for. Some inefficient plans will die out, but the efficient private plans will compete successfully with traditional Medicare — on an even playing field. MEDICAID SCARE TACTICS: Republican governors are complaining bitterly that reform will force them to expand their Medicaid programs. What they are not saying is that the federal government will pick up the vast bulk of the added expense to cover millions of vulnerable Americans. States that do not want this largess will be shortchanging the health of their poorest citizens, who will continue to use costly — to the state and the taxpayers — emergency rooms for routine health care. WHAT THEY'RE NOT SAYING: Health care reform has already brought substantial benefits, mostly starting in late September. Insurers are now barred from dropping coverage after a beneficiary becomes sick. Dependents can stay on their parents' policies until age 26. Insurers must cover preventive services and annual checkups without cost-sharing. Lifetime limits on how much insurance plans will pay for treatment are gone. The major benefits start in 2014, when tens of millions of the uninsured will gain coverage through Medicaid or by buying private coverage — with government help for low- and middle-income Americans — on the new competitive exchanges. If you lose your job, you will no longer lose access to insurance. And with government help the coverage should be affordable. Far too few Democrats are explaining this on the campaign trail. The barrage of attack ads are hard to push back against. But the voters need to know that health care reform will give all Americans real security. A version of this editorial appeared in print on October 24, 2010, on page WK9 of the New York edition. |
|
01 Nov 10 - 11:58 AM (#3020793) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw HUFFPO After a year of angst and agony, Congress passed and the president signed two major bills governing health care. The 2,800-page law will almost certainly provide more Americans with health insurance. But nothing is free. Our nation's biggest flaw may be the unrealistic view that you can get something for nothing. In this case, more Americans may be insured, but this worthy goal will impose huge costs - costs that some of the new law's most ardent supporters have intentionally obfuscated: 1. The new law will increase the federal budget deficit. Shortly before the penultimate vote, Democrats trumpeted the bill as reducing the deficit. They relied on last minute scoring from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reporting that the bill will reduce the federal deficit by $138 billion over 10 years. As a result, proponents declared the bill as good for the deficit and the economy. History will prove whether this claim is true. But anyone who has even peeled back one layer of this onion knows the CBO was boxed in to giving a distorted picture. This law will be proven quickly to expand our bloated deficit -- and sadly, the media was asleep at the switch and did not report on it. The big distortion occurred by the CBO assumption that the 21 percent cut in doctors' Medicare reimbursements would stay in place. The 21 percent drop in doctors' pay began April 1 (no April Fools) and was included by CBO scorekeepers as permanent. This allowed them to claim $450 billion in Medicare savings. Yet, the same politicians who voted for the bill have also promised doctors a "fix" and that they will restore the drastic cuts in Medicare reimbursement. Even before the 21 percent cuts, increasing numbers of doctors refused to take Medicare patients, as the Medicare reimbursements are tiny compared to private insurance reimbursements, not even factoring in the cost and time of the additional paperwork, audits and hassle of collecting from the government bureaucracy. With a 21 percent cut in Medicare reimbursement, tens of thousands more doctors will refuse Medicare patients and the goal of getting more Americans health coverage will be countered by fewer available doctors. Medicare patients, our oldest Americans, will suffer, and a marketplace form of rationing will be imposed. This real problem begins this month, and the promise to "fix" Medicare reimbursements puts both Democrats and Republicans in a pickle. If they don't reverse the Medicare cuts, thousands of doctors will close their doors to Medicare patients, depriving millions of needed health care and belying the promise of the health care bill. But if they vote to restore the doctors' cuts, then the myth of deficit neutrality will be exposed for Democrats, and the promise of fiscal prudence will not be met for Republicans. In any case, either Americans will suffer or the myth of the new medical law's deficit neutrality will be exposed. Members of Congress from both sides expect a vote within weeks. That vote will transform the entire financial assumption underpinning the health care law. And if you are not convinced yet that the new health care law is not a deficit expander, here are two other tricks the CBO used to hide the true costs. First, the CBO used 10 years of revenue-raising and only six years of expenditures. Had the 10 years been based on both revenue and expenditures, it would cost $114 billion annually. More, the CBO was told to assume many plans would pay the 40 percent excise tax on plans and offset the costs of this new government benefit. This 40 percent tax will impact very few plans - if any. If realistic assumptions were used for those two items, then the law clearly does not reduce the deficit. If that's not enough, other revenue assumptions have been labeled by fantasy. For example, The Hill notes that the $2.7 billion assumed to be raised by a tax on tanning salons would require tanning customers to make 3.9 billion visits to tanning salons over the next 10 years. The government takeover of student loan processing is assumed to save $70 billion and presents the questionable assumption that government can do something cheaper than private industry. Government scorekeepers rarely consider the true cost of government employee pensions, overhead, real estate, support by other government employees or supplies when calculating theoretical savings of "insourcing." The calculations by Congress of every new entitlement program have been multiples off the mark. The 1965 Medicare program was supposed to cost only $9 billion by 1990. Instead it cost $67 billion in 1990 and it now costs $521 billion. This expansion of the deficit is an enormous cost that we are imposing on our children. 2. The new law will reduce jobs in private industry. Every employer with over 50 employees soon must provide health insurance for every employee or face stiff penalties. This mandate will impose new costs on those employers that now do not provide insurance. Simple economics means these companies will reduce jobs to pay the costs of the new law. Less visible are the millions of starter and entry-level jobs it will eliminate. For example, my company now hires about a dozen paid interns every summer and we use seasonal employees for our big annual event, the International CES. Both types of jobs - and the entry level full-time positions to which they are designed to lead - could now be discouraged because of the new mandate that every employee have employer-provided health insurance. The legislation also includes new taxes on medical equipment, passive income for millions of Americans, and new Medicare taxes - all costs to those making investments in job-creating businesses. It is a zero-sum game and every dollar of new costs means a dollar not invested in a business or paid to an employee. More, the law also removed thousands of jobs from the banking industry that provided student loans. This last minute add-on to the bill had nothing to do with health care - but it does kill a private industry and turn it into a government-run industry. The millions of private jobs lost will be only partially offset by new jobs created for additional health care professionals. And of course the heath care law creates new work for lawyers who litigate over the hastily drafted and often ambiguous language. 3. The new law will increase government jobs. Estimates are that 17,000 new IRS agents will be hired to make sure the new complex laws for hiring and buying insurance are followed. More, the federal takeover of student loans will create a new bureaucracy with thousands of new government jobs. These will be jobs with good pay and lifetime benefits and they will further expand the deficit. 4. The new law will hurt health care for those with critical needs. The American health care system is the envy of the world as almost every innovation now comes from the United States, and the wealthiest people from around the world come here when they are very sick. The bill's supporters claimed that the legislation is necessary as we have poor health care in the United States, and the present system needed to be changed. They pointed to our low ranking in the developing world on various measures of health care, such as infant birth rate and average mortality rate. These rankings are cause for alarm as they reflect unhealthy lifestyle choices. Americans eat more, consume unhealthy food, and exercise less. More, many American girls have babies at a young age. But on measures where our doctors have influence, like cancer survival rates, we top the world. If there is any doubt that the legislation will hurt quality of care, I suggest following the membership of the American Medical Association (AMA). The AMA supported the legislation - even though the AMA doesn't represent most American doctors and most doctors had serious concerns with the proposals. If you learn soon that many doctors quit the AMA you can conclude that the doctors voted on the bill with their feet. Indeed, every major specialist group opposed the bill as bad for patients with critical and thus highly specialized needs. 5. The new law will reduce American innovation. The new law will reduce innovation in several ways. First, specific taxes on innovative medical devices and new costs for drug companies mean a special tax on innovation. New taxes will be added to the overall cost of treatment and innovation thus will be discouraged. Second, innovative medical treatments will be discouraged in America. Articles by American doctors dominate almost every medical journal in the world. Today's system encourages breakthroughs and creativity. Yet the new health law encourages cookie-cutter treatments and punishes deviation from treatment norms thereby discouraging innovation. Third, the bill imposes several new taxes on investment. This means less money will go to new businesses and taking risks. The result will be less money for research, development and innovation. Sadly, the costs of insuring the uninsured using the methods in the new law are real and not speculative. In my ideal world, we would have reached national consensus on the problem (uninsured Americans), agreed on facts (we are innovators and innovation should be preserved) and then brainstormed solutions (cut malpractice, encourage healthy lifestyles, encourage competition in health care). Indeed, at several points in the last year good faith, bipartisan efforts were heading in this direction. But politics got hold and any solution was viewed as preferable to a well-considered bi-partisan solution. At the end, recalcitrant Democrats were then purchased with special favors (Michigan airport repairs, water projects, special state Medicare payments, to name just a few). Some legislators were even convinced that this was a necessary vote to preserve the historic presidency or their majority in Congress. These legislators went for ego and a person who is president rather than what was best for America. Some may challenge this recognition of reality as sour grapes. Perhaps. But there would be fewer sour grapes if we could agree on the facts and that this new sweeping mandate imposes costs. Even with the factual mirage described above, this is the first time in our history Congress imposed a major change opposed by a majority of Americans. The factual cloud Congress sought to obscure will blight the result and challenge the credibility of those who imposed it. As our economy sags under the weight of this newest mandate, we must learn and approach every future proposal with a long-term, honest view of its impact on our nation's deficit, jobs and innovation and investment. |
