What ever happened to Impeach the President & Repeal Obamacare?
POSTED BY: SHINYGOODGUY
UPDATED: Saturday, April 6, 2019 03:51
VIEWED: 15193
PAGE 1 of 2
Anyone?
SGG
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think it's down to shouting "No third term!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Obama should be impeached, just like Bush should have been impeached before him.
It's not because Obama is a half-black Kenyan Muslim Marxist socialist who is ineligible for the Presidency (as rightwing nutters claim) but because he - like President Cheney .... er, I mean Bush ... before him- violated the Constitution over and over and over again.
As far as Obamacare is concerned, it's just a big wet kiss for insurances and pharmas. HERE! (Obama says) HAVE ALL OF THESE MANDATED CUSTOMERS WITH A SWEETENER OF SUBSIDIES! When Obama took office, 60-67% of the population was for the public option. That's a mandate, if anything is in this nation. Obama squandered the chance to do anything meaningful, humane, and cost-effective and instead took it off the table and gave the healthcare industry even more opportunity to make unconscionable profits. What a weenie.
The Constitutional violations came when Obama allowed... nay, EXPANDED ... the NSA's warrantless wiretapping. And he STILL pushing for expanding warrantless wiretapping, THIS time in the name of cyber-security. Yanno, you don't get a more secure system by allowing any entity to snoop at will into every server and PC and phone on the 'net. That simply says that a billion backdoors are required for the snooping. Nope, you get security by hardening EVERY net-connected device. And for important servers, you harden them against wireless snooping as well.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Anyone?
SGG
That was/is all playing to the base. It was never real...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:A better Obamacare would NOT have passed. The Obamacare we have passed by one vote from a nearly dead man, who then died.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
As far as Obamacare is concerned, it's just a big wet kiss for insurances and pharmas. HERE! (Obama says) HAVE ALL OF THESE MANDATED CUSTOMERS WITH A SWEETENER OF SUBSIDIES! When Obama took office, 60-67% of the population was for the public option. That's a mandate, if anything is in this nation. Obama squandered the chance to do anything meaningful, humane, and cost-effective and instead took it off the table and gave the healthcare industry even more opportunity to make unconscionable profits. What a weenie.
Obamacare was the trickiest legislative move ever accomplished in the Congress:
Obamacare was signed into law in March 2010. If you recall, Nancy Pelosi’s Democratic majority in the House of Representatives was unable to pass their version of a healthcare law. Because all revenue bills have to originate in the House, the Senate found a bill that met those qualifications: HR3590, a military housing bill. They essentially stripped the bill of its original language and turned it into the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), aka Obamacare.
The Senate at that time had 60 Democrats, just enough to pass Obamacare. However after the bill passed the Senate, Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy died. In his place, Massachusetts elected Republican Scott Brown. That meant that if the House made any changes to the bill the Senate wouldn’t have the necessary number of votes to pass the amended bill (because they knew no Republicans would vote for Obamacare). So Senate Leader Harry Reid cut a deal with Pelosi: the House would pass the Senate bill without any changes if the Senate agreed to pass a separate bill by the House that made changes to the Senate version of Obamacare. This second bill was called the Reconciliation Act of 2010. So the House passed PPACA, the Senate bill, as well as their Reconciliation Act. At this point PPACA was ready for the President to sign, but the Senate still needed to pass the Reconciliation Act from the House.
More at www.briansussman.com/politics/how-obamacare-became-law/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yep, the GOP is desperately trying to smear Hilary and connect her to Obama. I think she'll get worse treatment than Obama in the Republican-controlled Congress for that reason alone.............plus the fact that she's a woman and will soundly beat any one that they can come up with.
The next 4 years is going to be HELL!
That's why, in many ways, I want a Republican to win to see what they will do - not only domestically, but also in foreign policy. Trump or Carson will shit their pants as to the hard decisions they will face.
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
I think it's down to shouting "No third term!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Exactly.
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Anyone?
SGG
That was/is all playing to the base. It was never real...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thanks Second, forgot about that little thing.
