I can't wait until Wednesday to find out if President Obama has decided to listen to the American public, or continue full steam ahead on the construction of the "Debtstar."
The unfortunate obstacle for him is the economy. Complex distribution of wealth/bailout schemes are short-term punches with minor results and powerful backlashes. These "energy drinks" don't solve anything, they just prolong the problem.
All but the sycophants now realize that President Obama is not the great salvation that he was portrayed to be during the elections. He is simply a smart, well dressed neophyte politician with no business experience, and very little administrative experience attempting to run the largest business in the world.
We've had less experienced, who became very successful. We've also had extremely talented men who failed utterly. The difference is the willingness to listen to the collective intelligence of the American people, and the ability to be surrounded by advisors that do the same.
The American people are becoming increasingly disgruntled at the closed door/closed mind policies of this administration. It is now impossible for President Obama to ignore the sentiments of the people, and Wednesday's state of the union will be a very telling indicator of where his loyalty's lie.
- For the sake of the economy, get out of our way.
- For the sake of national security, take the reigns.
- For the sake of healthcare, free the industry to be competitive.
- Don't give me $8,000 to buy a house I can't afford.
- Don't give me $4,000 to buy a car I don't need, and can't make payments on after I lose my job.
- You've been elected, stop campaigning and stop trying to buy my support.
- Don't take my medical insurance and run it through the government "efficiency machine."
- Don't try to do these things behind closed doors because that's not how we do things.
- Green this and green that don't make a lick of difference without the prosperity to enjoy it.
He's not the great salvation because there are too many hate mongers disguised as republicans standing in the way of moving forward from 8 hideous neo con controlled years. Gassie, green this and that can get us to a more prosperous country. Just look what the tech revolution has meant. Quit being an obstructionist. What do you suggest POTUS OBAMA say Wednesday? Tax cuts? Cut spending? Balance budgets?
Offer up some new ideas to take us out of this blue or **** (keep quiet).
Quote from: FOTD on January 25, 2010, 03:01:14 PM
What do you suggest POTUS OBAMA say Wednesday? Tax cuts? Cut spending? Balance budgets?
No I don't expect him to say that. That would only fix the economy.
Nothing here about hate, just logic.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 25, 2010, 04:03:27 PM
No I don't expect him to say that. That would only fix the economy.
Nothing here about hate, just logic.
Right...because the tax cuts Bush initiated helped the economy in the long run.
Quote from: FOTD on January 25, 2010, 03:01:14 PM
He's not the great salvation because there are too many hate mongers disguised as republicans standing in the way of moving forward from 8 hideous neo con controlled years. Gassie, green this and that can get us to a more prosperous country. Just look what the tech revolution has meant. Quit being an obstructionist. What do you suggest POTUS OBAMA say Wednesday? Tax cuts? Cut spending? Balance budgets?
Offer up some new ideas to take us out of this blue or **** (keep quiet).
Green vs. Tech isn't a valid comparison. There was no real alternative to advancing technology in the tech boom. Either get on board or be left behind. The biggest government-idealized green initiatives like ethanol and bio-diesel are not cost-effective nor efficient substitutes for their counterparts. Petroleum products bring in tax revenue. Bio-d and ethanol spend it. As long as there are viable and less expensive alternatives the demand will remain low unless the gov't falsely manipulates pricing or encourages that via certain actions
Quote from: FOTD on January 25, 2010, 03:01:14 PM
He's not the great salvation because there are too many hate mongers disguised as republicans standing in the way of moving forward from 8 hideous neo con controlled years. Gassie, green this and that can get us to a more prosperous country. Just look what the tech revolution has meant. Quit being an obstructionist. What do you suggest POTUS OBAMA say Wednesday? Tax cuts? Cut spending? Balance budgets?
Offer up some new ideas to take us out of this blue or **** (keep quiet).
Thank you Hsur.
You're living in the past. Technology is already part of the moving forward process with the environment. You'll have worms crawling through you by the time energy is produced through silicon.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 25, 2010, 04:03:27 PM
No I don't expect him to say that. That would only further fix the economy.
Nothing here about hate, just logic.
Fix it further....that's what would happen according to economists....most think a second stimulus would be best.
Oops! Missed it again, FOTD. The rest of the world already has made significant progress towards using silicon. And wind. Germany is already about 12% solar. And about 20% wind. For electricity.
Huh, imagine that...another missed industrial/manufacturing opportunity for us. Simply due to the Reagan/Bush I sellout to Exxon. Oh, yeah...and the $ 11.5 TRILLION increase in national debt brought directly to you by the last 30 years of Repubican regimes.
Go figure....What could this economy do with an extra 12 trillion or so for business?? Maybe create economic opportunity?? Well, Militaristic Imperialistic Voyeurism is always so much more fun!
It took Toyota to actually make serious progress on hybrid vehicle technology. Something that US citizens were doing on their own in the 1970's, but the plaintive bleat of the Harvard Business school graduates said for 40 years "It just isn't economically feasible". And yet, here we are over 10 years later, and Toy has sold more than all the other "me too's" combined. Another lost market!! Due directly to the sellout to big oil!
And the "prosperity to enjoy it" won't mean squat when you are wheezing in your highly filtered, sealed up house with an oxygen tank next to the Lazy-Boy. How sad that will be for ALL of us!!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 25, 2010, 08:54:53 PM
...but the plaintive bleat of the Harvard Business school graduates said for 40 years "It just isn't economically feasible".
For some reason the plan just isn't feasible if it doesn't fit the 5 year plan. Our Business Schools (not just Harvard) seem to have lost the idea of long term plans.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 25, 2010, 02:34:47 PM
- For the sake of the economy, get out of our way.
- For the sake of healthcare, free the industry to be competitive.
- Don't give me $8,000 to buy a house I can't afford.
- Green this and green that don't make a lick of difference without the prosperity to enjoy it.
- Perhaps you've forgotten but that's what got us into this mess (I know it's been almost two years now, so it may be hard to remember back that far), the complete "look ma, no hands!" regulatory attitude
- That is current policy, which is once again, not working well for a significant portion of our society
- I hear you, but there are plenty of people out there who can afford a house; propping the housing market up is also helping to prevent deflation
- Green this and green that are part of what will bring us the prosperity in the first place
It's almost tragic how when Democrats went too far left in their economic policies, they looked around and went for the old-guard Republican style economic policies. (Friedman before he went crazy) Now that the same thing has happened to the Republicans, they by and large blame it on the regulatory state that was largely dismantled over the last two decades. I know it's hard to move past the 80s, but our country needs us to deal with reality as it currently exists, not as it was then.
I wish the regulatory state was unnecessary, but we are for the most part no longer a rural agrarian society with little technology and little industry.
I guess I got my answer last night on CNN & NBC. He is going to cover many of the topics I hoped he would . . . but it will be in an attempt to re-brand himself, rather than address the issues. If true, this will be sad. Still campaigning.
Katy even called him "Obama 2.0." All of the heads are talking about how he intends to reinvent himself. They are calling it the "I feel your Pain" campaign in honor of the Slick One I assume. They used the word "Campaign" more than a dozen times to describe this speech.
Some of his initiatives are still attempts to BUY support, such as doubling tax credits on non-enterprise endeavors. The "I'll give you money if you shut-up" approach is getting old. I like getting my tax money back for having kids, but I don't view it as some sort of gracious reward from my government!
Rumor has it he will also propose the beginning of the government take-over of private IRAs and pension plans. I bet he covers this AFTER he covers the "I'll give you money if you shut-up" program.
If you remember during the campaign all of the wack-job, nutbag, far-right, hate-radio talking heads claimed that he was going to take over banks, private companies, and then take control of private retirement money by pushing for government take over of individual retirement account system. We'll have to wait and see if they were right.
This is a sad state of affairs. The government has spent it's self into oblivion, no wonder they want to take control of more money and sap more profits from private enterprise. I'm sitting in a pretty good seat to have a feel for the reality of what stimulus porkulus spending has and has not done for the economy and can honestly tell you, I speak to very few people on a daily basis who think the Obama admin is pro-business. That's not any of my paradigms speaking, that's the words of business people I interract with on a daily basis.
To this point, the stimulus has been a bust based on what kind of expectations citizens were given. Nathan, you and Wevus can sit around and cite any economist you wish and spout theory, but in practice, what the government has done in the last year simply has not created jobs nor any significant growth in manufacturing orders.
Vendors, customers, and suppliers of mine are all still pretty scared. There's nothing coming out of the government right now that is inspiring confidence. Those who have money are hanging on to as much as possible right now as no one seems to have a clue what could be looming in tax code changes, how hard it's going to be to secure credit lines they may need down the road due to government regs or lack thereof, and no one seems certain what changes in health care may or may not bring in the way of employer costs.
Theory works great on paper but often has a hard time finding a place in the real world. How long is everyone going to be content to continue to blame the economic problems on Bush II and the GOP majority in Congress? FWIW, Dems have had the majority now for 3 years, and the WH for one. Uncertainty and true fear of government control is scaring the people who actually drive the economy. There's money to be spent, but so long as entrepreneurs are faced with uncertainty, they are going to sit on it.
This is a reflection of poor top-down leadership and partisan politics at it's worst going on in the House and Senate. No one in DC seems truly concerned about working Americans. All they seem concerned with is legacy-building, rewarding those who keep them in power (not the voter), and trying to find new revenue sources to finance out-of-control spending from meddling in areas government should not be getting into.
Looking at the pre-speech press releases there is no mention of any discussion of national security. That's troubling. Especially after the recient attempt.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 26, 2010, 11:04:29 AM
Looking at the pre-speech press releases there is no mention of any discussion of national security. That's troubling. Especially after the recient attempt.
Give me a break....he gave a lengthy address on Afghanistan not to long ago.... From the polls, it does not appear the highest priority with Americans. Hawks? Yes. looks like Feb. 1st to me.... http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/09/27/u-s-missile-shield-system-deployments-larger-sooner-broader/
Unlimited military spending: the third rail of American politics. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2010/01/26/defense/index.html
We're spending more than $1 TRILLION a year on bloated, immoral, predatory military adventurism. Not just wrong, it's DUMB. Bush III?
Here Gassie, load on up.... http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp87.pdf .....
The Republican Spending Explosion Republicans are actually the worst culprits when it comes to out-of-control spending.
Now, let's see what you have to say Thursday after you watch and read the directives handed down by the Reich.
Military adventurism is just so passe'.
Imperialistic voyeurism is much more interesting and MUCH more accurate!
Quote from: Gaspar on January 26, 2010, 11:04:29 AM
Looking at the pre-speech press releases there is no mention of any discussion of national security. That's troubling. Especially after the recient attempt.
This is a good thing. Don't let the bastards see us flinch.
Quote from: FOTD on January 26, 2010, 01:45:21 PM
Give me a break....he gave a lengthy address on Afghanistan not to long ago.... From the polls, it does not appear the highest priority with Americans. Hawks? Yes. looks like Feb. 1st to me.... http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/09/27/u-s-missile-shield-system-deployments-larger-sooner-broader/
Unlimited military spending: the third rail of American politics. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2010/01/26/defense/index.html
We're spending more than $1 TRILLION a year on bloated, immoral, predatory military adventurism. Not just wrong, it's DUMB. Bush III?