|
01 Nov 10 - 12:01 PM (#3020796) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: pdq Last week Obama said he was not on the ballot on NOV 2 but that his agenda was. All sources say the House will got to the Republicans which will require about a seat change of (I'm pretty sure it's) 39. Most people expect more than that. The Democrats cencede 5 lost seats in the Senate, but pollsters say 8 and some Republicans say as many as 11. The last is wishful thinking. For the record, I predict the Senate this way: Republicans 49 Democrats 49 Independants 2 (Sanders and Lieberman vote with Dems) |
|
01 Nov 10 - 12:17 PM (#3020807) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Greg F. Don't bet on Vicar of Bray Lieberman voting with the Dems. You'll lose your money. |
|
01 Nov 10 - 12:49 PM (#3020832) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Amos, "I'll tell ya this much. If I have two evaluations of the same person and one of them is rancorous and spiteful, bitter and demeaning, and the other assesses the individual's ability in positive terms, I am much more inclined to believe the latter as being closer to the truth. " Except you have shown this statement to be false, in every thread you have posted an anti-Bush comment. If you did believe it, you would have looked at something positive, instead of what you did post. |
|
01 Nov 10 - 12:52 PM (#3020837) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Amos, "despite every counter-effort Bush, Cheney and Rover could throw" 1. proof of the previous post 2. NONE of whom have been active political opponents- YOU are stuck back before the last election. |
|
01 Nov 10 - 03:14 PM (#3020983) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Partisan survivors will always cling to any tiny bit of flotsam they can find, rather than yield to an ocean of reality.... |
|
01 Nov 10 - 03:16 PM (#3020985) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Polls no longer matter, Amos, 'cause way too many people are forming their opinions on mythology... Garbage in = garbage out... I mean, let's get real here... This is not something new... Remeber the Big Three BIGASS LIES that the Bush/Cheney War Machine concocted: WMDs, Iraqi ties to al qeada, Iraq therefore tied to 9/11... Well, even afetr those BIGASS LIES were debunked and Bush adminsistration people admitting it there were still over 60% of the people who believed them... This is a sad commentary on then state of educational system today when people do not possess the mental capacity to be informed... I mean, right now the Repubs have put forth so much negative crap otu there about raising taxes that 60% of the people not only don't realize 95% of Americans taxes went down with the Stimulis but also think that continuing the tax cuts to the wealthy will craet jobs and cut the deficit... Only flat-earth bogus economists think that 'cause niether are founded in reality... Reality is that the wealthy are drowning in cash now and have no interest in investing it... Reality is that continuing those tax cuts means will create ***NO*** jobs what so ever... So polls don't mean anything except that with a dumbed down population incapable of critical thinking that America is headed down a slippery slope... At some point we have to pull out of this nose-dive and get back to making decisons based in factual information, not emotional wishing and hoping... I mean, I kinda think of America at a crossroads and it can continue downward with mytholgy and bad policies or it can grow some balls and quit the crybaby stuff and buckel down and get back into the race... Right now??? We are just... ...watching as... ...and our competitors are loving it!!! I mean, if I'm a German or a Japanese I'm rooting for the Tea Party... Like I've said over and over and will say again,... ...garbage in = garbage out... Ain't no poll in the world that can change wrong thinking... B~ |
|
01 Nov 10 - 03:33 PM (#3021005) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Amos Sawz: One quick point as I have neither the time or inclination to quibble with you. The notion that our health care system is the envyof the world --because our leading technology is often the envy of the world--is completly hollow and sadistically false. I hope that even you can see the difference between the best of our technology--which is excellent--and the system of distribution of health care, which is less equitable and less secure for the majority than the systems of a dozen other nations. A |
|
01 Nov 10 - 03:40 PM (#3021013) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Okay, the librarian just shot me that look... Yer plane, Amos... B~ |
|
01 Nov 10 - 03:45 PM (#3021017) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk The American health system is not the envy of the world, it's the laughingstock of the world. It is viewed with amazement and horror by the world, as is the American political system in general. Now...let me explain that. It is true that America has some very advanced medical technology, yes....and some very fine doctors. That's not what the world views in horror and amazement. What the world views in horror and amazement is the fact that ordinary Americans have to spend almost unbelievable amounts of money to get their health care and health insurance, and that the USA spends more per capita on health care than any other nation, but somehow ends up only having the 37th best health care among nations in the world, and is way behind countries like France, Austria, Italy, Japan, and Saudi Arabia. Canada is just slightly better than the USA, but with the huge difference that all Canadians are covered by a public single-payer health insurance system paid for by taxes (and costing quite a bit less per capita than in the USA). That's what's astonishing about the USA, and it's shameful. The American public is being robbed blind by the private health insurance companies and the AMA, and Obama's much touted health care plan has done very little to improve that grotesque situation, because it's mostly just another huge cash giveaway to the private health insurance industry. That's why it was passed!!!!!!!! And that's what they don't tell you. Obama is about as "socialist" as Benito Mussolini, in my opinion. Mussolini shot socialists. |
|
01 Nov 10 - 05:49 PM (#3021112) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: pdq "Mussolini shot socialists." Well, some of us might have to revise our opinion of Moose A. Leeni. BTW, the Rasmussen poll just put the Connecticut Senate race in the "dead heat" department. We now have California, Washington state, Illinois and Connecticut as "tossup". If even one of them goes Republican, it will create an earthquake. |
|
01 Nov 10 - 06:09 PM (#3021129) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk You obviously have an entirely different definition of the word "socialism" than most non-Americans do, pdq. ;-) No surprise there. I know it's right next to the word "satanism" in the American dictionary. You see, what Americans think when they hear the word "socialism" is something very different from what the rest of the people in the world think when they hear it. And that's the fault of your educational and political propaganda system which starts out indoctrinating young minds right from kindergarten on. The rest of the world takes socialism as a totally normal thing that is a part of any modern society, and that works harmoniously alongside capitalism. In most of the world capitalism handles the manufacture and marketing of the vast majority of goods and services, and runs the vast majority of businesses of all kinds in most societies, and that's fine with me. Socialism takes care of the few absolutely essential public services and institutions such as: the different levels of government, the police, the fire department, the parks department, major transportation infrastructure such as highways, bridges, etc...some major utilities such as the hyrdoelectric grid or communications infrastructure...the armed forces....all totally essential things that are, by definition, not there to make a profit! They are there to supply a needed part of a society that must exist, and that is not there for profit, but for result. Thus they are funded by public money, and are therefore socialist institutions. Another public service that is utterly essential in any modern society is to give everyone access to inexpensive health care. That can only be done through socialism, as it is being done in most modern countries. A society does not have to be ALL socialist, and it shouldn't be. Nor does it have to be ALL capitalist, and it shouldn't be. It should be a mixture of the two. Your braindead American propaganda system fails to explain this to your people and gives them the impression that socialism is an ALL or NOTHING proposition that takes over everything. It isn't, except under Communism. Communism is an extreme form of socialism that I don't agree with, because it takes over everything. The most extreme form of capitalism could be called a "robber baron" system, such as existed in the Middle Ages...where the richest men take over everything, hire the most soldiers, and they terrorize the populace, rape, loot, and do as they please. The only check to that in the Middle Ages was to take refuge in a church...was was sort of vaguely socialist to some degree, as the church did offer sanctuary to all who entered its doors...but the church was also capitalist, in that they had a lot of money, and were busily seeking to get more of it. I am neither a socialist nor a capitalist, because I know a society needs both of them in harmony to be a healthy society. Your children are not being told about that. They are being kept ignorant, afraid, and misinformed, and their view of socialism is an American myth fabricated to enable big corporations, drug companies, and doctors to rob them from cradle to grave. |
|