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by SECOND:Quote:A better Obamacare would NOT have passed. The Obamacare we have passed by one vote from a nearly dead man, who then died.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
As far as Obamacare is concerned, it's just a big wet kiss for insurances and pharmas. HERE! (Obama says) HAVE ALL OF THESE MANDATED CUSTOMERS WITH A SWEETENER OF SUBSIDIES! When Obama took office, 60-67% of the population was for the public option. That's a mandate, if anything is in this nation. Obama squandered the chance to do anything meaningful, humane, and cost-effective and instead took it off the table and gave the healthcare industry even more opportunity to make unconscionable profits. What a weenie.
Obamacare was the trickiest legislative move ever accomplished in the Congress:
Obamacare was signed into law in March 2010. If you recall, Nancy Pelosi’s Democratic majority in the House of Representatives was unable to pass their version of a healthcare law. Because all revenue bills have to originate in the House, the Senate found a bill that met those qualifications: HR3590, a military housing bill. They essentially stripped the bill of its original language and turned it into the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), aka Obamacare.
The Senate at that time had 60 Democrats, just enough to pass Obamacare. However after the bill passed the Senate, Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy died. In his place, Massachusetts elected Republican Scott Brown. That meant that if the House made any changes to the bill the Senate wouldn’t have the necessary number of votes to pass the amended bill (because they knew no Republicans would vote for Obamacare). So Senate Leader Harry Reid cut a deal with Pelosi: the House would pass the Senate bill without any changes if the Senate agreed to pass a separate bill by the House that made changes to the Senate version of Obamacare. This second bill was called the Reconciliation Act of 2010. So the House passed PPACA, the Senate bill, as well as their Reconciliation Act. At this point PPACA was ready for the President to sign, but the Senate still needed to pass the Reconciliation Act from the House.
More at www.briansussman.com/politics/how-obamacare-became-law/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it cost states more to have uninsured using the emergency room as a clinic office?
SGG
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Is this what you were talking about in regards to the NSA?
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-senate-advances-nsa-20150602-story
.html
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Obama should be impeached, just like Bush should have been impeached before him.
It's not because Obama is a half-black Kenyan Muslim Marxist socialist who is ineligible for the Presidency (as rightwing nutters claim) but because he - like President Cheney .... er, I mean Bush ... before him- violated the Constitution over and over and over again.
As far as Obamacare is concerned, it's just a big wet kiss for insurances and pharmas. HERE! (Obama says) HAVE ALL OF THESE MANDATED CUSTOMERS WITH A SWEETENER OF SUBSIDIES! When Obama took office, 60-67% of the population was for the public option. That's a mandate, if anything is in this nation. Obama squandered the chance to do anything meaningful, humane, and cost-effective and instead took it off the table and gave the healthcare industry even more opportunity to make unconscionable profits. What a weenie.
The Constitutional violations came when Obama allowed... nay, EXPANDED ... the NSA's warrantless wiretapping. And he STILL pushing for expanding warrantless wiretapping, THIS time in the name of cyber-security. Yanno, you don't get a more secure system by allowing any entity to snoop at will into every server and PC and phone on the 'net. That simply says that a billion backdoors are required for the snooping. Nope, you get security by hardening EVERY net-connected device. And for important servers, you harden them against wireless snooping as well.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I understand that healthcare was "difficult". That it would have experienced a lot of pushback from the insurance industries, for precisely the reason that ANY cost-effective single-payer or public option would have either immediately killed them on the spot, or slowly out-competed them. It's too bad Obama didn't fight for healthcare with the same cunning and vigor and tenacity that he fought for the Presidency. But what Obama did was toss the project to Max Baucus. Now Max, if he was one thing, was the man who got more healthcare insurance money than ANYONE in the Senate.
And he's STILL pushing for those "Free trade agreements" - TTIP and TPP - just like Bill Clinton pushed for - and got- NAFTA. So, how did that work out for us?
You people seem to forget that when Obama came to power, we were in the worst economic and financial freefall since the Great Depression. People voted for Obama because he promised ... what was that? HOPE and CHANGE. But Roosevelt, in his time and under similar circumstances (with just as much opposition) accomplished so much more.
I suspected Obama was going to go back on his promises when, right after he assumed office, it fell to him to appoint a Treasury Scy. But instead of appointing Sheila Bair, who- as Chair of the FDIC knew a thing or two about how to make banks run right- appointed Timmy Geithner, Wall Street protege.
All of those bankers who engage in FRAUDULENT BANKING? (The fraud went far far beyond just writing fraudulent loans ... it included selling "mortgage-backed products" for which mortgages had not even been written) Any of them go to jail?