Here Gassie, load on up.... http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp87.pdf ..... The Republican Spending Explosion Republicans are actually the worst culprits when it comes to out-of-control spending.
Now, let's see what you have to say Thursday after you watch and read the directives handed down by the Reich.
Without saying right, wrong or otherwise on the WOT-
Obviously $1 Trillion a year toward military spending is fueling spending in the private sector and providiing jobs for millions of people all over the globe in virtually every single industry imagineable even including innocuous-sounding (in a military context) things such agriculture, automotive, construction materials, and textiles. Just curious how you would deal with additional unemployment and ostensibly more people without health care if military spending were slashed to nothing. Quite a bit of stimulus spending is finding its way into VA hospitals, and the military employs a lot of private contractors for construction projects (way more than Haliburton).
This kind of spending is simply unsustainable and is easily the simplest for peaceniks to see as "discretionary". Just curious what kind of proposal anyone has as far as how to deal with the sudden burst to 15 or 20% of unemployment if military spending were cut in half over night.
All purely hypothetical, but I'm curious how many of you have given thought to what kind of deep sh!t the economy would be in if you drastically cut back one of the major fuelers of our economy.
Interesting. . .
The President is going to propose a Freeze on Federal funding!
The media is playing this up like it's a huge deal. Cuts in everything except military spending.
For those of us who are bad at math this sounds like the president is really taking action to halt massive deficit spending. I'm glad. But after looking at the reports on the numbers, I had to laugh.
It comes out to be a cut of 15 billion a year. It will not touch any of the stimulus, or entitlement budget. Nor will it affect any of the President's new programs.
It is estimated to shave around 0.4% off of spending every year. Less than half of a percent!
What an insult. What an outright insult to the intelligence of the people. He's going to make a big deal of this and you know that Speaker Pelosi and her cabal will never pass it anyway.
Well, at least we are getting lip service discussion about it.
Light years beyond what the Reagan/Bush/Bush cabal EVER did!
Maybe something will actually come of it one of these decades.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 27, 2010, 11:03:18 AM
Well, at least we are getting lip service discussion about it.
Light years beyond what the Reagan/Bush/Bush cabal EVER did!
Maybe something will actually come of it one of these decades.
You're right! Thank God President Obama is tackling tough issues, like giving the American people lip service.
Nope! Their already gearing up for the fight. Congress is not going to accept his proposal.
Hilarious quote of the day:
"I'm just concerned that in a recessionary time, you don't pull back government," said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio). "What does that mean for job growth?"
Second hilarious quote of the day (not really sure which is funnier):
"The president made these decisions like a family would sitting around the dinner table, It can't spend more money than it has ... it has to make some decisions about what is vital." Robert Gibbs
Oh wait here's another:
"No more tricks," Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) said. "The American people want responsible federal government."
And as for the eye-rolling crowd:
"To me it's totally meaningless," said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.). "But it's obvious why he's doing it. The idea is smart: He's going to try to make people think he's concerned about spending."
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 27, 2010, 11:03:18 AM
Well, at least we are getting lip service discussion about it.
"Lip service"? Must. Resist. Urge.
Conan, a little help here?
Enjoy: State of the Union drinking game....
" Choose any three.
Every time Obama:
says "Let me be clear": 1 drink
says "make no mistake": 1 drink
says "this will not be easy": 1 drink
suggests there's a consensus among experts about a proposal when there isn't: 1 drink
claims to be aligned with the populist backlash he created: 1 drink
suggests that History with a capital H demands that we do whatever it is he's talking about: 1 drink
says that he's being "pragmatic" or "bipartisan" when he's actually being wildly ideological or partisan: 1 drink
every time he says something that will obviously cost you money: 1 drink (this one could cause alcohol poisoning)
when something will cost you money and make the economy worse at the same time: 1 drink (safer version of above).
The good news is that if you do this, you won't remember watching the speech when you wake up tomorrow.
If we all had bongs, the devil would suggest substituting substance.....
And in spite of it all, as much as I dislike Obama, he is still light years better than the Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush regimes that have brought us to this point.
Mainly because he hasn't been able to do anything to hurt us yet.
And he did bring us out of that dark, dank basement of the previous 8 years.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 27, 2010, 02:57:50 PM
And he did bring us out of that dark, dank basement of the previous 8 years.
By doing what specifically?
And while I really don't like Obama at all, there is a certain amount of credit that must acrue to the last year. Hmmm... imagine what he "hasn't" done since he has been in office. At least according to Cheney/Rove/Limbaugh/Hannity...
We stopped the blatant breaking of our law (which, by definition IS also international treaty law) by stopping torture and rendition.
Gitmo is being emptied and the people who deserve it are going to be tried and quite likely convicted. And hopefully executed.
We have actually had a major tax cut for the vast majority of American's who earn a paycheck. (Sorry you didn't get one if you make over $250,000 per year. But you got your huge tax break 8 years ago...) You would think talk radio would be happy about any tax cut, but I guess since it was the lower 95% of income, it just isn't good enough.
Actually got Pakistan into this thing in a very real way instead of just lip service. (Oh, there's that pesky lip service thing again.)
Our massive recession has actually been brought to a stop even if it is slow to recover. The previous 1 1/2 year was continuous free fall.
We are finally back to paying attention to the right war. (We will see if it is handled any better, but so far just this year there has been more done in Afghanistan than in all the previous 6 years combined to head that way.) This is the biggest good thing to happen in a LONG time. Maybe they can find Bin Laden now that his family protector is no longer in office.
Our troops in Afghanistan are finally getting the support they deserve and have been asking for. The average was around 30,000 for 6 years while Bush fiddled on - despite repeated requests for more help. Now, since the inauguration of 2009, that has increased to almost 100,000 now and another 30,000 or so on the way.
And all this that "hasn't" happened while the nattering nabobs of negativity continue their lies, distortions and spew their bile and specifically say they hope America fails.
How do the right wing radio-ites reconcile their faith in a philosophy led by a draft-dodging drug addict who cannot even go through his 18 month probation without breaking more Federal drug laws?? (Limbaugh - was caught with another man's prescription for Viagra before his 18 month probation was over.) Oh, wait... he is a Federal drug felon - shouldn't he really have gotten some jail time for distribution of Oxycontin?? 1,000 pills in possesion would definitely be with intent to distribute if he was anyone else. Well, at least according to his long term rants about the subject. (Do what I say, not what I do...) Well, he IS rich, so I guess that makes it all ok.
See what was missed while worrying about liars yapping about birth certificates?
Would be nice if there were more, but that ain't all bad for an amateur still trying to learn the job. Of course, it will never be enough for the Cheney/Rove/Hannity world...
And if anyone looks honestly at their own track record; can you say you have done proportionally better in your first year of any new job??
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 27, 2010, 03:12:58 PM
And while I really don't like Obama at all, there is a certain amount of credit that must acrue to the last year. Hmmm... imagine what he "hasn't" done since he has been in office. At least according to Cheney/Rove/Limbaugh/Hannity...
We stopped the blatant breaking of our law (which, by definition IS also international treaty law) by stopping torture and rendition.
Gitmo is being emptied and the people who deserve it are going to be tried and quite likely convicted. And hopefully executed.
We have actually had a major tax cut for the vast majority of American's who earn a paycheck. (Sorry you didn't get one if you make over $250,000 per year. But you got your huge tax break 8 years ago...) You would think talk radio would be happy about any tax cut, but I guess since it was the lower 95% of income, it just isn't good enough.
Actually got Pakistan into this thing in a very real way instead of just lip service. (Oh, there's that pesky lip service thing again.)
Our massive recession has actually been brought to a stop even if it is slow to recover. The previous 1 1/2 year was continuous free fall.
We are finally back to paying attention to the right war. (We will see if it is handled any better, but so far just this year there has been more done in Afghanistan than in all the previous 6 years combined to head that way.) This is the biggest good thing to happen in a LONG time. Maybe they can find Bin Laden now that his family protector is no longer in office.
Our troops in Afghanistan are finally getting the support they deserve and have been asking for. The average was around 30,000 for 6 years while Bush fiddled on - despite repeated requests for more help. Now, since the inauguration of 2009, that has increased to almost 100,000 now and another 30,000 or so on the way.
And all this that "hasn't" happened while the nattering nabobs of negativity continue their lies, distortions and spew their bile and specifically say they hope America fails.
How do the right wing radio-ites reconcile their faith in a philosophy led by a draft-dodging drug addict who cannot even go through his 18 month probation without breaking more Federal drug laws?? (Limbaugh - was caught with another man's prescription for Viagra before his 18 month probation was over.) Oh, wait... he is a Federal drug felon - shouldn't he really have gotten some jail time for distribution of Oxycontin?? 1,000 pills in possesion would definitely be with intent to distribute if he was anyone else. Well, at least according to his long term rants about the subject. (Do what I say, not what I do...) Well, he IS rich, so I guess that makes it all ok.
See what was missed while worrying about liars yapping about birth certificates?
Oh where to begin with that mish mash of lies and distortions:
Torture: Not sure what you mean by "torture", unless of course you are referring to playing loud music or waterboarding. If so, we are talking about an enhanced interrogation program that succeeded in obtaining key information about terrorist activities.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/20/AR2009042002818.html
In any case, not caring too much if KSM and the two others were made uncomfortable, especially if you have any memory of this:
(http://people.clarkson.edu/~johndan/workspace/images/fallingman-wide.jpg)
If you mean abu ghraib prisoner abuse, those directly responsible were disciplined.
Rendition: Sorry bub, last I heard Obama is continuing this practice:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/us/politics/25rendition.html
By the way, I notice you didn't point out Obama's lie on military tribunals, those are continuing too. Indefinite detention? Yep, that's also continuing:
http://washingtonindependent.com/74524/why-not-just-keep-gtmo-open
Civilian trials of some of those at Gitmo: I know the Obama administration wants to do this, however just today John Boehner says "no way". Congress will stop them (they hold the purse strings).
QuoteHouse Minority Leader John Boehner said Wednesday the Obama administration doesn't have the votes to change the law to move detainees to U.S. territory for trial or to spend $500 million to refurbish the Thompson prison in Illinois to host the detainees who would be held there while awaiting trial in New York City.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/27/boehner-way-terrorist-trials-held-new-york/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+foxnews%252Fpolitics+%2528Text+-+Politics%2529
The recession stopped: Tell that to the 10% unemployed (2% more that Obama promised if that BS stimulus bill passed--you know, that lie), and didn't I just see housing sales "unexpectedly" fell last month?
Paying attention to the right war: We are only fighting one war, Afghanistan, and it took Obama three months to follow the advice of his field commanders on the ground and increase the troop levels. The "other" war, Iraq, has been won. I guess you will credit Obama for that as well.