01 Nov 10 - 06:32 PM (#3021152) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: pdq I believe you will find that Marx meant something quite different by "capitalism" when he coined the word back in the mid 1900s. It is a nice little pejorative (like "neo-con") that you can hurl at your enemies, real or imagined. We do indeed have a "mixed economy", a mixture of free market and government control, and it works well. Pure Socialism would destroy everything we have built. Tomorrow, 2 NOV 2010 will be a referendum on Obama and his Socialist agenda. Expect an earthquake. |
|
01 Nov 10 - 06:44 PM (#3021162) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Yeah, sure Marx had a different definition of "capitalism" in his mind. I'm not him, and I don't share his views on that at all. I am not a Marxist. I too believe in a mixed economy, just as you do. That's what we have in the USA and Canada...a mixed economy. That's what I believe in. Neither socialism nor capitalism are words that should be used as pejoratives. Obama is no socialist! His health care bill was primarily a big windfall for the private health insurance companies, because it got them a lot more customers...by legislation rather than by choice! I think the health insurance industry's lobbyists were probably the primary architects of Obama's bill. As long as your people have to pay a fortune for health insurance and health care, pdq, you are not getting a socialist health care plan. The whole principle of a socialist health care plan is that it spreads the very high cost of health care around evenly among the entire tax-paying public...at a very affordable price. Most people aren't sick most of the time. That means if we all share in the cost of health care, we can all afford it, but if we don't all share...if it comes down to YOU ALONE when you're sick to cover the cost.....trust me..........you can't afford it. That's the principle of defence funding too, pdq. The tax system spreads the cost around evenly among the entire public...rather than just billing a few directly affected individuals when an emergency arises. And that way everyone can afford the very high cost of maintaining an armed forces. THAT's socialism! Without it, you could not afford to field an army, navy, and air force. Same goes for the fire department. How can you not see that this is what's needed to provide affordable health care? Here's a tip: Obama is not doing that. He's continuing with passing on huge costs to people for private health insurance. He is NOT practicing socialism. He is not a socialist. He's a servant to entrenched corporate interests, just like all your previous presidents were. |
|
02 Nov 10 - 12:24 AM (#3021335) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Lemme see Amos. I have seen Sheiks and football stars checking into the Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. They were settling for second best? What are the top medical universities in the world? Harvard University University of Cambridge Johns Hopkins University University of Pennsylvania University of Oxford University of California at San Francisco Yale University Karolinska Institute Columbia University University of Dundee And for the umteenth time, the health care bill does nothing to contain the cost of health care like it was supposed to do. "I think the health insurance industry's lobbyists were probably the primary architects of Obama's bill." I am glad you are realizing that Amos but didn't Obama say that lobbyists were not going to run things any more? How in the hell can he claim it is so great when it didn't do what it was supposed to do? |
|
02 Nov 10 - 10:20 AM (#3021576) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Amos Sawz: Fine,m but why are you deliberately ignoring the point I made? Dumb or rasty? A |
|
02 Nov 10 - 12:51 PM (#3021717) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Hey Amos. Do you know why Jerry Brown can't see Russia from his house? The sun is in his eyes. |
|
02 Nov 10 - 12:58 PM (#3021726) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Amos Dude, you SO need to check your meds. You are bouncing off the walls here. A |
|
02 Nov 10 - 01:34 PM (#3021771) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw No Amos. Jerry can't see Russia because the smoke is in his eyes. |
|
02 Nov 10 - 01:58 PM (#3021798) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Amos YEah, Sawz, whatever. It's not germane and it is not funny, either. |
|
02 Nov 10 - 02:17 PM (#3021813) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Sorry, Amos. It IS germaine and funny. Just as Donual's cartoons are- You MIGHT argue whether it is factual, but that never stopped Donual, so why complain here? Unless you are still pushing the double standard that yu have special priviledges and are not to be held to the same standard YOU hold US to... |
|
02 Nov 10 - 03:49 PM (#3021894) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: GUEST,Bobert at the library Exactly correct, LH... This is waht America has become... A failed state that does not provide even basic services to it's own citizens... (Hey, BOPberdz... Ain't that alot like 3rd world countries???) Yes, it's very much so and the reason for this goes back to Geroge Busgh the Senior who started the "elite" bashing which has grown into a full force movement of people who not only dispise, okay hate, educated people but pride themselves on being ignorant themselves... This does not bode well for intellegent policies becuaser the Epsilon Nation runs on emotion rather than reason... That is the absolute worst formula for success of a democracy that any political scienctist could imagine but that is exactly what we have become... Progressives aren't this monolythic bunch that are all left or all right or all in-the-middle... Progressives just want policies to work for the people becuase if they don't - and they ceratinly aren't now - then thei8ngs historically have gotten very messy... I mean, you have Epsilon Nation allready prepared to take up arms to protect the corporate pigs withouit the slightest clue that the corporate pigs are using Epsilon Nation as shields against intellegnce??? So, yeah, LH... Our health care stinks and is not going to get any better until and if Americans can shake off this idea that being stupid is cool... B~ |
|
02 Nov 10 - 04:40 PM (#3021959) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Amos Well, no it isn't. First of all, just because your favorite airhead made stupid remarks about seeing Russia does not mean that a veteran executive like Jerry Brown has any connection to her stupid remark. Second of all you have no evidence Jerry Brown uses pot. Third of all even if he did, there is no logical reason to assume he has any reason to see RUssia, since he lives in California. The whole thing's stupid, not funny, and brain-dead. But hey, whatever floats your boat, man... A |
|
02 Nov 10 - 04:43 PM (#3021962) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Amos, Nice twist to the FACT that it was a comedy skit, and NOT Sarha that said that. "just because your favorite airhead made stupid remarks about seeing Russia does not mean " The airhead s are those that keep saying SHE said it, when it is FACT that she did not. |
|
02 Nov 10 - 04:50 PM (#3021965) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Amos Rewriting history again, Bruce? She DID say she could see Russia from her state. Tina Fey turned it into "I can see RUssia from my porch". A |
|
02 Nov 10 - 04:58 PM (#3021970) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Hardly a stupid remark to say that Russia was visible FROM ALASKA- IT IS! The STUPID remark is to say that she could see it from her back yard- which she never said. Shall I make up comments mocking Obama and put stupid remarks into HIS mouth, and expect you to accept them? Is that what you are saying is OK??? |
|
02 Nov 10 - 05:01 PM (#3021973) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: beardedbruce And if I quote the truth, YOU would not believe it. When asked about health care for the elderly, and whether it would be economivcally feasible under his plan,he said If the 80 year old woman needed a hip replacement, Obama would give her an aspirin. FACT- I heard him say it live. |
|
02 Nov 10 - 06:34 PM (#3022051) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Greg F. And if I quote the truth, YOU would not believe it. Possibly because: 1.You wouldn't know the truth if it reared up on its hind legs and bit you on the ass 2. Because your posts heretofore have consisted of Faux News/BuShite/NeoCon delusional fantasies. Ya reap what ya sow, Beardie. |
|
02 Nov 10 - 06:43 PM (#3022059) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: DougR Back to the subject of this thread: I think we will have a better idea about the popular and unpopular views of the Obama Administration AFTER tonight. Democrats are going to mightly argue that the huge losses they are going to experience are a result of the economy. That dog won't hunt. After all, hasn't Obama and the Democrats in congress spent the last two years blaming GWB for the terrible economy? Democrats are going to pay heavily for the legislation opposed by the majority of U.S. citizens pushed through congress by the Obama administration and the Democrats in congress. DougR |
|
02 Nov 10 - 07:01 PM (#3022070) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Greggie Boy, When you decide to discuss the topic, rather than make personnal insults, it might be worth listening to what you have to say. Until then, YOUR postings have shown that you have nothing to offer to the conversation. |
|
02 Nov 10 - 07:18 PM (#3022087) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Any government that's in power when the economy is bad gets blamed for it, and punished at the polls. You know why, Doug? People have a very short attention span. ;-) They mostly think like they drive...no farther than 10 or 15 feet past the end of their noses. The Republicans got punished for the bad economy in 2008 and for 8 years of war and folly. The Democrats are being punished for the bad economy right now and for continuing war and folly. Little has really changed, in my opinion. The deck chairs got re-arranged, that's all, but it's still the Titanic. |
|
02 Nov 10 - 08:17 PM (#3022132) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Charley Noble The American public is going to really start screaming if Republicans attempt to roll back some of the better Health Reforms: No denial of insurance for pre-existing conditions No termination of health insurance for people who get sick No limits on health insurance for catastrophic illness Bargaining pools for prescription drugs It's true that some middle class people will oppose lower income people receiving subsidized health insurance, even if it is less expensive to them than free emergency medical care. But not only is that better public policy it is cheaper in the long run. My frustration is that the Obama Administration did not succeed in passing a public health system which totally eliminated private health insurance. Charley Noble |
|