As far as the NSA-snooping. that construction of the massive data-storage center in Utah almost certainly began on Obama's watch. Do you think Obama didn't know about this?
That fact that Obama prosecuted more whistle-blowers than all other Presidents COMBINED? Instead of giving Snowden a medal - which he fully deserves- he vowed to prosecute him. So much for the Fourth Amendment AND his promise of the "most transparent government ever"!
Obama, shortly into his second term, floated the idea of "indefinite preventive detention". So much for habeas corpus!
Those "kill lists" - in which Obama gets to be judge, jury and executioner of American citizens after some Star Chamber proceeding- were done with not only with Obama's knowledge but also with his direct, personal involvement. So, whatever happened to "due process" and a "trial by jury of your peers"?
As a Constitutional professor, don't you think that Obama KNEW he was wiping his feet on the first Ten Amendments?
------------------
Maybe looking back on Clinton ... who is less emotional as a topic ... would be instructive. Bill Clinton stabbed the middle class in the back many times:
He pushed for - and got- NAFTA and CAFTA, which not only decimated American manufacturing jobs but ALSO the small farmers south of the border and in the Caribbean, leading to a massive influx of poor migrants from the south and massive food insecurity everywhere south of here. As a single example of why this happened and who pushed for it, that's one the the reasons why Haiti was so stricken after the quake- all of its small rice farmers had been displaced by subsidize rice from the southern USA. Haitians were entirely dependent on cheap commodified imports like McDonald's, because "someone" decided that it would be better (for whom?) for Haiti to be a source of cheap manufacturing jobs (I saw World Bank plan along those lines) than attempting to maintain an independent economy, and Bill Clinton was all too happy to go along with those plans!
He repealed the Glass-Stegall Act; this was the law written in the 30s which separate YOUR SAVINGS from risky banking, and it was ONE OF THE DIRECT CAUSES of the 2008 crash.
He signed the Commodities Futures Trading Modernization Act; THIS bill brought us Enron shortly afterwords bu
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Don't be surprised if the next President is Republican. It is always a coin flip determining which party takes the White House. If Obama had governed like FDR it would be a certainty that he would have been impeached and Republicans win in 2016. Has Obama had any trouble? Only when he attempted something a nominally Democrat would do. If Obama did NOT violate the Constitution, he would be impeached. He is doing what Republicans want.
The USA is Republican land. Just look at state legislatures and governors. There are currently 31 Republicans, 18 Democrats, and one independent that hold the office of governor in the states. There are 31 Republican-controlled legislatures, 11 Democratic-controlled legislatures, and 8 Split legislatures.
It is impossible for a real Democrat to be elected President in Republican land. It is numerically impossible. It's hopeless. That's why it's Obama. That's why it might be Hillary. That's why it cannot be Bernie Sanders for President.
And that's why Obama hasn't been impeached in Republican land. He is a Republican without the craziness of the Tea Party. He's a Republican without the foreign policy stupidity of George Bush and Dick Cheney. Even Obamacare is Republican because it's Romney-care. (Remember Republican Mitt Romney?) In Republican land a Hillary or an Obama have a 50-50 chance of winning against a real Republican. A Bernie or a FDR have no chance.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Good.
Don't be surprised if the next President is Republican.
Sometimes you just have to dive deep into stupid and hit bottom.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Boy, do you have a HUGE chip on your shoulder and a Walmart-sized laundry list of Obama crimes and misdemeanors. Just so you know, I am one of the few people on this site that repeatedly talks about the economic crisis, that began in early 2008, and reached critical mass in October/November 2008.
I'm going to respond to just 2 items on your laundry list:
1- Senator Max Baucus: a supporter of the ACA, once called the ACA a "train wreck".............
The AP reports that Baucus, "who helped write President Barack Obama's health care law," "stunned administration officials Wednesday, saying openly he thinks it's headed for a 'train wreck' because of bumbling implementation." "'I just see a huge train wreck coming down." He went so far as to tell Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, that "The administration's public information campaign on the benefits of the Affordable Care Act deserves a failing grade." "You need to fix this," he said. Baucus also said "You and I have discussed this many times, and I don't see any results yet," meaning he has addressed the problem with Secretary Sebelius before.
Why the president didn't fire Sebelius is beyond me. That was a mistake.