Tax relief for those 95%: As I recall, Obama promised not to raise the taxes not one dime for those making less that $250,000. Remember this blast from the past?
How was s-chip funded? And what about the health care mandate that was part of the health care and the higher utility costs of the "cap and trade" flops?
Not sure what that rant on talk show radio folks has to do with Obama. And Rush being a draft dodger, I guess you do not know that our "higher IQ" gaffe machine of a vice president was also a draft dodger. As for Biden, let's walk down memory lane:
Heir,
I really don't want to do this, but what the heck.
We stopped the blatant breaking of our law (which, by definition IS also international treaty law) by stopping torture and rendition.
We used sleep deprivation and perceived panic tactics to save thousands of lives. Now we are granting Miranda rights to Terrorists now. We have stopped our war on terror and turned it into a lawyer-fest. Heck! We are no longer going to use the T word. The trial lawyer's union got their way.
Gitmo is being emptied and the people who deserve it are going to be tried and quite likely convicted. And hopefully executed.
No. They are being released, or transferred to domestic prisons where they will enjoy civilian legal defense and long drawn out court appeals. The trial lawyer's union got thier way.
We have actually had a major tax cut for the vast majority of American's who earn a paycheck. (Sorry you didn't get one if you make over $250,000 per year. But you got your huge tax break 8 years ago...) You would think talk radio would be happy about any tax cut, but I guess since it was the lower 95% of income, it just isn't good enough.
No. Not a tax cut, a check. Not major, extremely minor. Those who paid no taxes also received this payoff.
Actually got Pakistan into this thing in a very real way instead of just lip service. (Oh, there's that pesky lip service thing again.)
Apparently you are not watching the news.
Our massive recession has actually been brought to a stop even if it is slow to recover. The previous 1 1/2 year was continuous free fall.
Still in recession. Just not falling as fast. Unemployment still growing. Deficit spending at an all time high. CBO warning the President that it is unsustainable. NOTHING has been done that has any positive effect on job numbers.
We are finally back to paying attention to the right war. (We will see if it is handled any better, but so far just this year there has been more done in Afghanistan than in all the previous 6 years combined to head that way.) This is the biggest good thing to happen in a LONG time. Maybe they can find Bin Laden now that his family protector is no longer in office.
Our troops in Afghanistan are finally getting the support they deserve and have been asking for. The average was around 30,000 for 6 years while Bush fiddled on - despite repeated requests for more help. Now, since the inauguration of 2009, that has increased to almost 100,000 now and another 30,000 or so on the way.
??? What planet are you on? Our generals begged for 30,000 extra troops for months. Hundreds died waiting for reinforcements while the President evaluated how a troop surge would affect his popularity numbers. Finally when he could resist no longer he sent a slightly reduced number and took credit for the idea.
And all this that "hasn't" happened while the nattering nabobs of negativity continue their lies, distortions and spew their bile and specifically say they hope America fails.
Who hopes America fails? I don't get this at all.
How do the right wing radio-ites reconcile their faith in a philosophy led by a draft-dodging drug addict who cannot even go through his 18 month probation without breaking more Federal drug laws?? (Limbaugh - was caught with another man's prescription for Viagra before his 18 month probation was over.) Oh, wait... he is a Federal drug felon - shouldn't he really have gotten some jail time for distribution of Oxycontin?? 1,000 pills in possesion would definitely be with intent to distribute if he was anyone else. Well, at least according to his long term rants about the subject. (Do what I say, not what I do...) Well, he IS rich, so I guess that makes it all ok.
What does some radio talking head have to do with anything? Why are the libs hung up on this Limbaugh guy. He's leading no one!
See what was missed while worrying about liars yapping about birth certificates?
I don't give a crap about anyone's birth certificate. We are falling victim to bad politics in a time when we need to be free to innovate and produce. Morons are running around pushing government programs, government takeovers, and government growth in a time when banks are terrified to loan money because they feel they are at risk, and business fear growth because they see looming tax burdens.
You have been successful in covering every non-important issue in a fabulously uninformed way. Even FOTD has the ability at times to provide a decent sprinkling of misaligned fact to make his name calling and gyrations entertaining.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 27, 2010, 03:16:35 PM
And if anyone looks honestly at their own track record; can you say you have done proportionally better in your first year of any new job??
This is not flipping burgers. CEO's don't get a pass their first year because they're new. I feel sorry for the guy. He's never run a business, cut a paycheck, or even developed a business plan or budget, and he's been thrown into running the largest economy in the world.
This is not something that you get a pass at. I thought I would never say this about anyone, but President Obama makes Carter look good.
Quote from: FOTD on January 27, 2010, 02:14:18 PM
Enjoy: State of the Union drinking game....
" Choose any three.
Every time Obama:
says "Let me be clear": 1 drink
says "make no mistake": 1 drink
says "this will not be easy": 1 drink
suggests there's a consensus among experts about a proposal when there isn't: 1 drink
claims to be aligned with the populist backlash he created: 1 drink
suggests that History with a capital H demands that we do whatever it is he's talking about: 1 drink
says that he's being "pragmatic" or "bipartisan" when he's actually being wildly ideological or partisan: 1 drink
every time he says something that will obviously cost you money: 1 drink (this one could cause alcohol poisoning)
when something will cost you money and make the economy worse at the same time: 1 drink (safer version of above).
The good news is that if you do this, you won't remember watching the speech when you wake up tomorrow.
If we all had bongs, the devil would suggest substituting substance.....
How much do I drink if a Republican yells "Liar!" A lot? A little? Do I just chug whatever's in front of me and turn off the TV?
Whew! What a Cheney/Rove/Hannity diatribe!
Yes, sleep deprivation, panic tactics (I presume you mean waterboarding), and all the miscellaneous things that ARE illegal in the US. And in military courts. And in Geneva Convention law. All of which make up the "Supreme Law" of the land. Unfortunately, so few have actually read the US Consitution that they don't understand that small detail.
As we have found as some truth has come out about Gitmo, of the 800+ detained for so long, there were in the neighborhood of a couple hundred who were "legitimate" detainees. Some are ideal candidates for trial, much as the one's responsible for the first WTC bombing, and were tried. And are in prison today. From Clinton era. Maybe there will be some kept; we shall see. But we DO know the track record of 8 years of Bush II.
The tax cut was a $300 billion cut for everyone who gets a paycheck and makes under $250,000. Happened about last March. If you didn't see it, check with someone you know who makes less than that. It happened. And continues through today.
I watch ALL the news - not just Fox. Rupert Murdoch doesn't want you to know that Pakistan has actually taken back a good portion of the Swat valley area!
Even Fox realizes and admits that we have been out of recession since middle of last year. Have you seen any news since then? AIG and all the other big banks are raking in record profits and paying out HUGE bonuses again. Times are booming!! Oh, wait...that doesn't help the rest of us. Yeah, it is going to be a long time before we get back to where we were before. But, the temporary personnel people are BOOMING right now, so employment IS getting better, even if companies are only hiring temps.
This is Earth. You do realize that when Obama took office, the troop count was just under 30,000 in Afghanistan? And between then until the latest decision to add 30,000, the count did go up until it was right at 100,000. Now it will be more. So, Obama is actually doing what his Secretary of Defense wants him to do. Huh...go figure. It only took Rumsfeld a few years until the military got the troops....oh, wait, that's right, they NEVER did get the troop levels they wanted and needed. And the ones that kept asking kept getting fired. You do remember that, don't you?? And why not?
Hello?? Revisionist history theory would love it if all Fox news listeners had that kind of memory. Limbaugh has said over and over and over and over how he would like to see us fail.
Government takeovers and growth like the previous 28 years? Banks aren't terrified to make loans, they are sitting on it to wait for interest rates to go up. And you and I are paying them to do this, thanks to Bush II and his bank bailout program/policies. They don't fear anything, because they have 'bought-and-paid' for Congress and will be protected.
Why would anyone fear growth because they might be taxed on that growth?? Do you listen to what you write? I cannot imagine any better financial scenario than for my tax bill to double every year for the rest of my life!! Small words, easily understood; because it means I am making much, much more every year!
As an aside, do you actually think that taxes won't or shouldn't go up? This year the Bush II temporary cuts are due to expire. I am sure Fox news will try to blame Obama for that, too, but this is exactly what Bush and his Congress said was the correct thing to do. (Of course they were wrong - Reagan and Bush I proved that to us.)
Do you really think that $12 trillion in debt brought to you by Reagan/Bush/Bush isn't the big problem? How would another trillion or two amount to more than a hill of beans after the damage has already been done?
As far as running a business, well neither had G. W. Bush. Still hasn't.
Are you holding back on your business plans just because you are afraid of some nebulous tax thing? Let me reassure you, this is a great economy. Go ahead and plan! Be ready for the time when things do come back. You will enjoy a kind of "slingshot" affect when it happens. And with the pent up demand at all levels for just about every consumer good people have put off buying, I suspect it will be coming back sooner than we think. I am putting every spare available minute of my evenings into planning/building/developing products to be ready and in place when it happens. Don't let the chicken littles on Fox hold you back!
Name calling?? What name calling?? Do you mean the Limbaugh thing? That's not name calling that is just the adjectives that rightfully and deservedly belong in front of his name. Now, if you want to hear some REAL name calling, just tune into 740AM and listen to the Fox gang.
It's like what we believe in doesn't matter to you guys. All that Declaration of Independence stuff, all that stuff in the Constitution. We have laws outlawing torture, including stress positions, including waterboarding. We have laws and treaties guaranteeing equal protection, fair and speedy trials, innocence until guilt is proven, etc etc. These aren't just rights attributed to Americans, they're attributed to all humans everywhere. We have signed treaties to this effect and they have been binding for 50 years.
This is what we believe in, and this is what makes us Americans. It's black and white. Why you want to throw away what makes us who we are is beyond me. It's dumbfounding.
Edit: hiero got there first.
Quote from: guido911 on January 27, 2010, 12:09:25 PM
"Lip service"? Must. Resist. Urge.
Conan, a little help here?
***COUGH***COUGH*** "Blowjob!"
(http://www.magnificentbastard.com/images/pics/animal-house-3-piece.jpg)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 27, 2010, 02:57:50 PM
Mainly because he hasn't been able to do anything to hurt us yet.
Other than that huge deficit thingy. But who's counting?
Heironymous, welcome aboard from the Olbermann show. Your passion is admirable, but the way you play loose and fast with the facts er um DNC talking points, is simply hillarious.
Quote from: FOTD on January 27, 2010, 02:14:18 PM
Enjoy: State of the Union drinking game....
" Choose any three.
Every time Obama:
says "Let me be clear": 1 drink
says "make no mistake": 1 drink
says "this will not be easy": 1 drink
suggests there's a consensus among experts about a proposal when there isn't: 1 drink
claims to be aligned with the populist backlash he created: 1 drink
suggests that History with a capital H demands that we do whatever it is he's talking about: 1 drink
says that he's being "pragmatic" or "bipartisan" when he's actually being wildly ideological or partisan: 1 drink
every time he says something that will obviously cost you money: 1 drink (this one could cause alcohol poisoning)
when something will cost you money and make the economy worse at the same time: 1 drink (safer version of above).