02 Nov 10 - 09:00 PM (#3022153) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Amos Just to conclude this trivial piece of smegma, Bruce, it IS really stupid to imply, as Ms Palin did, that she in some manner was qualified as VP because her experience in international relations included a peekaboo glimpse of one extreme corner of an islad belonging to Russia from a few vantage points in the state she was the inept governor of. Really. A |
|
02 Nov 10 - 09:55 PM (#3022185) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: pdq Manchin has been declared the winner in West Virginia. If that holds the Democrats can expect to keep control of the Senate. There is really little chance that the GOP will displace incumbants in Washington state or California but stranger things have happened... |
|
03 Nov 10 - 12:38 AM (#3022234) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw "Progressives just want policies to work for the people becuase if they don't - and they ceratinly aren't now - then thei8ngs historically have gotten very messy." Yes indeed Bobert. Things are not working for the people and it is messy. Manchin had to make an ad showing him literally shooting at Obama's Cap & Trade bill to get re elected. Up until then he was loosing. Why? coal. HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM! Maybe he's one of those disgusting little red***k hypocrits. Gun totin' and hatin' Obama. "The retiring senator on Friday praised the television spot released by the campaign of West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin, who is running for the seat of the late Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) The ad shows Manchin using a rifle to shoot a hole through a what is supposed to be a copy of the bill. "The best commercial I've seen was the governor of West Virginia using a rifle to shoot the cap-and-trade bill," he said during an appearance on CNBC. Manchin, who is locked in a tough contest with Republican John Raese, cut the ad in an effort to distance himself from Washington Democrats." |
|
03 Nov 10 - 01:12 AM (#3022243) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw In case naybody missed it, the eason for the Do you know why Jerry Brown can't see Russia from his house? comment was made because Gov Moonbeam Jerry brown said "we're gonna make the sun rise in the West and move over to the East," Yeah. He cain't see Russia from him house 'cause the sun is in his eyes. |
|
03 Nov 10 - 11:46 AM (#3022561) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: pdq Even with amazing Republican victories in the Pennsylvania and Illinois races, the Democrats will have at least 49 seats plus their two pseodo-independants. The Democrat total will probably go up. Alaska, Washington state, California and Colorado are still "too close to call". Colorado should go Republican, Alaska independant, and the other two Democrat, making a final count of DEM: 51 REP: 46 IND: 3. The Nevada and West Virginia race were not as close as expected. |
|
03 Nov 10 - 03:58 PM (#3022783) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: GUEST,Bobert at the library... Manchin is a Dem in name only... We'll see if it catches on when he gets to DC... No bets on it, however... BUt it really doesn't much matter seein' as the blueprint for "minority rule" has been chizzled in stone the last two years by the Repubs... Hope: The newly elected Repubs will come to Washington with the hopes of doing something other than the Boeher "Rope-a-Dope"... Fear: Two more years of Repub posturing and gridlock... Prediction: The latter... B~ |
|
03 Nov 10 - 05:45 PM (#3022880) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Greg F. Two more years of Repub posturing and gridlock... No surprises there, Bobert- Boner has already promised as much. |
|
04 Nov 10 - 01:34 AM (#3023137) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: DougR I think the electorate has spoken at the ballot box. Their view of the Obama Administration is ...it sucks. DougR |
|
04 Nov 10 - 03:49 AM (#3023161) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Today on 'news' show, Pelosi is telling Sawyer, that some Debitcrats, were noble for voting for it('For the children, sniff sniff', of course), because now they've been voted out of office. How utterly noble! Compare that, to those 'noble' citizens who really need real health care, who voted, in hopes of repealing it! I wonder why Obama needs to take 3000 people on a ten day trip, out of the country, (at a cost of two billion). Are they 'needing' to be out of the country for something?...something here??...I hope not for a collapse...and I really hope not! 3000???? Jeez! GfS |
|
04 Nov 10 - 09:03 AM (#3023311) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Greg F. Sorry Douggie- but not so; guess you missed this: No, in a DEMOCRACY the INFORMED ELECTORATE is supposed to speak. This time around, the contest was decided by uninformed ignoramuses on the basis of Republican TeaBagger lies and an Amazon-sized river of bullshit and fear. Their "view" was a delusion. How you can ge proud of that, while not surprising, passes understanding. |
|
04 Nov 10 - 01:20 PM (#3023513) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: beardedbruce http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/34-warships-sent-from-us-for-obama-visit-64459 My understanding is that this 3 day trip is costing about 2 billion- about the same as two months of combat operations in Iraq. Nice to have an Imperial Presidency again! |
|
04 Nov 10 - 05:00 PM (#3023714) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Yeah, Dougie??? And what exactly did the voters say??? I mean, I've heard at least a dozen things that the Repubs say the voters said so I'm kinda wonderin'??? Heard a nice piece on NPR riding home from NoVa a little while ago and a caller called with the same question that bruce has posed above about the cost of our country's president going to the other side of the world to try to help create a more favorable climate for American businesses... Anyway, first of all, this is a bogus criticism becuase: 1. The numbgers being spread around the rightie blogosphere are completely dart-boardish made up and... 2. Are the righties against the US government trying to mix it up with other national leaders in an effort to level the playing field for US business??? I mean, I thought ya'll were all for business??? Guess not... B~ |
|
04 Nov 10 - 05:05 PM (#3023717) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk No, Doug, Dracula sucks! ;-) The Democrats and Republicans lie, prevaricate, and dissimulate, and if you have an ounce of faith in either one of them, I have a bridge to sell you....it's in Brooklyn, and it's a beauty! |
|
05 Nov 10 - 01:49 AM (#3024029) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: DougR Greg: your use of the word INFORMED is ludicrous. You have no understanding of the meaning of the word. Bobert: My friend, if you did not understand what the voters were telling you, I worry that you do not know that 2 + 2 equals 4. DougR |
|
05 Nov 10 - 08:40 AM (#3024208) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert No, Dougie, I didn't... And I am being perfectly serious... Maybe you'd like to take a stab at it... What did they tell us??? Pick from the list below: 1. They think they pay too much tax??? (lowest rates in the civilized world and lowest in the US in 5 decades...) 2. Obama raised their taxes??? (No, $300B of the Stimulus bill was a tax reduction for 95% of Americans...) 3. They hate the health care reform bill??? (What provisions, por favor) 4. They want government off their back??? (Please explain how government is on your back, Dougie...) 5. Obama wants to take yer guns away??? (Oh??? I mean, the only folks I've heard that from are folks who hate Obama... Obama, himself, has been a gun right supporter going way back...) 6. Obama is going way too fast??? ( Really??? Like in what respect????) 7. The problem with America is that the deficits need to be eliminated??? (Oh??? And your going to do this by continuing a tax policy that does not create additional revenues???) 8. The government spends too much??? (oh??? Then how come Obama cut the annual deficit by $100B in his first budget??? BTW, where do you suggest the cuts come from???) 9. The Democrats are socialists??? (Hey, we have socialized wealth to the rich but the average stiff is still getting thrown out on the streets... Seems to me that the only socialism that the Repubs like is for their rich donors...) 10. Obama is spending $100M a day on this trip to the far east??? (oh??? That's not at all factual... BTW, do you think the president should just stick his head in the sand an not stand up for American business in the global economy???) So, yeah, Dougie... I don't know what the voters said and nor do the Repubs... This is just another 9/22 PR game where everything that the Repubs have wanted going back forever are things that they say the voters want... B~ |
|
05 Nov 10 - 09:58 AM (#3024262) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Amos I think the voters were telling us that they believe in the core American values of knee-jerk emotionalism and blind acceptance of mythological bull. Further, that they have a God-given right to kick themselves in the nuts when they feel like it regardless of consequences. And finally, that they can by and large be manipulated by any PR campaign, no matter how fraudulent, if it is delivered with enough sound and color. A |
|
05 Nov 10 - 10:17 AM (#3024267) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Yeah, Amos and the sad part about this is that Boss Hog's PR machine runs 24/7-365 days a year... Hey, they have the money to do exactly that... Karl Rove has already stated that he has no intention of stopping the negative attack ads against Dems even though the election is over... Throw in Freedom Works (Dick Armey's health insurance company lobbyist money) and they are going to keep pounding away, too... So is FOX... So are the various bogun "American's for Mom and Apple Pie" organization also funded by the big polluters and exploiters and what we are seein' is purdy much what happened in Germany in the 30's when the brown-shirts hooked up with the "industrialists"... I mean, not a whyole lot of difference... This is a lot like the early 70s after Boss Hog had the 60s scare the living crap outta him except back then Boss Hog hadn't yet corralled ownership of the media and Boss Hog wasn't drippin' with cash like he is now... So the Dems and Obama need to go on the offense and tell the American people exactly how they are being manipulated... Obama needs to pull out a play from the Ross Perot playbook and show the American people just how income is stagnant for the working class and just how much cash the rich are sittin' on... Obama also needs to challenge the Repubs to explore sane ways of informing the American people about the ins and outs of policy positions... A good start would be to appoint a commission/investigation to look into the FCC's recent decisions that have monopolized our media ownership into the hands of just a very few and bring back "public service" time, equal access, etc... And Obama needs to put forth a campaign finance bill that limits the amount of spending that parties and their proxies can spend and when they can spend it... It's all in Obama's hands now and he needs to take the thugs on... If he doesn't then Boss Hog will finish the job of taking over every last little vestige of power... Time to fight the pigs... (Animal Farm) B~ |