(Source: Policy.Mic, by Soshanna Weissmann)
http://mic.com/articles/36159/sen-max-baucus-obamacare-s-biggest-advoc
ate-now-warns-of-disaster
2- Timothy Geithner: Was never a Wall Street banker.
"The most blatantly false example is Geithner, who is pictured along with the words “Goldman Sachs” and “$1.7 million estimate of assets.” Despite a popular myth circulated on the Internet, Geithner never worked for Goldman Sachs. The New York Times wrote an article about how often this rumor has been misstated as fact, including in the venerable Washington Post.
Geithner, who was president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York before joining the administration, had this comical exchange with Damon Silvers, deputy chairman of the Congressional Oversight Panel for TARP, at an April 21, 2009, hearing:
Silvers: All right. Let me stop you right there. What I don’t get–and I practice law, and you have been in banking — is a deal where —
Geithner: Actually–I have never actually been in banking. I have only been in public service.
Silvers: Well, a long time ago. A long time.
Geithner: Actually never.
Silvers: Investment banking I meant.
Geithner: Never investment banking. Spent my entire life in public service in the Treasury and at the Federal Reserve.
Silvers: Well, all right. Very well then."
(Source: Fact Check.org, by Eugene Kiely)
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/obama-white-house-full-of-wall-street
-executives/
P.S. It is widely known that President Bush and Congress cut a deal with the Wall Street Banking Industry, lead by US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson (who was once a Wall Street Banker with Goldman Sachs) who pressured both the President and Congress into passing the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (the Too Big to Fail crisis). It involved the "toxic housing assets" known as derivatives that nearly collapsed the world banking system (all because of a handful of greedy bastards), and allowed 10 banking concerns to merge with other banks and take over 77% of the industry, making them too big to fail. Both Paulson and Bernanke fiddled while the country burned.
All this took place under Bush's watch. Obama inherited the worse banking
fiasco since the Great Depression (also man made) and you make it seem as though he orchestrated this unholy mess. I may be wrong but, only one Wall Street banker went to jail......
"In the aftermath of the crash, the Justice Department did not refrain from prosecutions altogether. In 2009, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York tried two Bear Stearns hedge-fund managers—Ralph Cioffi and Matthew Tannin—who had effectively run their $1.6 billion fund into the ground in the spring of 2007, an
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Obama should be impeached, just like Bush should have been impeached before him.
It's not because Obama is a half-black Kenyan Muslim Marxist socialist who is ineligible for the Presidency (as rightwing nutters claim) but because he - like President Cheney .... er, I mean Bush ... before him- violated the Constitution over and over and over again.
As far as Obamacare is concerned, it's just a big wet kiss for insurances and pharmas. HERE! (Obama says) HAVE ALL OF THESE MANDATED CUSTOMERS WITH A SWEETENER OF SUBSIDIES! When Obama took office, 60-67% of the population was for the public option. That's a mandate, if anything is in this nation. Obama squandered the chance to do anything meaningful, humane, and cost-effective and instead took it off the table and gave the healthcare industry even more opportunity to make unconscionable profits. What a weenie.
The Constitutional violations came when Obama allowed... nay, EXPANDED ... the NSA's warrantless wiretapping. And he STILL pushing for expanding warrantless wiretapping, THIS time in the name of cyber-security. Yanno, you don't get a more secure system by allowing any entity to snoop at will into every server and PC and phone on the 'net. That simply says that a billion backdoors are required for the snooping. Nope, you get security by hardening EVERY net-connected device. And for important servers, you harden them against wireless snooping as well.
This might be one of the smartest things that anybody has ever posted in the RWED, Sigs. Well... I'll at least say that it's the most agreeable thing I've ever seen anybody post here before.
The only thing I would add is how in the last 16 years under both of their leaderships our National debt has risen nearly 13 Trillion dollars to nearly 4 times what it was in September of 2000.
For all their other flaws, this was the single most important reason I always said Bush Jr. should have been outed, and then Obama nearly doubles W's financial blunder.
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo
5.htm
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
$12t to $18t is not "nearly doubling."
Math > You
Obama has not "nearly doubled" Bush's numbers. Not even close. Bush *DID* more than double Clinton's, though, and by a lot.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by ElvisChrist:
$12t to $18t is not "nearly doubling."