The good news is that if you do this, you won't remember watching the speech when you wake up tomorrow.
If we all had bongs, the devil would suggest substituting substance.....
I don't keep that much booze in the house (or nearby).
Quote from: Red Arrow on January 27, 2010, 06:28:56 PM
I don't keep that much booze in the house (or nearby).
I'm well-prepared.
Quote from: we vs us on January 27, 2010, 05:29:59 PM
It's like what we believe in doesn't matter to you guys. All that Declaration of Independence stuff, all that stuff in the Constitution. We have laws outlawing torture, including stress positions, including waterboarding. We have laws and treaties guaranteeing equal protection, fair and speedy trials, innocence until guilt is proven, etc etc. These aren't just rights attributed to Americans, they're attributed to all humans everywhere. We have signed treaties to this effect and they have been binding for 50 years.
This is what we believe in, and this is what makes us Americans. It's black and white. Why you want to throw away what makes us who we are is beyond me. It's dumbfounding.
Edit: hiero got there first.
Going down that self-righteous, Utopian view of this country again. During times of war, and that is what happened after we were attacked on 9/11 (remember that event?), we simply have to treat the enemy like, wait for it, the enemy. And this is no run-of-the-mill enemy, these f$cking monsters fly planes into building, cut the heads of news reporters and other infidels, strap bombs to women and children, and most recently shoot up Army bases and are willing to firebomb their own genitals to kill us. And here you are preaching good ol' American values and extending constitutional rights to them.
Sorry, can't get to where you want to be. If folks like poor ol' KSM are made to feel a little uncomfortable for a few minutes so as can prevent another plane flying into a building killing perhaps members of your family, I got no problem. You apparently find more important the protecting of their rights (still trying to find that treaty we have with al Qaeda or a treaty that they are signatories to) rather than taking steps to keep
Americans alive so they can enjoy their rights. Now that's dumbfounding.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 27, 2010, 06:26:22 PM
Heironymous, welcome aboard from the Olbermann show. Your passion is admirable, but the way you play loose and fast with the facts er um DNC talking points, is simply hillarious.
Two of my favorite "facts" from the last post:
"As far as running a business, well neither had G. W. Bush. Still hasn't." (Those oil exploration businesses and Texas Rangers ownership aside.)
"Now, if you want to hear some REAL name calling, just tune into 740AM and listen to the Fox gang." (Who knew that about Joe Kelley. Also, I thought Fox was on KFAQ?)
Quote from: guido911 on January 27, 2010, 06:47:53 PM
Two of my favorite "facts" from the last post:
"As far as running a business, well neither had G. W. Bush. Still hasn't." (Those oil exploration businesses and Texas Rangers ownership aside.)
"Now, if you want to hear some REAL name calling, just tune into 740AM and listen to the Fox gang." (Who knew that about Joe Kelley. Also, I thought Fox was on KFAQ?)
"WAS IT OVER WHEN THE GERMANS BOMBED PEARL HARBOR!!??!!"
"Germans??"
"Forget it, he's rolling."
(http://www.getreligion.org/wp-content/photos/2008/12/belushi3.jpg)
I sure have Belushi on the mind today.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 27, 2010, 06:34:49 PM
I'm well-prepared.
No seals on two of them. Are they
useless empty?
Quote from: Red Arrow on January 27, 2010, 07:18:01 PM
No seals on two of them. Are they useless empty?
I'm praying, but doubtful, this speech will be a single-kegger.
Quote from: we vs us on January 27, 2010, 04:58:04 PM
How much do I drink if a Republican yells "Liar!" A lot? A little? Do I just chug whatever's in front of me and turn off the TV?
One shot per "Liar" or equivalent. Let us know tomorrow how you feel. Chugging and turning off the TV is cheating. If righties have to watch the whole show, so do you.
Drink something decent, maybe you won't get a headache tomorrow.
Not a "liar!" throughout the whole thing. Now what'll i do? I'm stone cold sober.
Two interesting things: Someone had the Democrats make a concerted effort to wear bright colors and be seen smiling and laughing and even dancing in the aisles (!!). For most of the speech, Biden was having the time of his life. An effort, perhaps, to make them seem more accessible?
And Obama's eye contact, posture, and speech was focused on people in the chamber, rather than at the TV cameras. There was a whole lot of lecturing of both parties. Including the Supreme Court, which was a surprise. Funny to see Alito slip up and mouth a pissed off response. No surprise: I dug it.
Quote from: we vs us on January 27, 2010, 09:59:40 PM
Not a "liar!" throughout the whole thing. Now what'll i do? I'm stone cold sober.
Two interesting things: Someone had the Democrats make a concerted effort to wear bright colors and be seen smiling and laughing and even dancing in the aisles (!!). For most of the speech, Biden was having the time of his life. An effort, perhaps, to make them seem more accessible?
And Obama's eye contact, posture, and speech was focused on people in the chamber, rather than at the TV cameras. There was a whole lot of lecturing of both parties. Including the Supreme Court, which was a surprise. Funny to see Alito slip up and mouth a pissed off response. No surprise: I dug it.
Note to dude or dudette doing the Republican Response next time. It might serve you to actually listen to the address so when you respond to it, your points don't come off as irrelevant.
At least he wasn't Bobby Jindal.
Republican response was to another speech, somewhere else.
And why is it that no one dares to address the topic of the $12 trillion debt of the last 28 years?? Oh, yeah...that's the past, so it must be forgotten. And there hasn't been that big a deficit yet under Obama. Yep, it is coming, but so far, the budget for the year ending last Sept is still Bush II. We are moving toward more big deficits. Was and is because of the 2001 tax cuts. Changed a surplus into deficit. Even Reagan/Bush I knew better than that. Sounds like there are quite a few here who have drunk the magic kool-aid of Fox-land.
I bet these are some of the same people who vote for Inhofe.
These things really aren't all that difficult. All that is required is the ability to read. And anyone can google the US Constitution, as well as most if not all of the other pertinent law.
Utopia you think? So, the rationalization... no, wait, that is the outright statement that in "times of war" the law of the land is disposable. And then we take it to the next step of stooping to their level. Yeah, that's what my Utopian expectation is; we behave just as badly as they are. What a noble ambition for an honorable country!!
As far as getting information to prevent another WTC event. Well, I will defer on that point to the experts on the effectiveness of torture. FBI, CIA, every legitimate, credible expert on the subject, and John McCain. It doesn't work. And even Bush II guys and our own CIA have admitted that nothing of value has been gained by any of that.
But, I guess it just makes our macho selves feel better to fume and bluster. Does it?
I guess the most fundamental question I would ask, and I would be very interested in hearing a real reply to this;
Why are you NOT preaching good ol' American values that you were taught in school, hopefully at home, and at church (except of course, if you went to Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson church.)??
And second, why do you have such an apparently scornful tone about those same good ol' American values?
Ends justify the means and all that??
We have no treaty with them. We have treaties with the entire world. And it IS our supreme law of the land. (See U.S. Constitution.)
George running oil business or baseball team??? Even the most diehard Fox fan cannot possibly say that with a straight face. He was too busy coking up and being drunk to bother with pesky details of business. Like everything in his life, this was handed to him (remember the loans and no payback terms to get the baseball team?) Do you remember seeing George during the last 8 years. And how often he was obviously drunk while in public? Or is it the work of a serious, sober head of state to give a shoulder massage to another head of state?
Can you actually believe that O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, Levine are not part of the Fox stable?? You have to be old enough to know better.
Quote from: we vs us on January 27, 2010, 09:59:40 PM
Not a "liar!" throughout the whole thing. Now what'll i do? I'm stone cold sober.
Have a couple of drinks to express your surprise. :)
I'll drink to that!!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 27, 2010, 10:12:26 PM
Republican response was to another speech, somewhere else.
And why is it that no one dares to address the topic of the $12 trillion debt of the last 28 years?? Oh, yeah...that's the past, so it must be forgotten. And there hasn't been that big a deficit yet under Obama. Yep, it is coming, but so far, the budget for the year ending last Sept is still Bush II. We are moving toward more big deficits. Was and is because of the 2001 tax cuts. Changed a surplus into deficit. Even Reagan/Bush I knew better than that. Sounds like there are quite a few here who have drunk the magic kool-aid of Fox-land.
I bet these are some of the same people who vote for Inhofe.
These things really aren't all that difficult. All that is required is the ability to read. And anyone can google the US Constitution, as well as most if not all of the other pertinent law.
Utopia you think? So, the rationalization... no, wait, that is the outright statement that in "times of war" the law of the land is disposable. And then we take it to the next step of stooping to their level. Yeah, that's what my Utopian expectation is; we behave just as badly as they are. What a noble ambition for an honorable country!!
As far as getting information to prevent another WTC event. Well, I will defer on that point to the experts on the effectiveness of torture. FBI, CIA, every legitimate, credible expert on the subject, and John McCain. It doesn't work. And even Bush II guys and our own CIA have admitted that nothing of value has been gained by any of that.
But, I guess it just makes our macho selves feel better to fume and bluster. Does it?
I guess the most fundamental question I would ask, and I would be very interested in hearing a real reply to this;
Why are you NOT preaching good ol' American values that you were taught in school, hopefully at home, and at church (except of course, if you went to Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson church.)??
And second, why do you have such an apparently scornful tone about those same good ol' American values?
Ends justify the means and all that??
We have no treaty with them. We have treaties with the entire world. And it IS our supreme law of the land. (See U.S. Constitution.)
George running oil business or baseball team??? Even the most diehard Fox fan cannot possibly say that with a straight face. He was too busy coking up and being drunk to bother with pesky details of business. Like everything in his life, this was handed to him (remember the loans and no payback terms to get the baseball team?) Do you remember seeing George during the last 8 years. And how often he was obviously drunk while in public? Or is it the work of a serious, sober head of state to give a shoulder massage to another head of state?
Can you actually believe that O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, Levine are not part of the Fox stable?? You have to be old enough to know better.
DNC/MSNBC talking points every single one and barely a cogent thought out of any paragraph. No sh!t Sherlock, O'Reilly and Hannity DO have shows on Fox.
Try saying something other than re-hashing the tired old: "All conservatives are taking marching orders from that doped up dildo Limbaugh", "Bush was drunk", "(in a Mina bird voice) Haliburton...Haliburton...Haliburton!". You aren't going to attract much interest around here if you cannot engage in intelligent conversation with at least a modicum of original thought. Hate to tell you, but you are about the 1000th lib to come on here and try to stereotype the conservatives regulars here.
We are kind of a large dysfunctional family on TNF and always welcome new members and new ideas.
Most of us aren't too much into partisan name calling or stereotyping (okay well we do stick a finger in each other's eye every now and then).
Welcome aboard, but please try a different schtick than the one that's been re-run too many times on here.