|
05 Nov 10 - 10:42 AM (#3024287) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Greg F. Quite simple, really. The voters - or rather a distressingly sizeable segment thereof, like our own D------, are obviously telling us that they cannot tell fact from fiction, don't care that they can't do so, and are willing to make critical decisions on the basis of lies, myth, and a river of bullshit. See? Simple. |
|
05 Nov 10 - 11:12 AM (#3024296) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Amos As regards BB's acceptance of the horsepuckey about the costs of Obama's business-generating trip to India: "While the White House has not released specifics on the cost of the trip, citing security concerns, White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage has said, "It's safe to say these numbers are wildly inflated." Those numbers, according to Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann, are: $200 million a day, $2 billion total, 34 diverted Navy ships, a 2,000-person presidential entourage, and 870 hotel rooms in India. "And these are five-star hotel rooms at the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel," Bachmann told CNN's "AC 360" Wednesday night. Pressed by Cooper to back up her numbers, Bachmann said, "These are the numbers that are coming out in the press." The press she was referring to is the Press Trust of India, one of the largest news organizations in that country. Its source for Tuesday's article on the cost of Obama's trip was based on a single anonymous source: "a top official of the Maharashtra government privy to the arrangements for the high-profile visit." The Press Trust article was picked up by The Drudge Report and other sites online and quickly made its way into conservative talk radio, sparking outrage by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and others. The White House and Pentagon have fielded questions about the Indian report and have dismissed the claims in the article. "I will take the liberty this time of dismissing as absolutely absurd this notion that somehow we're deploying 10 percent of the Navy, some 34 ships and an aircraft carrier in support of the president's trip to Asia," Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell told reporters this week. "That's just comical. Nothing close to that is -- is -- being done." While the exact cost of Obama's 10-day trip to Asia is not known to the public, an examination of similar presidential excursions in the past support the likelihood that the $200 million-a-day figure is exaggerated. " You should think twice before listening to Michele Bachman, Bruce. She is highly partisan, and inaccurate, and I know how sensitive you are about wanting to be fair and balanced... A |
|
05 Nov 10 - 11:15 AM (#3024301) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Yeah, Greg... These morons will drive across country to seek out the very best doctor when they get sick but are perfectly willing to turn the government over to thugs??? B~ |
|
05 Nov 10 - 12:05 PM (#3024328) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk The main thing the voters are saying is this: "THE ECONOMY SUCKS! AND I'M MAD AS HELL ABOUT IT! I'M GOING TO PUNISH WHOEVER IS PRESENTLY IN OFFICE FOR IT! I don't really care about the long term reaasons for why the economy is bad or when the trouble started it or who did it....and I wouldn't understand that stuff anyway, even if it was carefully explained to me...I just want to get even for my present state of angst, that's all. So I'm gonna punish the incumbents." It would have worked exactly the same way if there was a Republican president (like McCaine) in Washington right now. The voters would have punished the incumbents, and the Democrats would all be out celebrating their gains in Congress. ;-D Seriously, it's just damned funny, because it's sooooo predictable. But you guys get lost in your 2-party mythology and you can't step away from it far enough to see what's really going on. There's only one party in the USA. One party with 2 right wings. One of the right wings looks more to the right than the other...that's the Republicans. Whichever one is in office while the economy is bad gets punished severely at the polls....and that is really all there is to it. The ONE party always wins, because no matter who you elect, it's still in power. It's a velvet dictatorship (in the form of authoritarianism, fortunately, not totalitarianism yet...) that goes through the outward motions of a democracy every 2 years. An empty and meaningless charade. Americans are fooled by the charade, but most of the rest of the world isn't. The rest of the world, however, can only stand by and watch, because the USA is armed to the teeth. And that is why you are so far in debt. Your outrageous arms spending since the end of WWII has bankrupted your nation. Military hardward is good for only one thing: killing people. That doesn't produce prosperity, except for the arms dealers themselves who get very, very rich. |
|
05 Nov 10 - 12:15 PM (#3024337) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Yeah, LH... If you take 20% of yer economy and grow it around stuff that blows up and produces nuthin' in the way of the "butter" end of the "guns or butter" equation then you will end up where we have ended up 11 times outta 10... I mean, there is a point where people just ain't gonna let you come in steal their stuff... Mighta worked a long time ago but those days are long gone... So here we are with 20% going to war, another 17% to health care (twice the national average of our competitors) so what we have is a net loss of about 30% of economy which is producing no butter what so ever... Formula for a failed state... And here's the kicker... The folks who voted for Repubs last Tuesday are clueless about any of this because they make decisions based on emotions and not facts... B~ |
|
05 Nov 10 - 12:32 PM (#3024354) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Yeah...actually, Bobert, it's WAY more than 20% that goes to defense. I strongly suggest you read a little book by Gore Vidal called "The Decline and Fall of the American Empire", and you will find out what the real percentage of the American budget is that goes to "Defense" (which is really Offense...) I'm serious, man. Find that book. Read it. The USA presently spends more on military stuff annually than all the other nations in the world combined. A country cannot do that without... 1. Becoming the enemy of everyone. 2. Going bankrupt. |
|
05 Nov 10 - 01:03 PM (#3024372) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Amos, " they believe in the core American values of knee-jerk emotionalism and blind acceptance of mythological bull. " They already DID prove this- see the results of the 2008 election. |
|
05 Nov 10 - 01:18 PM (#3024389) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Amos Yeah? Well, they just proved it again. A |
|
05 Nov 10 - 01:31 PM (#3024397) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk They prove it EVERY time there's an election. ;-D Look, they have a choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. When they are heartily sick of and disappointed with one of that esteemed pair, they vote in the other, and very little changes. The Great Oz is actually in charge of both brothers, but you don't get to vote for or against the Great Oz, because he's not on the ballot. (Yes, I'm cross-pollinating Malice in Blunderland with the Wizard of Oz. Works for me.) |
|
11 Nov 10 - 12:14 PM (#3029431) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Bam AWOL on Vets Day Last Updated: 7:52 AM, November 11, 2010 Posted: 1:57 AM, November 11, 2010 Charles Hurt - Inside Washington WASHINGTON -- Today is Veterans Day. Do you know where your president is? With his feeble flame of "hope" thoroughly doused here in the United States by last week's elections, President Obama has set out around the globe in search of throngs still enthralled by his flowery rhetoric. He found them, of course, in Indonesia this week by telling them about how Americans must stop mistrusting Islam. So that is why your president is halfway around the world instead of being here in the United States to celebrate the sacrifices American soldiers, sailors and airmen have made around the world to keep the real, still-burning flame of freedom alive. Obama honored our veterans from afar by laying a wreath during a ceremony at an Army base in South Korea last night. That is a distance from here matched only by the chasm that has opened up between him and the voters who elected him two years ago. This aloofness of his really is becoming a problem. Not that Obama doesn't appreciate the sacrifices of veterans. He absolutely does. Just ask the Indonesians. He was in Jakarta for their Heroes Day this week to honor their veterans "who have sacrificed on behalf of this great country." "This great country," of course, being Indonesia. "When my stepfather was a boy, he watched his own father and older brother leave home to fight and die in the struggle for Indonesian independence," Obama told the audience. And the White House wonders why so many people think there is something foreign about this guy. In the same speech, Obama gave voice to a harsh criticism he has heard about freely elected governments. "Today, we sometimes hear that democracy stands in the way of economic progress," he said. The shocking statement raises the question: Where has Obama heard this fatuous claim and with whom has he been talking politics? Thankfully, your president tepidly disputed this calumny against democracy, but the alarming questions remain. He went on to tell the Indonesians, "Democracy is messy." "Not everyone likes the results of every election. You go through ups and downs," he said. At least it sounds like Obama is starting to get the message voters sent him last week. churt@nypost.com Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/bam_awol_on_vets_day_IxEoyioHbtjAsNjGmbZoIP#ixzz14zkG3Qe2 |
|
11 Nov 10 - 06:30 PM (#3029811) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Stringsinger Obama is probably unpopular, now. The Dems are not popular but their lack of popularity the polls shows that this is exceeded by the lack of popularity of Republicans. "So that is why your president is halfway around the world instead of being here in the United States to celebrate the sacrifices American soldiers, sailors and airmen have made around the world to keep the real, still-burning flame of freedom alive." This is propaganda, jingoism and makes an assumption that defies logic. Being here in the US has nothing to do with celebrating anything. That's just complete BS. What "still-burning flame of freedom"? That is such a hollow statement. Freedom for who, the countless Iraqis and Afghan civilians that have been killed? Freedom for the dictators supported by the US throughout the world? For example, freedom for Kopassus in Indonesia who are military death squads and the Indonesian Junta? Obama is mute on this subject of freedom. Hurt is well-named because journalistically he has shot himself in the foot. The Washington Insider is accurately identified since it excludes the American public by its title. The freedom to be investigated by the government if you dissent or be assassinated in a foregn country if the president decides you are an "enemy combatant"? "And here's the kicker... The folks who voted for Repubs last Tuesday are clueless about any of this because they make decisions based on emotions and not facts..." I wish it were that simple, Bobert. The Repubs are in the pockets of the big corporations who have a vested interest in cheating the American public. The attack ads paid for by unlimited corporate funds and organizations like the Chamber of Commerce have hoodwinked the Tea Party and others by selling them a line of BS so long that it extends to the US Supreme Court. |