Math > You
Obama has not "nearly doubled" Bush's numbers. Not even close. Bush *DID* more than double Clinton's, though, and by a lot.
Seriously dude, look again....
09/30/2000 - $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/2008 - $10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2015 - $18,150,604,277,750.63
By REAL math, that means that Bush Jr. nearly doubled the national deficit in 8 years. It would have actully needed to be 11,348,356,419,773.72 to be a complete doubling.
Also, even though the deficit has risen $8,125,879,380,838.14 since Obama has taken office, there's still a full year of unrecorded data to add to the total before he leaves office officially. If you just average the yearly raise per year since he's taken office, that's another $1,160,839,911,548.31 he will add to the deficit... in total making $9,286,719,292,386.45.
To lay it out in even simpler terms, in the 8 years that W. was president, his spending alone accounted for over 43% of the entire National Deficit by the time he left. ($5,674,178,209,886.86/$10,024,724,896,912.49)
In only 7 years, Obama's spending alone on top of that has accounted for over 44% of the entire National Deficit and there is still one year to go ($10,024,724,896,912.49/$18,150,604,277,750.63)
I was actually hoping that Obama's numbers were better than Bushes because you seem to entirely miss the point here. BOTH of them were terrible presidents. It just so happens that fiscally speaking that Obama is already the winner and by the time he leaves office he will have been the first president to truly double the National Debt and more before he leaves.
:)... and/or :(
Don't they give out a lot of free money for school these days? At least take some of that money and buy a calculator.
Free Tip of the Day: You're posting here on a computer. If you type "calc" at the start menu, it already comes with one! Yay!
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I see where you're going with this.... The numbers are kind of skewed since they're from September. The way I took it from 2000-2008 and 2008-2015 makes it look better to me and worse in your eyes.
(We're really on the same side. I think both presidents were the worst America ever had to offer, but I know that anybody who doesn't love Obama is an enemy in your eyes)
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's work with the new numbers then, shall we? (SPOILER ALERT: I don't think they're going to work out the way you think they will when you now have to consider we're only looking at 6 years on Obama's watch instead of 7).
09/30/2001 - $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2009 - $11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2015 - $18,150,604,277,750.63
In this case, W's share of the entire National Debt by September 30th of 2009 would have been nearly 49% ($5,807,463,412,200.06/$11,909,829,003,511.75)
That would mean that in only 6 years, Obama has raised the National Debt just under 35%. There's still 2 years to go though. Every year it raises more than the last, but to keep the math simple, we'll just average those 6 years and add 2 more. ($18,150,604,277,750.63 - $11,909,829,003,511.75 = $6,240,775,274,238.88 / 6 = $1,040,129,212,373.15 x 2 = $2,080,258,424,746.30 + $6,240,775,274,238.88 = $8,321,033,698,985.17)
These numbers would put Obama at just under 41% of the National Debt, which will be over $20 million at that time ($18,150,604,277,750.63 + the additional 2 trillion and change it will be by September 30th of 2017)
Keep in mind that the number when he goes out will be at least $500 billion higher by the time he leaves than that, and the numbers we are using are unfair either way to place blame on any one administration because of the month they take place in.
Also keep in mind that this is the worst kind of pissing contest ever. Either way, they both screwed us hard core.
Next time you buy that gallon of milk for $3.49 or that pound of ground beef for $4.59, I've got two guys you can blame for it. :)
Do Right, Be Right. :)
EDITED TO ADD: Either way Bush did NOT double the deficit Clinton him with, although it came very close. But that's talking about the ENTIRE deficit before the new president stepped in.
Obama is well on his way to raising the deficit by 9 trillion dollars before he leaves. Bush "only" raised it 6 trillion. :)
Either way, both of these assholes by 2017 will have accounted for nearly 75% of our entire National Debt in only 16 years. ;)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Cherrypicking and selective memory ElvisChrist, sad but true. Bush & Co. made Halliburton obscene amounts of money over the 8 years they led/bled the country.
Some, I'm afraid to even think it, probably wanted the economic collapse to occur.
When the ship is sinking, you do whatever you can to keep her afloat.
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by ElvisChrist:
$12t to $18t is not "nearly doubling."