And still no direct answer to a direct question - actually a couple of direct questions. I realize that is part of the 'playbook', so I never expect one. Lot's of dissemination and talking about anything else. (It would be interesting to see what a "cogent thought" would be in Fox-land.) And asking a direct question and expecting a direct question does appear to be a new idea here, as in so much of Tulsa and OKC.
Original thought, huh? Ok, let's go from the opposite direction, let's see about original thought.
A simple question (not specifically you Gaspar, but the generic 'you' to all); what would you have done about the big bank problems? Let them go, or bail them out?
Love him or hate him, the man can give a speech.
I personally found it refreshing to hear at least a bit of humility and empathy, comparatively speaking anyway.
Something more substantial than a 5 second gratuitous blurb regarding the appeal of DADT would have been nice....but oh well, I guess us beggars can't be choosers.
Whether it is all just lip service will, of course, remain to be seen.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 27, 2010, 06:34:49 PM
I'm well-prepared.
But your image could use some shrink....
His remark to SCROTUM was priceless.....
Did Samuel Alito 'mouth off' to Obama during speech?
http://rawstory.com/2010/01/alito-mouth-off-obama/
"Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign companies -- to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said Wednesday night.
Guido disagrees....he looks forward to foreign influences....
RIP HOWARD ZINN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 27, 2010, 11:11:38 PM
And still no direct answer to a direct question - actually a couple of direct questions. I realize that is part of the 'playbook', so I never expect one. Lot's of dissemination and talking about anything else. (It would be interesting to see what a "cogent thought" would be in Fox-land.) And asking a direct question and expecting a direct question does appear to be a new idea here, as in so much of Tulsa and OKC.
Original thought, huh? Ok, let's go from the opposite direction, let's see about original thought.
A simple question (not specifically you Gaspar, but the generic 'you' to all); what would you have done about the big bank problems? Let them go, or bail them out?
H, I will take a stab at your question. The reality is there was no choice to do what was done. We got a taste of the kind of risk of letting the big banks fail when the Fed and Treasury allowed Lehman Brothers to fail. We saw an immediate, and near total, shutdown of the flow of funds in our financial system. Keep in mind, any company, even an insovent one, can operate as long as they have access to liquidity. But every business, even solvent ones, go out of business immediately if they lose access to liquidity. Hence we had to make sure access to liquidity was there.
Those that state that they would have allowed the banks to fail do not grasp the direct and immediate impact this would have had on every single person with any exposure to the financial system. And that would include anyone that had a checking account or worked for a business that interacted with the financial system... i.e. virtually everyone. Now, the question of what we do from here is a very valid question. Consider what has happened since the beginning of the financial crisis... perversely, we now have fewer financial institutions controlling an even larger percentage of deposits and assets than before the onset of the crisis. That means that systemic risk has been INCREASED not decreased.
We do need to seperate the different business models that act as the capital formation process. The basic business of traditional banking is pretty boring. Take deposits at one price and lend it out at a higher price. manage the credit risk and to a lesser extent the interest rate risk and you have a profitable, if not fast growing, business. FDIC insurance works here so that depositiors can feel safe in providing funds to the banks to use for loans. The equity capital formation part of the process, handled by the investment bank like Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanely, Merrill, and others, has always been more risky and cyclical. There is no way that we should extend FDIC insurance to this part of the process. Brokerage firms have been formed, blossomed, and failed forever and should be allowed to continue doing so but no investment bank should ever be allowed to become systemically important.
I started in the banking business when Paul Volker was the chairman of the Fed and agree with many of the ideas he has presented to the president. I wish Presisdent Obama's tone and tenor was not so populist or angry, and I wish some of our esteemed lawmakers would at least get a basic primer on the banking business beofre spouting off their ideas to the press, but the actions are neccasary. the deconglomeration process will take time and won't be painless. but each of us that has an intereat in the long term viability of our financial syatem should support the direction we are going.
Ultimately it matters not what was done during the dark days of the crisis...it matters a lot what we do from here.
I wasn't worried about Lehman Brothers. I heard one of them was being adopted by Angelina Jolie.
I just want the banks to keep lending.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on January 27, 2010, 11:19:51 PM
Love him or hate him, the man can give a speech.
I personally found it refreshing to hear at least a bit of humility and empathy, comparatively speaking anyway.
Something more substantial than a 5 second gratuitous blurb regarding the appeal of DADT would have been nice....but oh well, I guess us beggars can't be choosers.
Whether it is all just lip service will, of course, remain to be seen.
That was the best speech he has ever given. I was impressed. He was very presidential, and very humble. He showed more humility than he ever has in the past. I admit he scored some points with me. It was more interesting and entertaining than any state of the union since Reagan.
Did he say anything that shows a drive to create jobs and help the economy?
Yes, he added some tiny Reaganesque initiatives.
Yes, he promised to increase Nuclear power and domestic and off-shore drilling.
Yes, he promised tax cuts for small businesses, large businesses and capital gains.
Yes, he promised a temporary halt to the healthcare silliness.
Yes, he acknowledged that government does not have the ability to create jobs. . .finally!
Yes, he promised disclosure of pork on a website and open meetings . . .again.
What did he still fail to understand?
90% of the small businesses he promised tax cuts too operate as Sole Proprietorships or LLCs, and therefore will not be eligible for the cuts because they are taxed as individuals who make in excess of $250k.
His domestic power initiatives will never make it past Pelosi.
His capital gains initiatives will never make it past Pelosi.
We already know he has no intension of providing open meetings and disclosure of pork.
He talked about reducing the deficit again, but gave no clear initiatives to do so.
He's still angry at the banks and Wall Street without acknowledging that Wall Street includes anyone with a 401K and banks include anyone with a bank account, home mortgage or car loan.
What are his obstacles?
He structured this speech as evidence of an "Reboot" not a strong position to be in.
He is not changing his path towards growing government.
His beautiful, eloquent words are now beginning to ring hollow with even his own supporters.
He just ticked off the supreme court.
He took credit for the troop surge in Afghanistan that was not his idea (same tactic backfired on Clinton).
Not enough focus on domestic security. Oops! is not enough for us.
Our glorius leader the Honorable Senator Inhofe weighs in with his succinct thoughts http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/28/inhofe-obama-lie/ (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/28/inhofe-obama-lie/)
Quote...and very humble. He showed more humility than he ever has in the past.
Entirely unlike my impression, culminating in scolding the supreme court. "With all due respect to separation of powers..."
a**hole.
Quote from: buckeye on January 28, 2010, 11:40:05 AM
Entirely unlike my impression, culminating in scolding the supreme court. "With all due respect to separation of powers..."
a**hole.
I thought that was funny. It illustrated the powers that each branch of government shares. Through the past several administrations we have watched liberals push their power through the judicial branch. If they can't legislate against it or tax it they make it illegal. Now that the constitution has prevailed they are angry. What could be funnier?
Quote from: Gaspar on January 28, 2010, 10:19:04 AM
That was the best speech he has ever given. I was impressed. He was very presidential, and very humble. He showed more humility than he ever has in the past. I admit he scored some points with me. It was more interesting and entertaining than any state of the union since Reagan.
Did he say anything that shows a drive to create jobs and help the economy?
Yes, he added some tiny Reaganesque initiatives.
Yes, he promised to increase Nuclear power and domestic and off-shore drilling.
Yes, he promised tax cuts for small businesses, large businesses and capital gains.
Yes, he promised a temporary halt to the healthcare silliness.
Yes, he acknowledged that government does not have the ability to create jobs. . .finally!
Yes, he promised disclosure of pork on a website and open meetings . . .again.
What did he still fail to understand?
90% of the small businesses he promised tax cuts too operate as Sole Proprietorships or LLCs, and therefore will not be eligible for the cuts because they are taxed as individuals who make in excess of $250k.
His domestic power initiatives will never make it past Pelosi.
His capital gains initiatives will never make it past Pelosi.
We already know he has no intension of providing open meetings and disclosure of pork.
He talked about reducing the deficit again, but gave no clear initiatives to do so.
He's still angry at the banks and Wall Street without acknowledging that Wall Street includes anyone with a 401K and banks include anyone with a bank account, home mortgage or car loan.
What are his obstacles?
He structured this speech as evidence of an "Reboot" not a strong position to be in.
He is not changing his path towards growing government.
His beautiful, eloquent words are now beginning to ring hollow with even his own supporters.
He just ticked off the supreme court.
He took credit for the troop surge in Afghanistan that was not his idea (same tactic backfired on Clinton).
Not enough focus on domestic security. Oops! is not enough for us.
That is a well-reasoned, well-argued analysis of the speech. I don't agree with all your points, but concur with your general impression that it was a very good, if imperfect, speech.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on January 28, 2010, 09:20:08 AM
I wasn't worried about Lehman Brothers. I heard one of them was being adopted by Angelina Jolie.
I just want the banks to keep lending.
Have seen and visited with 4 local bank execs this week and can only tell you their moods were glum....little loan activity due to their own internal strict guidelines hampering any aggressive lending. They'll loan but the requirements put the borrower on the ropes. No more rope a dope....
Quote from: buckeye on January 28, 2010, 11:40:05 AM
Entirely unlike my impression, culminating in scolding the supreme court. "With all due respect to separation of powers..."
a**hole.
The SC needed to be scolded. What transpired last week was clearly the result of 'activist' judges hard at work. Good for Mr. President! IMO he needs to show more of that backbone.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 28, 2010, 11:46:16 AM
I thought that was funny. It illustrated the powers that each branch of government shares. Through the past several administrations we have watched liberals push their power through the judicial branch. If they can't legislate against it or tax it they make it illegal. Now that the constitution has prevailed they are angry. What could be funnier?
stacked deck...
Satire: There Is A Disturbance In The Forcehttp://coto2.wordpress.com/2010/01/28/satire-there-is-a-disturbance-in-the-force/
"So. Let's review. Phucctards favor corporate personhood, but the Sith Emperor does not*. In the whole State of the Union address, this was his most dramatic moment of seeming to be almost –- Jedi. Phucctards are clearly the more virulent faction of Sith, but the collision at hand might cause some Jedi discomfort and embarrassment, because since when do Jedi root for the Sith Emperor?"
The Republicans' Sit-Down Strikes During The SOTUhttp://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/republicans-sit-down-strikes-during-s
"Nice to see where small business, education and oligarchy play into the GOP's values, isn't it?"
Quote from: azbadpuppy on January 28, 2010, 01:47:48 PM
The SC needed to be scolded. What transpired last week was clearly the result of 'activist' judges hard at work. Good for Mr. President! IMO he needs to show more of that backbone.
Obama is flat wrong. It's a damnable shame that people base their opinions on what others have said and never bother to do any research--and this includes our president/constitutional scholar. Obama stated last night:
"Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said. "Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong."
Of course Obama either ignored or never bother reading the text of the opinion and merely perpetuated a BS meme. The majority opinion in
Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission found unconstitutional 2 U.S.C. sec. 441(b) only, a section entitled "Contributions or expenditures by national banks, corporations, or labor organizations". The Court left completely undisturbed Section 441e, which in its entirety prescribes:
§ 441e. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 434 (f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
(b) "Foreign national" defined
As used in this section, the term "foreign national" means—
(1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611 (b) of title 22, except that the term "foreign national" shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or
(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101 (a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101 (a)(20) of title 8.