|
11 Nov 10 - 06:36 PM (#3029817) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: DougR Bobert: Whatever. DougR |
|
11 Nov 10 - 07:36 PM (#3029860) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Whatever what, Dougie??? Yo, LH... Me thinks that you keep turning budget and GNP into the same thing... It ain't... I know that... Budgets to me are smoke an' mirrors... GNP, however, is the meat 'n taters... Budget is what the government spends from the taxes it collects and GNP is the entire economy... I think the 20% is purdy close when it comes to ***all*** defense spending... I mean, even if it's 18%, it is money that basically is spent that does not enhance the lives of the average American... (But it keeps the commies from comin' ashore, Boberdz...) Well, lets lay that one to rest, too... What country would want to think it could do a better job or governing this mess of a country??? Well, I'll tell which one... None!!! B~ |
|
12 Nov 10 - 01:18 PM (#3030474) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw "I mean, if I'm a German or a Japanese I'm rooting for the Tea Party..." If then what? Garbage in = Garbage out. If Oscar the grouch was rooting for the Green Party then ?? Garbage in = Garbage out. |
|
12 Nov 10 - 01:24 PM (#3030481) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Greg F. Bobert: Whatever. DougR That is the absolute limit of his analytical powers, Bobert. You expected something more? Why? |
|
12 Nov 10 - 02:18 PM (#3030539) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: beardedbruce "New York, 2:14 PM Fri Nov 12 White House Staffers Got a Bigger Raise Than You Did Last Year Did you get a raise last year? Seventy-four percent of White House staffers did, according a Gawker analysis of the White House's annual salary reports to Congress. Probably for the great job they're doing with the economy. Earlier this week, USA Today published an analysis of the federal workforce showing that it pays to work for the government: The number of feds earning more than $150,000 per year has increased tenfold since 2005, and the number earning above $180,000 has increased twentyfold. That prompted us to take a look at White House salaries, and it turns out that working for Barack Obama is not a bad gig. Obama famously instituted a salary freeze for all White House staffers earning more than $100,000 on his first day in office because "during this period of economic emergency, families are tightening their belts, and so should Washington." But there wasn't a lot of belt-tightening for the rest of the staff: We crunched the numbers and found that, of the 344 White House employees who were listed on the payroll in both White House's 2009 and 2010 salary reports, 253—or 74%—got raises in 2010. And among that lucky overwhelming majority, the average raise was 9%. And plenty of people making more than $100,000 a year did get a raise as long as a title change came with it. That's a lot better than most people did! According to the compensation-tracking firm Hewitt Associates, base salaries for executives and salaried workers went up 2.4% over the same time period. And John Challenger, the CEO of the executive consulting firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas, says "nine percent is double what we'd see for most executives, and even more for the rank and file. In 2009, companies were in recession at least half the year. Raises were much more in the range of 2% to 3%, maybe 4% to 5% for executives." And while Challenger says its not unusual for companies to reward 75% of staffers with annual raises, last year many firms skipped the practice. "Many more companies than normal cut raises altogether," he says. "Nine percent would be unusual," says Paul Rowsen, managing director of WorldatWork, a trade association for human resources professionals. "Most employers froze pay last year, and some even reduced pay to get through tough times." Now, there are some important caveats: First of all, these are mostly staffers making less than $100,000, so the amounts aren't obscenely large. The biggest raise in absolute terms went to Jennifer Psaki, who went from making $113,000 a year as a special assistant to the president and deputy press secretary to $150,000 as a deputy assistant to the president and deputy communications director, a 33% bump. The biggest in percentage terms went to speechwriters Cody Keenan, Jonathan Lovett, and Jeffrey Stephens, all of whom got 66% percent raises, from $45,000 to $75,000. Secondly, the 9% average is calculated from the 253 people who got raises, because that's what we think "average raise" means. If, as the White House insisted to us is more accurate, you include all the staffers who didn't get raises, the average drops to 6%—or more than twice what the average white-collar worker saw. And thirdly, these salary increases include, as in Frankel's case, promotions. But the larger point is fairly inescapable: Despite Obama's well-intentioned desire to visit some of the pain of the recession on his own staff, the White House essentially governed itself last year like there wasn't an "economic emergency" going on. That's probably because it's not like revenues were collapsing and there's no way they could make budget without layoffs—it's in one sense silly to expect White House employees to be buffeted by the same economic forces that lash the private sector. Why lay people off, or cut salaries, if there's no economic imperative to do it? On the other hand, the impulse behind Obama's salary freeze makes intuitive moral sense: The people running this country ought to know what it feels like for most of its citizens, and most of its citizens aren't enjoying 9%—or even 6%—raises. Either way, it's important to know precisely how removed White House staffers are from the fiscal realities of most Americans, and even the similarly situated Americans working in the private sector. We asked the White House for comment, and spokesman Nicholas Shapiro insisted that the real average raise for White House employees was 3%, arguing that the figure should exclude people who got promotions along with their raises (we think the common usage of the term "raise" encompasses situations in which salary increases are accompanied by title changes). He also argued that, as mentioned above, we ought to have included staffers who didn't get raises in calculating the average raise, which doesn't make sense to us. He also said it's just the way it goes in the White House: "It is not uncommon in the second year of a new administration for many low level staffers to change positions and move up the ranks to hold new jobs with increased responsibilities. President Obama is committed to continuing to reduce costs in government while providing high-quality services to the American people." UPDATE: Nick Shapiro, the charming young man from the White House who offered comment for this story—and got an $18,000 raise last year—just e-mailed to say, "Next time you write a story, how about you use my quote instead of your perception of what I meant or said. Was a real pleasure working with you, hope I don't have to do it again." Oh don't get so down, Nick! We understand how frustrating it is when people refuse to simply let you take over a story you object to and insert a statement of whatever length you please. So we 'll give in. For the record, here's the full statement Nick sent us: White House raises on average were 3% not the inaccurately reported 9%. People who got entirely new jobs, not uncommon after the first year of a new administration got new salaries, which were on average 6% higher than the salary of their previous job. In fact, on his first day in office, President Obama instituted a pay freeze for all staff making over $100k, and none of these folks received any raise whatsoever. In addition, in the President's FY 2011 budget he included a pay freeze for all senior political appointees across the entire Administration. It is not uncommon in the second year of a new administration for many low level staffers to change positions and move up the ranks to hold new jobs with increased responsibilities. President Obama is committed to continuing to reduce costs in government while providing high-quality services to the American people. " |
|
12 Nov 10 - 02:34 PM (#3030551) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Well, Greg, Dougie does have ***his moments***...lol... They don't come often so ya' have to be very patient... Is he ever right??? Always, but rarely correct... B~ |
|
12 Nov 10 - 03:02 PM (#3030567) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw "He was collected, humorous, competent and smart. He was also articulate and civil, impressive and competent." Yes. A hell of a good community organizer but he was a failure at the G20. A businessman NOT: WSJ: President Barack Obama headed toward the close of the Group of 20 summit, weakened by an anemic economic recovery and an election drubbing that have left world leaders questioning U.S. authority. In private meetings with Mr. Obama on Thursday, Chinese President Hu Jintao resisted his pressure on currency revaluation. Mr. Obama also failed to secure a free-trade agreement with South Korea by a deadline he set for Thursday, a blow to a president who has pledged to double U.S. exports over the next five years. The summit of the Group of 20 industrial and developing nations is expected to conclude with a communiqué that papers over differences on fiscal and monetary policy that had been exposed in the run-up to the gathering. That will leave it to the G-20's finance ministers to come up with some kind of mechanism to measure progress toward more balanced trade and flexible currency exchanges. Although the communiqué won't include numerical targets, a senior U.S. administration official acknowledged the world will have to come up with some in the future. "You have to have numbers. This is economics," he said. "And everybody recognizes that." The International Monetary Fund will be asked to judge the progress toward this "rebalancing." Undersecretary of the Treasury Lael Brainerd said currency policy dominated a meeting between Messrs. Obama and Hu after the U.S. president raised it. Mr. Hu told his U.S. counterpart that China will push forward on revamping the yuan exchange-rate mechanism a longtime goal of U.S. policy but that such a move requires "a sound external environment" and can proceed only gradually, according to state television and a government spokesman. He also told Mr. Obama that China is paying attention to the U.S. Federal Reserve's decision to pump $600 billion into the U.S. economy over the next eight months, which critics say is driving down the value of the dollar. Mr. Hu urged the U.S. to consider the interests of emerging markets, according to Chinese state TV. "The major reserve-currency issuers, while implementing their monetary policies, should not only take into account their national circumstances but should also bear in mind the possible impacts on the global economy," Zheng Xiaosong, director general of the Ministry of Finance's International Department, reiterated at a pressbriefing. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs pushed back on the notion that Mr. Obama's authority has diminished. China was not responding to currency pressure when the U.S. president was far more popular, he noted, and critics of US economic policies, like the outgoing president of Brazil, remain helpful on other fronts, from Iran to climate change. That China was emboldened to lecture the U.S. on its currency, a notable reversal of recent meetings, underscores how it and other countries, including Brazil and Germany, have emerged from the global economic crisis faster and more strongly than the U.S. Domestic politics may also be at play. An aide to South Korean President Lee Myung-bak blamed the trade pact's failure in part on the U.S. elections, which he said distracted the White House at a key time. White House aides said Mr. Obama could not accept the deal on the table because it could not get through the new Congress. Mr. Obama found himself in the odd position of having to defend the U.S.'s independent central bank. He was also unable to quell concerns that the U.S. government is deliberately trying to weaken the dollar to boost exports. Brazi's President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said Thursday he would press Mr. Obama to explain the Fed's move. President Lee demurred when asked about it. "I think that kind of question should be asked to me when President Obama is not standing right next to me," Mr. Lee answered. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Lee "stressed their common concern" over the U.S. Fed's move in their bilateral meeting, a German official said. The U.S. says the policy is designed only to boost U.S. domestic growth, which is critical to the global economy. It also argues that the dollar's value is correlated to confidence in the U.S. and global recovery, and some other countries have rushed to the Fed's defense. "Those who are criticizing the policy of the Federal Reserve, I'm not sure what alternative they're suggesting," Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper told reporters in Seoul. "I'm not sure anyone else has provided any compelling argument as to what alternative policy they would pursue, at least in the short term." The meeting of world leaders in Korea kicked off in earnest Thursday evening with a dinner and closed-door meetings focused in part on disputes over currency valuations and trade imbalances. The leaders are expected to reach several agreements before they adjourn Friday, namely on financial regulation and the role of the International Monetary Fund. But the issues that divide them have led officials to quash expectations of a breakthrough on the top issues of currencies and trade. "When you see the final communiqué, it will reflect a broad-based consensus about the direction that we need to go," Mr. Obama said. "There may be at any given moment disagreements between countries in terms of particular strategies." The communiqué won't include a numerical target for trade surpluses or deficits, which the Obama administration had pushed. Nor is it likely to explicitly pressure China to accelerate increasing the value of the yuan, to make Chinese exports more expensive and to empower Chinese consumers. Similarly, it also isn't expected to level direct criticism at the Fed's recent decision to buy bonds. However, the U.S. and China could be criticized indirectly for running big current-account deficits and surpluses, which underlie and reflect exchange rates. The senior U.S. official was blunt about Washington's ability to dictate hard policy: "You've got to live in the real world. This is the world of sovereign states. There is no country that is going to be willing to cede sovereignty over its economic policy to a committee." Mr. Obama and Chancellor Merkel agreed to play down the sniping from officials that dominated the run-up to the summit. Both resolved to pick up the phone before going public with their frustrations. "They both agreed that it's not ideal in the run-up of a meeting like the G-20 to be reading attacks on specific economic or financial policies in newspapers from Germany or the U.S.," a German official said. "There was an agreement that in the future, perhaps, there could be better consultation." |
|
12 Nov 10 - 06:38 PM (#3030718) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Well, what would be yer plan, Sawz??? The US has been using faulty economic principles for 30 years and it has now come to the rest of the world lookin' at US and sayin', "Tighten yer shit up"... Problem is that too many people, both Dems and Repubs, don't understand economics one bit yet are the one's making decisions... What, do you think the rest of the world can carry US indefinitely??? The worst thing about this is that with flat-earthers about to take over the House we aren't going to see any sane economic policy for awhile... What we are going to see is more bullshit voodoo economics... I mean, just how much more wealth do you want to see redistributed to the rich, who BTW aren't creating any jobs, Sawz??? This ain't about socialism... It's about making our country more competitive in a global economy and now we have the Tea Party anchor on US... I mean, what do ya'll think is going to happen when the working class just up and quits... You thing national strikes aren't in our future??? Think again... Failed economies come from failed economic policies... The G-20 sees it all to well... B~ |
|
13 Nov 10 - 09:46 AM (#3031033) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Greg F. Thing is, Bobert, I don't find him amusing or entertaining - & can't understand those that do. He's a living symbol of why the U.S.is currently in the toilet, and proud of it. |
|
13 Nov 10 - 10:50 AM (#3031065) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Yup, Greg... That's the entire sad scenario we have going on in the country... These people will travel anywhere on the face of the planet to see out the very best medical treatment when they are sick but... ...have no problem letting the Rush Limbaughs and Glen Becks of the world write economic policy??? No wonder we are slipping down that slippery slope at an astounding speed??? B~ |
|
17 Nov 10 - 01:13 PM (#3034482) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Low-tax states will gain seats, high-tax states will lose them By: Barbara Hollingsworth Local Opinion Editor 11/17/10 10:00 AM EST Migration from high-tax states to states with lower taxes and less government spending will dramatically alter the composition of future Congresses, according to a study by Americans for Tax Reform Eight states are projected to gain at least one congressional seat under reapportionment following the 2010 Census: Texas (four seats), Florida (two seats), Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah and Washington (one seat each). Their average top state personal income tax rate: 2.8 percent. By contrast, New York and Ohio are likely to lose two seats each, while Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania will be down one apiece. The average top state personal income tax rate in these loser states: 6.05 percent. The state and local tax burden is nearly a third lower in states with growing populations, ATR found. As a result, per capita government spending is also lower: $4,008 for states gaining congressional seats, $5,117 for states losing them. And, as ATR notes, "in eight of ten losers, workers can be forced to join a union as a condition of employment. In 7 of the 8 gainers, workers are given a choice whether to join or contribute financially to a union." Imagine that: Americans are fleeing high tax, union-dominated states and settling in states with lower taxes, right-to-work laws and lower government spending. Nothing sends a message like voting with your feet. Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/low-tax-states-will-gain-seats-high-tax-states-will-lose-them-108681159.html#ixzz15Z4i7k1x |
|
17 Nov 10 - 02:39 PM (#3034553) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Americans for Tax Reform is a right winged organization so I take most anything that comes from them as either complete mythology or highly twisted semi-facts by people who's only job is to spin chicken salad outta chicken crap... B~ |
|
17 Nov 10 - 02:58 PM (#3034565) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Bobert, The first symptom of bigotry is the decision that any information from a source you disagree with is false, without looking at it or determining what the raw facts were. IF I were to state that ANYTHING Obama or the democrats said was false, by saying "so I take most anything that comes from them as either complete mythology or highly twisted semi-facts by people who's only job is to spin chicken salad outta chicken crap..." I THINK you might actually argue with that assessment. SOME of us look at the factual basis of claims by BOTH sides to determine the truth of what they say. Since I read the WaPo and listen to NPR every day, like you do, I fail to see how **I** can be misinformed. |
|
17 Nov 10 - 05:09 PM (#3034637) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Well, bruce, the way I see it is that if I stick my hand on a hot stove and burn it badly I don't need to do that anymore... Americans for Tax Reform is a right winged organization and it has one purpose only and that is to serve their corporate maters and twist semi-truth into something that can readily be consumed by Epsilon Nation... Why on earth would I buy into their bullshit??? I know what they are up to and they have lost all credibility with most people who developed critical thinking skills along the way... As fir you being mis-informed??? I donno??? I do know that you su7pport a party that is made up of a combination of corporate ass-kissers and Epsilons... There used to be be something called Republicans... I donno??? Maybe you are one of the last few... As for MSNBC v FOX??? I doubt if you ever watch Keith Olberman or Racheal Maddow but there are righties who make that part of what they do fir their corporate masters and these people pick thru every word looking for stuff to challenge MSNBC on and there are occasionally corrections that Keith or Racheal will make if they make an error in facts... FOX do that??? Not in a million gazillion years because FOX no longer pretends to be in the news business so if they get stuff wrong, like who cares??? If FOX was 1/100th as concerned about getting stuff correct then I'm sure that progressives would tune in and call them on their outright lies and distortions... But FOX doesn't really care about the truth... They are there to entertain the Epsilons amnd they do a fine job of it... B~ |