Math > You
Obama has not "nearly doubled" Bush's numbers. Not even close. Bush *DID* more than double Clinton's, though, and by a lot.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Cherrypicking and selective memory ElvisChrist, sad but true. Bush & Co. made Halliburton obscene amounts of money over the 8 years they led/bled the country.
Some, I'm afraid to even think it, probably wanted the economic collapse to occur.
When the ship is sinking, you do whatever you can to keep her afloat.
SGGQuote:
Originally posted by ElvisChrist:
$12t to $18t is not "nearly doubling."
Math > You
Obama has not "nearly doubled" Bush's numbers. Not even close. Bush *DID* more than double Clinton's, though, and by a lot.
Not sure what your point here was SGG...
If it was anti-Bush, I get it. Once again I will remind you that you can look back 8 years ago and see I was one of the few people calling for the impeachment of W.
That doesn't excuse Obama's reckless spending today.
Bush gave billions (trillions?) to Halliburton. Obama gave billions (trillions?) to Blue Cross Blue Shield.
Woo Hoo! Everybody has insurance now!!!!!!
That doesn't change the fact that hospitals will charge you almost $10k today just to do an ultrasound on your nuts to figure out that you DONT have testicular cancer.
Back in 1989, my dad's insurance only paid a little over $100k to fly the best neurosurgeon in the country to operate on my 6 year old brothers head when he had a brain hemmorage. That price also included a 6 month stay at the hospital, 24 hour care, food and countless physical therapy sessions after he woke up from his 3 month coma.
Obamacare didn't fix a single thing. If anything it's nothing more than a temporary bandage on the symptom of a disease that's bigger than Halliburton. The fact that healthcare is now Government Mandated for EVERYONE and subsidized for those who can't afford it only means that the prices will continue to rise.
The healthcare industry isn't interested in Health or Care.
They don't make any money if everyone is healthy.
They're evil vultures. They feed upon the sick and the dying. Period.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The numbers don't lie, but it's not the whole story. Bush did not inherit a war and near financial meltdown when entering office. A war that has lasted nearly 14 years and has cost us billions.
I'm not saying Obama is perfect (by the way, we need to include Congress in this conversation, both sides) but when you're thrown into the deep end with a lead lifesaver, you do what you can to stay afloat. Anyway, at least we made Cheney rich beyond compare.
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I see where you're going with this.... The numbers are kind of skewed since they're from September. The way I took it from 2000-2008 and 2008-2015 makes it look better to me and worse in your eyes.
(We're really on the same side. I think both presidents were the worst America ever had to offer, but I know that anybody who doesn't love Obama is an enemy in your eyes)
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's work with the new numbers then, shall we? (SPOILER ALERT: I don't think they're going to work out the way you think they will when you now have to consider we're only looking at 6 years on Obama's watch instead of 7).
09/30/2001 - $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2009 - $11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2015 - $18,150,604,277,750.63
In this case, W's share of the entire National Debt by September 30th of 2009 would have been nearly 49% ($5,807,463,412,200.06/$11,909,829,003,511.75)
That would mean that in only 6 years, Obama has raised the National Debt just under 35%. There's still 2 years to go though. Every year it raises more than the last, but to keep the math simple, we'll just average those 6 years and add 2 more. ($18,150,604,277,750.63 - $11,909,829,003,511.75 = $6,240,775,274,238.88 / 6 = $1,040,129,212,373.15 x 2 = $2,080,258,424,746.30 + $6,240,775,274,238.88 = $8,321,033,698,985.17)
These numbers would put Obama at just under 41% of the National Debt, which will be over $20 million at that time ($18,150,604,277,750.63 + the additional 2 trillion and change it will be by September 30th of 2017)
Keep in mind that the number when he goes out will be at least $500 billion higher by the time he leaves than that, and the numbers we are using are unfair either way to place blame on any one administration because of the month they take place in.
Also keep in mind that this is the worst kind of pissing contest ever. Either way, they both screwed us hard core.
Next time you buy that gallon of milk for $3.49 or that pound of ground beef for $4.59, I've got two guys you can blame for it. :)
Do Right, Be Right. :)
EDITED TO ADD: Either way Bush did NOT double the deficit Clinton him with, although it came very close. But that's talking about the ENTIRE deficit before the new president stepped in.