2 U.S.C. sec. 441(e)[
Emphasis added]
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/2/usc_sec_02_00000441---e000-.html
The prohibitions in this section cannot be any clearer. Justice Alito mouthing "not true" is absolutely correct and Obama looks stupid.
Double posting of this only further illustrates how unsure you appear on this issue.
Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions remain unanswered
http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2010/01/27/corporation-files-to-run-for-congress-important-marketing-strategy-questions-remain-unanswered/
"The Supreme Court has decreed that corporations are persons and money is speech, so it was only a matter of time before a company decided to exercise its Constitutional right to run for Congress.
Following the recent Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission to allow unlimited corporate funding of federal campaigns, Murray Hill Inc. today announced it is filing to run for U.S. Congress. "Until now," Murray Hill Inc. said in a statement, "corporate interests had to rely on campaign contributions and influence-peddling to achieve their goals in Washington. But thanks to an enlightened Supreme Court, now we can eliminate the middle-man and run for office ourselves." Murray Hill Inc. is believed to be the first "corporate person" to exercise its constitutional right to run for office.
"The strength of America," Murray Hill Inc. said, "is in the boardrooms, country clubs and Lear jets of America's great corporations. We're saying to Wal-Mart, AIG and Pfizer, if not you, who? If not now, when?" Murray Hill Inc. added: "It's our democracy. We bought it, we paid for it, and we're going to keep it." Murray Hill Inc., a diversifying corporation in the Washington, D.C. area, has long held an interest in politics and sees corporate candidacy as an "emerging new market."
The announcement represents a landmark moment in American politics, as former President George W. Bush's dream of an "ownership society" is finally realized. Still, important questions remain for the candidate. For instance:
How will Murray Hill go about modernizing the nation's antiquated system of "elections." Surely there's a more efficient way of generating broad consensus, and citizens shareholders will be looking to emerging politicorporate leaders to quickly craft best-of-breed solutions to maximize return and lower total cost of ownership going forward.
Is it safe to assume that under-performing sectors of the country will be spun off or sold? (Specifically, it's anticipated that Nebraska, New Jersey, South Carolina and Texas will come in for much-needed scrutiny.)
What role will outsourcing play in bureaucratic reform? Certainly business units like Health & Human Services and Interior could be managed more cost-effectively in Bangalore.
Opposition to corporate/government merger and acquisition activity remains and buy-in will be needed from significant segments of the marketplace. However, Murray Hill has so far presented no marketecture for how it will capture sufficient mindshare to ensure the campaign's success.
What strategies will be employed to insulate United States of America, Inc. against hostile takeovers by international competitors?
What does the company see as its key differentiators with respect to competitors in the crowded "governance" space?
It's still early in the game, of course, but investors will be anxiously awaiting as Murray Hill's brand group crafts a mission statement and works to socialize its unique value proposition among key stakeholders."
Guido, do you think there is an age limitation?
You still here aox? I figured after your foreign governments/nationals contributing to campaigns had been completely discredited (or more bluntly you got your a$$ kicked again) with black letter statutory law would have caused you to tuck tail and run from here out of sheer embarrassment or public humiliation. This goes for others that pushed that BS who never took it upon themselves to do any research and instead looked to sites like crooks and liars and think progress. You have been exposed once again as a mindless follower thoroughly incapable of stopping himself from lapping up liberal pap.
Quote from: guido911 on January 28, 2010, 03:12:17 PM
You still here aox? I figured after your foreign governments/nationals contributing to campaigns had been completely discredited (or more bluntly you got your a$$ kicked again) with black letter statutory law would have caused you to tuck tail and run from here out of sheer embarrassment or public humiliation. This goes for others that pushed that BS who never took it upon themselves to do any research and instead looked to sites like crooks and liars and think progress. You have been exposed once again as a mindless follower thoroughly incapable of stopping himself from lapping up liberal pap.
Nope. Lots of places FOTD gets his schtuff.
Amazing how you think taking a radical judicial activist stance makes you right. In reality, time will show us ads on tee vee directly paid for by corporations supporting candidates (with the volume turned up like those Big Pharma ads). You still have failed to address the reality of this outcome. You are stiff and rigid with regard to the interpretation handed down by an extremist majority without regard to practicality.
"At the beginning of the last decade, the year 2000, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. (Applause.) By the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. All this was before I walked in the door. (Laughter and applause). " 1/26/10 POTUS OBAMA
Quote from: guido911 on January 28, 2010, 02:28:02 PM
Obama is flat wrong. It's a damnable shame that people base their opinions on what others have said and never bother to do any research--and this includes our president/constitutional scholar. Obama stated last night:
"Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said. "Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong."
Of course Obama either ignored or never bother reading the text of the opinion and merely perpetuated a BS meme. The majority opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission found unconstitutional 2 U.S.C. sec. 441(b) only, a section entitled "Contributions or expenditures by national banks, corporations, or labor organizations". The Court left completely undisturbed Section 441e, which in its entirety prescribes:
§ 441e. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 434 (f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
(b) "Foreign national" defined
As used in this section, the term "foreign national" means—
(1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611 (b) of title 22, except that the term "foreign national" shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or
(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101 (a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101 (a)(20) of title 8.
2 U.S.C. sec. 441(e)[Emphasis added]
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/2/usc_sec_02_00000441---e000-.html
The prohibitions in this section cannot be any clearer. Justice Alito mouthing "not true" is absolutely correct and Obama looks stupid.
I have a question for you then. Even if the Supreme Court only explicitly addressed another part of the federal code, wouldn't their ruling still pertain to this section of the law if a corporation was involved?
Doesn't their ruling supercede any prior law, whether it's state or federal?
Quote from: FOTD on January 28, 2010, 03:32:49 PM
Nope. Lots of places FOTD gets his schtuff.
Amazing how you think taking a radical judicial activist stance makes you right. In reality, time will show us ads on tee vee directly paid for by corporations supporting candidates (with the volume turned up like those Big Pharma ads). You still have failed to address the reality of this outcome. You are stiff and rigid with regard to the interpretation handed down by an extremist majority without regard to practicality.
Since when is free speech for all and being against censorship "radical". Meh. Your attempted pivot from foreigners donating to campaigns to attacking "big pharma" is epic FAIL.
Quote from: FOTD on January 28, 2010, 03:32:49 PM
"At the beginning of the last decade, the year 2000, America had a (projected) budget surplus of over $200 billion. (Applause.) By the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. All this was before I walked in the door. (Laughter and applause). " 1/26/10 POTUS OBAMA
Just who is going to preside over those projected deficits for the next decade? I know who is presiding over four out of ten of them.
Quote from: guido911 on January 28, 2010, 03:40:30 PM
Since when is free speech for all and being against censorship "radical". Meh. Your attempted pivot from foreigners donating to campaigns to attacking "big pharma" is epic FAIL.
http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2010/01/john_roberts_the_difference_fo.php
" The head of the nation's judicial branch was purposefully deceptive during his "umpire" testimony. Or he had no idea what his words meant. Or he has had a complete change of philosophy and temperament while in his mid-50s. Those are the logical possibilities. None of them is too encouraging about the basic soundness of our governing institutions."
Think they'll censor a gay couples right to marriage? You betcha.
Quote from: we vs us on January 28, 2010, 03:35:53 PM
I have a question for you then. Even if the Supreme Court only explicitly addressed another part of the federal code, wouldn't their ruling still pertain to this section of the law if a corporation was involved?
Doesn't their ruling supercede any prior law, whether it's state or federal?
I have not reviewed case law construing this provision, but my impression would be no. First, courts all the time find certain provisions within a statute unconstitutional leaving other provisions untouched. You get that. I do not find this ruling, as lengthy as it is, "superced[ing]" any other state or federal law. Section 441e is clear and unambiguous, that is "It shall be unlawful for—(1) a foreign national,
directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election; (B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party..."
That language, coupled with the absence of any language suggesting that the ruling would extend anywhere beyond Section 441b, leads me to the only conclusion that no other statute would be impacted. I would also add that in Justice Stevens' concurring/dissenting opinion he specifically addressed Sec. 441e and its viability, observing:
QuoteWe have upheld statutes that prohibit the distribution or display of campaign materials near a polling place. Burson v. Freeman, 504 U. S. 191 (1992).49 Although we have not reviewed them directly, we have never cast doubt on laws that place special restrictions on campaign spending by foreign nationals. See, e.g., 2 U. S. C. §441e(a)(1).
[
Emphasis added].
I think the Court clearly intended that its ruling not affect in any way the prohibition of foreign donors in state and federal elections.
Quote from: FOTD on January 28, 2010, 03:52:56 PM
Think they'll censor a gay couples right to marriage? You betcha.
That post was so pathetically awful I'm embarrassed for you. Please, for the love of God, step away from your computer.
Quote from: guido911 on January 28, 2010, 03:57:50 PM
I have not reviewed case law construing this provision, but my impression would be no. First, courts all the time find certain provisions within a statute unconstitutional leaving other provisions untouched. You get that. I do not find this ruling, as lengthy as it is, "superced[ing]" any other state or federal law. Section 441e is clear and unambiguous, that is "It shall be unlawful for—(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election; (B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party..."
That language, coupled with the absence of any language suggesting that the ruling would extend anywhere beyond Section 441b, leads me to the only conclusion that no other statute would be impacted. I would also add that in Justice Stevens' concurring/dissenting opinion he specifically addressed Sec. 441e and its viability, observing:
[Emphasis added].
I think the Court clearly intended that its ruling not affect in any way the prohibition of foreign donors in state and federal elections.
There's a contradiction there, though. How do you prevent foreign indirect campaign investment if it's through, say, voting shares of an American corporation? The American corporation itself retains unfettered freedom of speech regardless of its ownership.
Quote from: we vs us on January 28, 2010, 04:31:22 PM
There's a contradiction there, though. How do you prevent foreign indirect campaign investment if it's through, say, voting shares of an American corporation? The American corporation itself retains unfettered freedom of speech regardless of its ownership.
I see no contradiction. This is what the majority in
Citizens United stated as to the issue of restricting, as opposed to
censoring, speech:
QuoteWe need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation's political process. Cf. 2 U. S. C. §441e (contribution and expenditure ban applied to "foreign national[s"). Section 441b is not limited to corporations or associations that were created in foreign countries or funded predominantly by foreign shareholders. Section 441b therefore would be overbroad even if we assumed, arguendo, that the Government has a compelling interest in limiting foreign influence over our political process.
[Some internal citations omitted].
Justice Stevens also commented on the restrictions, as opposed to the outright censorship, of certain kinds of speech:
Quote[W]e have consistently approved laws that bar Government employees, but not others, from contributing to or participating in political activities. These statutes burden the political expression of one class of speakers, namely, civil servants. Yet we have sustained them on the basis of longstanding practice and Congress' reasoned judgment that certain regulations which leave "untouched full participation . . . in political decisions at the ballot box," help ensure that public officials are "sufficiently free from improper influences," and that "confidence in the system of representative Government is not . . . eroded to a disastrous extent,"
[Some internal citations omitted].