|
17 Nov 10 - 05:20 PM (#3034646) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: beardedbruce "Why on earth would I buy into their bullshit??? I know what they are up to and they have lost all credibility with most people who developed critical thinking skills along the way..." Sort of like how I feel about the Democrats... |
|
18 Nov 10 - 04:40 PM (#3035441) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: DougR Aw Greggie, now you done gone and hurt my feelings. Bobert: "Doug is never correct?" Check back in the records and see who predicted the giant Republican victory on election day. Hint: you will find it in a post shortly after Pelosi, Harry, and Obama shoved national health care legislation down our throats. DougR |
|
18 Nov 10 - 04:54 PM (#3035446) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Even a blind squirrel stumbles upon an acorn on occasion, Dougie... B;~) |
|
19 Nov 10 - 12:17 AM (#3035654) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: DougR That far in advance, Bobert? Not THAT often. DougR |
|
19 Nov 10 - 09:36 AM (#3035936) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: GUEST,TIA "Check back in the records and see who predicted the giant Republican victory on election day..." Other famous DougR predictions: There will be no invasion of Iraq because the grown-ups are in charge now... Just give the inspectors more time, the weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq... Oh, I could go on and on, but it ain't worth it (you know the teach a pig to sing thing). |
|
19 Nov 10 - 12:06 PM (#3036018) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: DougR GUEST TIA: I don't recall writing that ALL my predictions were correct. DougR |
|
19 Nov 10 - 12:27 PM (#3036044) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Like I said, Dougie... Even a blind squirrel.,.. I mean, I'd stack my predictions up against yers any day of the week... The Repub victory (if you can call it that) wasn't all that hard to call... Hundreds of millions of dollars have been thrown at trying to bring Obama down... PR ain't rocket surgery... Throw enough negative ads at anyone, Jesus included, and you can purdy much predict any outcome... PR folks understand these principles all too well... B~ |
|
20 Nov 10 - 01:25 PM (#3036822) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw The US has been using faulty economic principles for 30 years and it has now come to the rest of the world lookin' at US and sayin', "Tighten yer shit up"... OK Perfesser Bobert, Tell us what the economic situation was 31 years ago, Was everything Ok back then? "Well, what would be yer plan, Sawz???"> My plan would be to elect a chief executive that is an executive. |
|
20 Nov 10 - 01:31 PM (#3036827) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Under Holder's influence, American detainee policy is a botched, hypocritical, politicized mess. Holder's Gitmo mess Washington Post November 19, 2010 The closing of the Guantanamo Bay prison and civilian trials for terrorists were more than policy changes proposed by Barack Obama as a presidential candidate. They were presented as a return to constitutional government - a dividing line from an uncivilized past. The indefinite detention of terrorists, according to Obama, had "destroyed our credibility when it comes to the rule of law all around the world, and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment." Testifying last year before Congress, Attorney General Eric Holder not only defended a New York trial for lead Sept. 11 plotter Khalid Sheik Mohammed, he lectured, he taunted, he preened. Unlike others, he was not "scared" of what Mohammed would say at trial. Failure was "not an option." This case, he told a reporter, would be "the defining event of my time as attorney general." Which it certainly has been. Under Holder's influence, American detainee policy is a botched, hypocritical, politicized mess. The case of embassy bomber Ahmed Ghailani - the only Guantanamo Bay detainee the Obama administration has brought to trial in the United States - was intended to increase public faith in civilian prosecutions. But a terrorist hugging his lawyers in victory can't be considered a confidence builder. Days before the Ghailani verdict, the White House admitted that Mohammed, because of massive, public resistance, would not be seeing the inside of a Manhattan courtroom anytime soon. "Gitmo," one official told The Washington Post, "is going to remain open for the foreseeable future." Where do these developments leave Holder, for whom failure is not only an option but a habit? A recent profile by Wil Hylton in GQ magazine attempts to put his tenure in the best possible light - the lonely, naive man of principle undone by politics. But the portrait is unintentionally devastating. Holder clearly views the war on terrorism as a distraction. "The biggest surprise I've had in this job," he told Hylton, "is how much time the national security issues take." He was oblivious to predictable reactions in the Mohammed case. "The political furor that erupted next," says the article, "took Holder completely by surprise." The attorney general has been stripped of authority over the trial venue by the White House. And Holder's unshakable legal principles, it turns out, were more like poses. "In case after case, he seems to have reconciled himself to policies that he would have once condemned," concludes Hylton, a true progressive believer. "As we went back and forth, I began to realize that it was impossible to know how much of Holder's argument he really believed, and how much he was merely willing to say." Holder clearly believes that his virtue was violated by politics. But there is a better explanation. President Obama's undeniable continuity in conducting the war on terrorism - the use of indefinite detention, Guantanamo Bay and targeted killing of terrorists - reflects the continuity of the threat. These measures did not result from some anti-constitutional ideology. They were difficult, conflicted but reasonable responses to an ongoing terrorist offensive - a war that is more than a metaphor. Civilian courts were not designed for high-profile enemy combatants such as Mohammed, who would use a New York trial to embrace martyrdom and encourage violence. The use of military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay is fully constitutional, approved by Congress and consistent with wartime precedent. Obama seems to be realizing - gradually, reluctantly - that applying the rules of war in the midst of a war does not destroy the credibility of the rule of law or encourage terrorist recruitment. But his public inability to admit this shift seems to be leading to the worst of possible outcomes. In all likelihood, Mohammed won't be tried in a civilian court. But Obama's progressive allies would revolt against a military tribunal for the killer of Wall Street Journal correspondent Daniel Pearl and the mastermind of Sept. 11. So Mohammed is left in legal limbo. This, in its own way, does seem at odds with the rule of law - a prisoner condemned to detention without trial because a president cannot admit he was wrong. How does Obama back down and accept a tribunal? He could begin by appointing an attorney general who understands the requirements of national security. Some on the left believe Holder should resign out of principle. Some on the right believe he should leave because he is out of his depth. Such bipartisanship should not go to waste. |
|
20 Nov 10 - 02:10 PM (#3036857) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Donuel bruce doug and sawz are going to happier than a pig in shit very soon |
|
20 Nov 10 - 03:13 PM (#3036903) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw I don't agree that Obama is corrupt, just inexperienced, naive and not executive material. People have put too much trust in him and now they have to "protect" by denying reality. He is right on some things and wrong on others. |
|
20 Nov 10 - 06:23 PM (#3037024) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: DougR "Obama is right on some things, not right on others." What's he been right about? DougR |
|
20 Nov 10 - 07:12 PM (#3037051) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk I think it's time to... Watch this again! |
|
20 Nov 10 - 07:24 PM (#3037059) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk And this! |
|
20 Nov 10 - 07:44 PM (#3037072) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert There were some good things to report 31 years ago, Sawz... 1. Cars didn't have computers... 2. The lost decade in terms of music hadn't hit US yet... 3. Oh yeah, as per usual, the deficit was cut, yet again by a Democrtic president... 4. Consumption of oil was down... 5. Reaganomics, also known as "voodoo economics" hadn't begun a 30 year downward spiral... 6. We had a real Christian president... 7. The standard of living for the average working class family was higher then then it has been since Reaganomics... 8. The 1st woman prime minister, even thou she was a rightie, was elected in the UK... 9. Sony introduced the "Walkman"... 10. Gasoline was 86 cents a gallon... See, Saws... Lotta good stuff was happening... Now, alot of folks like to place blame on everything that goes wrong on the president and I understand that... But I think most historians are in agreement that Jimmy Carter was just at the wrong place at the wrong time... Sure, Carter could have spent, spent, spent but reality is that when you do that you are going to drive interests rates up even more so Carter was fiscally conservative... He had to be... The US was coming off a very expensive war that had overheated our economy and it's hard to get the brakes to work all that well in situations like that... Obama kinda inherited another messed up economy and it has cost his party this election... I mean, that's the way it works... Carter didn't fuck up the economy he inherited just as Obama didn't fuck up the economy he inherited... That's just bad breaks for both of them... Both did, however, do the correct thing in bringing down the federal deficit... Of course, it's hard to get the truth out there but OBama's 1st budget cut the annual deficit by $100B over the last budget that Bush left, from $1.4T to $1.3T... But them is just the facts... B~ |
|
21 Nov 10 - 10:10 AM (#3037331) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Greg F. Aw, Jeez, Bobert, FACTS? Won't you ever learn? |
|
21 Nov 10 - 10:58 AM (#3037350) Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Guess not, Greg... I can't believe that with all these folks going around SCREAMING that Obama is for big government that Obama;s 1st budget --- you know, the one he submitted and was passed by the Dems --- actually cut the annual deficit by $100B from the one that Bush left for him... Guess the truth ain't all that important to the SCREAMERS??? B~ |
.jpg){kind=link}