Obama is well on his way to raising the deficit by 9 trillion dollars before he leaves. Bush "only" raised it 6 trillion. :)
Either way, both of these assholes by 2017 will have accounted for nearly 75% of our entire National Debt in only 16 years. ;)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
The numbers don't lie, but it's not the whole story. Bush did not inherit a war and near financial meltdown when entering office. A war that has lasted nearly 14 years and has cost us billions.
I'm not saying Obama is perfect (by the way, we need to include Congress in this conversation, both sides) but when you're thrown into the deep end with a lead lifesaver, you do what you can to stay afloat. Anyway, at least we made Cheney rich beyond compare.
SGG
Numbers surely don't lie. But you're very right that they don't tell the whole story.
The Clinton economy was great for all of us in America. Nobody really talks today about how a big part of that was opening the floodgates of the WTO to every third world country that now employs most of the manufacturing jobs (China) and service jobs (India) that we used to do ourselves.
All that plastic crap we used to buy at the dollar store was nice. Now we're paying the piper.
All that being said... Bush Jr. might not have entered the office with an illegal war that he ended up starting, but he sure did enter office on the brink of financial collapse.
When Clinton left office, gas prices by me hovered somewhere between a buck and $1.30 a gallon. Nearly one month after W. took over they were creeping up to an unfathomable $2/gal and people thought the sky was falling.
As bad as a president as he was, and let me remind you again that we are in complete agreement on that, there is no way that he was responsible for that in only a month and it was one of those residual things that take time to culminate.
We've had quite a long string of bad Presidents. W. and Obama just happen to be the worst of the worst.
You're right about Congress' role in it all. They're even worse then the puppets we put into office. It's not just the presidents themselves, but their entire administrations behind them. (For example, your joke about president Cheny).
To quote Jack Nicholson's Joker, "This Town Needs an Enima!"
I say flush them all out.
Forget about impeaching anybody. Let them finish their term and then put them in the unemployment line.
If you want to spend your time and energy fighting anything, don't waste it on impeachments that will likely never happen. FLUSH OUT the OLD CREW and DEMAND that the new crew do away with all the "healthcare for life" and huge pensions that the taxpayers are paying for these self-serving assholes we mindlessly elect.
For a country with a government that is supposed to be "For the People, By the People", we sure seem to love paying through the nose for terrible "leadership" and then funding a sweet ass retirement for a shit job.
If 90% of these guys and gals phucked up their jobs that bad in any arena of the Public Sector, they'd be out on their ass without a golden parachute.
I think we agree on at least 95% of things SGG. Let's not quibble over the 5% we may or may not agree on.
It's time to bring an end to the division of the civilians. The only part of the saying that means anything to any of them in their cozy chairs is the "Divided We Fall" part.
As long as intelligent civvies are too busy fighting each other over bullshit talking points, they can just sit back and coast their way to a great living and retirement package for their entire family.
In honesty, I feel bad for the W's and the Obamas for having to take all of the heat, and I feel a little guilty talking about their administrations in this very thread as if they were just One Man. History will teach our future children that they were just One Man, just like our Social Studies classes taught us that George Washington and Abe Lincoln and JFK were just One Man....
I sure wouldn't want to be king......
But a cozy Congressional job where I can be re-elected unopposed from here to eternity so long as I don't ge
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Joker meant "This Town needs an Election!"
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
To quote Jack Nicholson's Joker, "This Town Needs an Enema!"
What a well-organized group of people does when faced with an election is: realize that the election is happening, obtain some grasp of the stakes, and then vote.
But Progressives are weak at organizing.
Every local area in the United States features a church, and people who attend religious services weekly are much more likely to vote Conservative, i.e. Republican.
The other major civic institution in American life is a local chamber of commerce through which leaders of the business community engage one another on issues of common interest. They, too, are much more likely to vote Conservative, i.e. Republican.
Secular people, most likely to vote Progressive, i.e. Democrats, don't meet weekly to hear a little speech about secular values and their application to ongoing events in the community. Progressive Environmental groups are generally not real mass-membership organizations that directly engage ordinary people.
Nothing will cure these organizational faults ailing the Progressives.
Republicans have a perfectly plausible path to Total Political Domination — win the 2016 presidential election — while Progressives don't.
www.vox.com/2015/11/5/9672706/kentucky-virginia-democrats-denial
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes, Obama did a lot of bad things. IF he hadn't, then my list wouldn't be so friggin' long!