Citizens United removed the statutory-censorship of domestic corporate speech based on the First Amendment. In my opinion, any attempt by a foreign national to contribute, be it through writing a personal check or indirectly through a corporation, would be violative of 441e and unlawful. It is my understanding that Congress is trying to do something to further restrict foreign influence, which I believe would be redundant, but if enacted should pass constitutional muster.
Quote from: guido911 on January 27, 2010, 06:38:19 PM
If folks like poor ol' KSM are made to feel a little uncomfortable for a few minutes so as can prevent another plane flying into a building killing perhaps members of your family, I got no problem.
That CIA guy that said waterboarding produced actionable intelligence? Turns out he didn't know what he was talking about: (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/26/cia_man_retracts_claim_on_waterboarding?page=full)
QuoteOn the next-to-last page of a new memoir, The Reluctant Spy: My Secret Life in the CIA's War on Terror (written with Michael Ruby), Kiriakou now rather off handedly admits that he basically made it all up.
"What I told Brian Ross in late 2007 was wrong on a couple counts," he writes. "I suggested that Abu Zubaydah had lasted only thirty or thirty-five seconds during his waterboarding before he begged his interrogators to stop; after that, I said he opened up and gave the agency actionable intelligence."
But never mind, he says now.
"I wasn't there when the interrogation took place; instead, I relied on what I'd heard and read inside the agency at the time."
In a word, it was hearsay, water-cooler talk.
"Now we know," Kiriakou goes on, "that Zubaydah was waterboarded eighty-three times in a single month, raising questions about how much useful information he actually supplied."
Indeed. But after his one-paragraph confession, Kiriakou adds that he didn't have any first hand knowledge of anything relating to CIA torture routines, and still doesn't. And he claims that the disinformation he helped spread was a CIA dirty trick: "In retrospect, it was a valuable lesson in how the CIA uses the fine arts of deception even among its own."
(http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w274/willzweigart/the_more_you_know.jpg)
Quote from: we vs us on January 28, 2010, 07:44:10 PM
That CIA guy that said waterboarding produced actionable intelligence? Turns out he didn't know what he was talking about: (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/26/cia_man_retracts_claim_on_waterboarding?page=full)
(http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w274/willzweigart/the_more_you_know.jpg)
I suppose he's the definitive expert on the subject?
He's the guy most often cited for its effectiveness.
Villanous Republicans....proof.
"Leave the banks alone..." the Rethuglicans.
go to the 6:20 mark and see Obama as Senator expressing his concerns with Alito.
Quote from: FOTD on January 29, 2010, 03:26:01 PM
Obama as Senator expressing his concerns with Alito.
My only concern with him is that he either lied or severely exaggerated his respect for stare decesis and judicial restraint during his confirmation hearings. Him and Roberts both. Nothing about the Citizens United decision showed any of that. Not only was there already precedent on point, but they both decided it would be appropriate to reach beyond the question in the suit itself and take it upon themselves to strike down the ban on corporate electioneering.
I expect that sort of thing from Scalia and Thomas, as they have a long history of doing just that (or wishing they could in their dissents), but I thought Roberts and Alito had it in them to not be activist.
Quote from: nathanm on January 29, 2010, 04:10:39 PM
My only concern with him is that he either lied or severely exaggerated his respect for stare decesis and judicial restraint during his confirmation hearings. Him and Roberts both.
So NOW you are concerned about our leaders lying or exaggerating. I'll do a search on this site to find out how often many times you criticized Obama for his lies and severe exaggerations.
Quote from: guido911 on January 29, 2010, 05:02:52 PM
So NOW you are concerned about our leaders lying or exaggerating. I'll do a search on this site to find out how often many times you criticized Obama for his lies and severe exaggerations.
I haven't noticed Obama doing anything he said he wouldn't do, aside from the whole enemy combatants thing, which I am certainly annoyed by. (other than that, mrs. lincoln, how did you like the play?)
Unless I missed where he said he thought one thing and then went and did another?
Besides, this ridiculous competition of equivalence is getting stupid. If a Democrat does it, it's OK for Republicans to do and vice versa? No. They both have a standard they should meet regardless of what someone of the other party is doing. If I believed that I'd be mighty pissed the Democrats didn't have a lying sack of meat like Rush on their side. Instead, I'm quite happy they don't.
Quote from: nathanm on January 29, 2010, 05:15:32 PM
I haven't noticed Obama doing anything he said he wouldn't do, aside from the whole enemy combatants thing, which I am certainly annoyed by. (other than that, mrs. lincoln, how did you like the play?)
Unless I missed where he said he thought one thing and then went and did another?
Besides, this ridiculous competition of equivalence is getting stupid. If a Democrat does it, it's OK for Republicans to do and vice versa? No. They both have a standard they should meet regardless of what someone of the other party is doing. If I believed that I'd be mighty pissed the Democrats didn't have a lying sack of meat like Rush on their side. Instead, I'm quite happy they don't.
I guess you forgot about lobbyists, televised health care negotiations, earmarks, no new taxes on those making less that $250K, or the stimulus keeping unemployment low. But I digress. It's not about a "ridiculous competition of equivalence", it's about hypocrisy. It's about not throwing stones in glass houses. It's about selective outrage. That's what is stupid.
O/T
Your concern about
stare decisis, the majority in
Citizens United discussed this legal principle at length, and explained the factors that should be considered when examining precedent:
Quote"Beyond workability, the relevant factors in deciding whether to adhere to the principle of stare decisis include the antiquity of the precedent, the reliance interests at stake, and of course whether the decision was well reasoned." We have also examined whether "experience has pointed up the precedent's shortcomings." These considerations counsel in favor of rejecting Austin, which itself contravened this Court's earlier precedents in Buckley and Bellotti. "This Court has not hesitated to overrule decisions offensive to the First Amendment." Stare decisis is a principle of policy and not a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision."
[Some internal citations omitted,
emphasis added].
Interesting that the case that was overruled was itself in conflict with precedent. No problem with
stare decisis in that case. The majority further noted that "
Austin abandoned First Amendment principles, furthermore, by relying on language in some of our precedents that traces back to the
Automobile Workers Court's flawed historical account of campaign finance laws".
Justice Roberts, a justice you specifically called out, "explained himself" with respect to the stare decisis doctrine in the following manner:
Quoteour practice of avoiding unnecessary (and unnecessarily broad) constitutional holdings somehow trumps our obligation faithfully to interpret the law. It should go without saying, however, that we cannot embrace a narrow ground of decision simply because it is narrow; it must also be right. Thus while it is true that "f it is not necessary to decide more, it is necessary not to decide more," sometimes it is necessary to decide more. There is a difference between judicial restraint and judicial abdication. When constitutional questions are "indispensably necessary" to resolving the case at hand, "the court must meet and decide them."
[Internal citations omitted,
emphasis added].
The outrage by many to the decision is, in my opinion, ideologically driven and the majority gets no credit in how it reached its conclusion that censorship is flat wrong.
Quote from: nathanm on January 29, 2010, 05:15:32 PM
Besides, this ridiculous competition of equivalence is getting stupid.
Trying to say this is turning into a ginormous Johnson contest?
E.J. Dionne Jr. | Thank You, Justice Alito
Saturday 30 January 2010
by: E.J. Dionne Jr., Op-Ed
http://www.truthout.org/ej-dionne-jr-thank-you-justice-alito56544
" Washington - The nation owes a substantial debt to Justice Samuel Alito for his display of unhappiness over President Obama's criticisms of the Supreme Court's recent legislation -- excuse me, decision -- opening our electoral system to a new torrent of corporate money.
Alito's inability to restrain himself during the State of the Union address brought to wide attention a truth that too many have tried to ignore: The Supreme Court is now dominated by a highly politicized conservative majority intent on working its will, even if that means ignoring precedents and the wishes of the elected branches of government.
Obama called the court on this, and Alito shook his head and apparently mouthed "not true." His was the honest reaction of a judicial activist who believes he has the obligation to impose his version of right reason on the rest of us.
The controversy also exposed the impressive capacity of the conservative judicial revolutionaries to live by double standards without apology.
The movement's legal theorists and politicians have spent more than four decades attacking alleged judicial abuses by liberals, cheering on the presidents who joined them in their assaults. But now, they are terribly offended that Obama has straightforwardly challenged the handiwork of their judicial comrades.
There is ample precedent for Obama's firm but respectful rebuke of the court. I know of no one on the right who protested when President Reagan, in a 1983 article in the Human Life Review, took on the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision of 10 years earlier.
"Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the Constitution," Reagan wrote. "No serious scholar, including one disposed to agree with the court's result, has argued that the framers of the Constitution intended to create such a right. ... Nowhere do the plain words of the Constitution even hint at a 'right' so sweeping as to permit abortion up to the time the child is ready to be born."
Reagan cited Justice Byron White's description of Roe as an act of "raw judicial power," which is actually an excellent description of the court's ruling on corporate money in the Citizens United case.
Reagan had every right to say what he did. But why do conservatives deny the same right to Obama? Alternatively, why do they think it's persuasive to argue, as Georgetown Law professor Randy Barnett did in The Wall Street Journal, that it's fine for a president to take issue with the court, except in a State of the Union speech? Isn't it more honorable to criticize the justices to their faces? Are these jurists so sensitive that they can't take it? Do they expect everyone to submit quietly to whatever they do?
In fact, conservatives have made the Supreme Court a punching bag since the 1960s, when "Impeach Earl Warren" bumper stickers aimed at the liberal chief justice proliferated in right-wing precincts.
Richard Nixon made the Warren court's rulings on criminal justice a major issue in his 1968 presidential campaign. "Let us always respect, as I do, our courts and those who serve on them," he said in his acceptance speech that year. "But let us also recognize that some of our courts, in their decisions, have gone too far in weakening the peace forces as against the criminal forces in this country, and we must act to restore that balance." Many conservatives cheered this, too.
As for the specifics of Obama's indictment, Alito's defenders have said the president was wrong to say that the court's decision on corporate political spending had reversed "a century of law" and also opened "the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations."
But Obama was not simply referring to court precedents but also to the 1907 Tillman Act, which banned corporate money in electoral campaigns. The court's recent ruling undermined that policy. Defenders of the decision also say it did not invalidate the existing legal ban on foreign political activity. What they don't acknowledge is that the ruling opens a loophole for domestic corporations under foreign control to make unlimited campaign expenditures.
Alito did not like the president making an issue of the court's truly radical intervention in politics. I disagree with Alito on the law and the policy, but I have no problem with his personal expression of displeasure.
On the contrary, I salute him because his candid response brought home to the country how high the stakes are in the battle over the conservative activism of Chief Justice John Roberts' court. "
E.J. Dionne's e-mail address is ejdionne(at)washpost.com.
(c) 2010, Washington Post Writers Group
Quote from: guido911 on January 29, 2010, 06:07:40 PM
I guess you forgot about lobbyists, televised health care negotiations, earmarks, no new taxes on those making less that $250K, or the stimulus keeping unemployment low. But I digress. It's not about a "ridiculous competition of equivalence", it's about hypocrisy. It's about not throwing stones in glass houses. It's about selective outrage. That's what is stupid.
The President responds to your accusations:
Obama mispoke about 50...er, uh,...pause.... 7 states.....
Right up there with Mr. Nukular. But at no where near the frequency...
Just curious, did any of you actually watch Bush during his 8 years?
Catch the drunken massage of Chancellor Merkel??
I bet Laura was thrilled!
I wonder where guido's "selective outrage" was when the last 28 years took us from $800 billion in national debt to $12 trillion?? All under Republican Presidents with a "mandate"??
How about it?? Any direct answers?? Or just more dissimulation.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 31, 2010, 07:41:41 PM
I wonder where guido's "selective outrage" was when the last 28 years took us from $800 billion in national debt to $12 trillion?? All under Republican Presidents with a "mandate"??
How about it?? Any direct answers?? Or just more dissimulation.
Watch it, or you'll likely get 'blacklisted' by Gweed like I have, never to have him respond to you at all. That's in essence like taking your ball to go play somewhere else.
Isn't that what RWRE is all about?? (Right wing reactionary extremism).
I have asked a couple of direct, specific questions, and true to form, there is never a direct answer.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 31, 2010, 07:41:41 PM
I wonder where guido's "selective outrage" was when the last 28 years took us from $800 billion in national debt to $12 trillion?? All under Republican Presidents with a "mandate"??
How about it?? Any direct answers?? Or just more dissimulation.
I believe the GOP did not have control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate for all of those 28 years. Congress authorizes expenditures, the Prez approves or vetos. Congress can over-ride.
Quote from: Red Arrow on January 31, 2010, 08:39:13 PM
I believe the GOP did not have control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate for all of those 28 years. Congress authorizes expenditures, the Prez approves or vetos. Congress can over-ride.
. . . and did.
"Heir" may not get too many replies.
He/she is one of those rare posters that you need simply to allow time to complete a flow-of-consciousness. We have a few of those.
I expect great things from this one!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 31, 2010, 07:41:41 PM
I wonder where guido's "selective outrage" was when the last 28 years took us from $800 billion in national debt to $12 trillion?? All under Republican Presidents with a "mandate"??
How about it?? Any direct answers?? Or just more dissimulation.
It gets a little boring slapping the likes of you around, particularly when you make so over the top false allegations with this being just another example. We have had nothing but Republican presidents for the past 28 years? I guess you forgot BJ Clinton or that the dems controlled Congress (and therefore the purse strings) through 1994. Funny that you picked today to complain about deficits because Obama announced that there will be a record deficit this year: $1.6 trillion. This will top the last deficit record set by Obama in 2009. Another in a long line of epic FAIL!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 31, 2010, 07:27:38 PM
Obama mispoke about 50...er, uh,...pause.... 7 states.....
Happy Cinco de Quattro!!!
To those 10,000 Kansas people killed by a tornado:
And to you
Nittaly Lions fans:
You do realize that the budget ending Oct 1, 2009 was Bush I?? No? That means Obama's first fiscal year started then. So we are now 4 months into his first year spending.
You just make it too easy....slapping with BIG fluffy marshmallows!
The flip side of that is how tragically pathetic it is there is so much fiscal under-education exists in this country. I submit it is a side effect of the exclusive Fox diet for avoiding news and adding indoctrination of dogma.
You do realize that Clinton was a net zero as far as deficits are concerned? First 4 years there were deficits that were erased by the second four years. Get out and READ once in a while. Step away from the Fox!! You brain cells can recover!! We're pulling for you!!
And that while Congress starts the spending, the President has the veto?? And so from 1981 until 1994, there was vetoes to prevent huge deficits - oh, wait - NO there weren't. So we went from about 800 billion to over 3 trillion. Then during Bush I to about 4.5 trillion. Then in the last 8 years, from there to 12 trillion. Bush II was by far the worst. And now we have more to put up with to try to fix the mess Bush left. So sad.
There are a couple of major league tragedies here - first the fact that we have done this to our grandchildren and beyond for a major case of Imperialistic Voyeurism (Fighting and wasting of money and worst of all, our children in Iraq instead of the correct war in Afghanistan).
And second the lost opportunities that could have been ours for this time. Not just from tying up 12 trillion for cowboyism fantasies, but the complete abdication of so many new high tech markets that have been shown in the last decade to be serious economic growth opportunities. Three examples; solar power, wind power, hybrid automotive technology.
NOTHING funny about deficits. It is probably the single biggest tragedy of our generation today. And tomorrow for our kids.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 01, 2010, 01:31:21 PM
You do realize that the budget ending Oct 1, 2009 was Bush I?? No? That means Obama's first fiscal year started then. So we are now 4 months into his first year spending.
You just make it too easy....slapping with BIG fluffy marshmallows!
Oh that's right, now I remember. It was former President G.W. Bush that signed the $787B Stimulus bill and the $410B Omnibus bill. Again, FAIL.
Where is the board in this forum with training wheels to help heir?
Quote from: guido911 on February 01, 2010, 01:55:24 PM
Oh that's right, now I remember. It was former President G.W. Bush that signed the $787B Stimulus bill and the $410B Omnibus bill. Again, FAIL.
Where is the board in this forum with training wheels to help heir?
Let him go Gweed. He's on a roll.
And who did the $1 trillion + bank bailout??
And you do realize that only a little over 1/3 of the real stimulus plan has actually been spent yet. And even with that limited amount, the economy IS getting better.
While big bailout banks and insurance companies give out there $100 million dollar bonuses! Of our money. But that's what it's really all about to the Cheney/Rove/Murdoch crew, though isn't it...more for the top 2%!!
Gassy, did you get started on being ready for the recovery as it continues to pick up steam? Hire some people. Invest in some inventory? Careful, there is a bucket full of lost opportunity out there for you if you don't!
What kind of drug induces that kind of coma??? Republi-contin, I guess.
GW signed the $550 billion Omnibus bill for 2008 (in Dec 2007, HR 2764 for any who can read), so I guess Obama signing a $410 billion one would be what... oh, yeah... better? If you're not completely under the influence of Republi-contin. And it was GW who did the trillion dollar bank bailout. On top of his other 6 trillion deficits.
And again, no direct answers to direct questions. And no relevant comment on the actual topic of the post. Just ambiguation and disimulation. Republi-contin wins again!!
Guido, it's English. I realize it is just similar enough to Okie to be difficult. As native Okie, I struggle with it all the time.
Here is what I said;
I wonder where guido's "selective outrage" was when the last 28 years took us from $800 billion in national debt to $12 trillion?? All under Republican Presidents with a "mandate"??
Here is what Guido said;
It gets a little boring slapping the likes of you around, particularly when you make so over the top false allegations with this being just another example. We have had nothing but Republican presidents for the past 28 years?
NOTHING was said about having only Republican Presidents for the last 28 years. What that means, in small, easy to understand words (as if you didn't really understand anyway) is that ALL those added deficits of the last 28 years were during the Reagan/Bush/Bush terms. Clinton's term was a null event - as said before. Hope it sinks in, not sure it can be made much simpler!
And here it is - another direct question in search of a direct answer; Where is there a false allegation? (Wanna bet about the direct answer?)
Disimulation and distortion all over again.
And since there was no comment on the REAL tragedies mentioned in the note, I guess we are to presume that those just really don't matter to the Cheney/Rove/Murdoch crew.
It's not too late.
How sad!
A single payment of $800 Billion invested at (approximately) 10.15%/year for 28 years compounds to $12 Trillion.
($800B x 1.101528= $12T) This wouldn't include any direct additions to the debt during 24 (include first 4 Clinton years) of the the 28 years. Direct additions would lower the effective interest rate. I don't want to spend the time to look up each year and include it in the calculations.
I don't know if the Clinton years were a net (debt addition) zero including interest from the beginning Clinton years or not. I don't feel like spending the time to find out.
Don't read me incorrectly, I don't like the debt and would like it to be paid down for all the obvious reasons.
BUT...Given that we aren't, the interest rates are in line with the rates for a lot of those 28 years.
Good thing we didn't borrow from the credit card companies.
We are talking about additive deficits for the entire time. T-bills have never paid 10.15%. And interest is paid during each year, so there IS NO COMPOUNDING!! Debt would be much worse if there was.
Google is your friend; Federal Debt History. There is the history from the beginning of the country. The "best" years were around 1834 and 1835 when there was only about $35,000 in Federal debt.
Jimmie Carters biggest deficit was about $65 billion. Ronald Reagans smallest was about $160 billion. And except for a few Clinton years, those were the smallest since.
We need a new thread/topic to discuss what "could have been" with an extra $12 trillion invested in our economy - new technologies, new industries, new infrastructure...oh wait, I guess that would be government - instead of paying for our Imperialistic Voyeurism! (That ought to stir up some stuff...)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 04, 2010, 07:35:24 PM
We are talking about additive deficits for the entire time. T-bills have never paid 10.15%. And interest is paid during each year, so there IS NO COMPOUNDING!! Debt would be much worse if there was.
Google is your friend; Federal Debt History. There is the history from the beginning of the country. The "best" years were around 1834 and 1835 when there was only about $35,000 in Federal debt.
My example was to show that the additive deficits were not much worse than compounding would have been. I thought some of those added deficit spending dollars were to pay interest on the debt. That's usually one of the excuses for the high deficit. Using debt to pay interest sounds a bit like compounding to me but I'm just an engineer. I found debits and credits confusing on double entry accounting so I expect there is some way to exclude compounding from the vocabulary of the national debt. Someone supposedly has given that credit. I am thinking of savings bonds among others. They want some kind of return on that money. I agree, there are better ways to spend that money.
I've never had any t-bllls but I did have some CDs and a Money Market account paying above 10% in the early 80s. The rates later dropped to 7% to 9% in the late 80s. Rates dropped to less than 3% in the early 90s and later recovered to about 5% in the late 90s. Then I stopped writing the rates in my record book.
I also had a new car loan at 13% starting in spring 1981. I believe most mortgages were double digit too. My dad's mortgage on the house was about 8% (from 1971) and the mortgage company wanted him to pay it off early so they could reinvest it at higher, then current, rates. They offered no incentive like any kind of discount for him to do it.
I know about Google but don't have infinite amounts of time to spend on this stuff. I waste too much as it is.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 04, 2010, 09:09:52 PM
I believe most mortgages were double digit too.
Yeah, my parent's mortgage on the house they bought in 1980 was in the 12-13% range. They went with a 7 year ARM to get the initial rate a little lower. Fixed rate mortgages were closer to 15%, IIRC.
In the early 90s they refi'd to something around 7% fixed. The rate would have been better if they hadn't been behind on their mortgage payments. The natural gas market was not kind to my dad. :p