Boy, do you have a HUGE chip on your shoulder and a Walmart-sized laundry list of Obama crimes and misdemeanors.
Quote:And I think I'm the only one on this site who actually predicted it. And I will tell you right now that Obama's "fix" for the crisis is just leading to another one.
Just so you know, I am one of the few people on this site that repeatedly talks about the economic crisis, that began in early 2008, and reached critical mass in October/November 2008.
Quote:Obamacare's problem is much more fundamental than it's implementation. The problem goes right back to what Max Baucus designed, which has led to one of the greatest collective butt-fuckings the population has ever experienced (aside from our relentless expensive "wars"). Because when all is said and done, the portion of GDP spent on healthcare will go UP from its already extraordinarily high expenditure (relative to other industrialized nations) and the health insurances and healthcare industries will rake in even more dough.
I'm going to respond to just 2 items on your laundry list:
1- Senator Max Baucus: a supporter of the ACA, once called the ACA a "train wreck".............
The AP reports that Baucus, "who helped write President Barack Obama's health care law," "stunned administration officials Wednesday, saying openly he thinks it's headed for a 'train wreck' because of bumbling implementation." "'I just see a huge train wreck coming down." He went so far as to tell Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, that "The administration's public information campaign on the benefits of the Affordable Care Act deserves a failing grade." "You need to fix this," he said. Baucus also said "You and I have discussed this many times, and I don't see any results yet," meaning he has addressed the problem with Secretary Sebelius before.
I'm not going to give an inch on this. I was following the debate VERY closely because our daughter has had a preexisting condition ever since she was born (brain injury @ birth) making her ineligible for any insurance aside from Medicaid. I saw how the discussion went from single-payer to public option, and how Obama's support for a government-backed plan diminished as time went on, and was last mentioned as a goal in his second State of the Union speech, and then he told its supporters ... and that was the vast majority of the nation ... that it was a non-starter and that he was taking it off the table.
Do you remember the Harvard research paper that I brought up which found that America is an oligarchy?
Major Study Finds The US Is An Oligarchy
http://www.businessinsider.com/major-study-finds-that-the-us-is-an-oli
garchy-2014-4
What the authors found is that "the people" mostly get what they want, because their goals mostly correspond to what the rich want. But when the goals and desires of the American people conflict with the goals and desires of the wealthy, the wealthy almost always get their way. Now, this can't possibly happen without the connivance of politicians, who are tied to their donors' apron strings.
Quote:
Timothy Geithner: Was never a Wall Street banker.
"The most blatantly false example is Geithner, who is pictured along with the words “Goldman Sachs” and “$1.7 million estimate of assets.” Despite a popular myth circulated on the Internet, Geithner never worked for Goldman Sachs. The New York Times wrote an article about how often this rumor has been misstated as fact, including in the venerable Washington Post.
I never said that Timothy Geithner was a Wall Street banker, or that he worked for Goldman Sachs. I said he was a Wall Street protégé. Now, who or what is a protégé? A protégé
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SECOND:Quote:Joker meant "This Town needs an Election!"
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
To quote Jack Nicholson's Joker, "This Town Needs an Enema!"
What a well-organized group of people does when faced with an election is: realize that the election is happening, obtain some grasp of the stakes, and then vote.
But Progressives are weak at organizing.
Every local area in the United States features a church, and people who attend religious services weekly are much more likely to vote Conservative, i.e. Republican.
The other major civic institution in American life is a local chamber of commerce through which leaders of the business community engage one another on issues of common interest. They, too, are much more likely to vote Conservative, i.e. Republican.
Secular people, most likely to vote Progressive, i.e. Democrats, don't meet weekly to hear a little speech about secular values and their application to ongoing events in the community. Progressive Environmental groups are generally not real mass-membership organizations that directly engage ordinary people.
Nothing will cure these organizational faults ailing the Progressives.
Republicans have a perfectly plausible path to Total Political Domination — win the 2016 presidential election — while Progressives don't.
www.vox.com/2015/11/5/9672706/kentucky-virginia-democrats-denial
Democrats, with rare exceptions, do not offer an antidote to Republicans. Most Democrats will back down and vote they way the party leadership wants, no matter how craven or disingenuous the plan. Sen Feinstein and Hillary Clinton come to mind. Heck, even Kamala Harris backed down and swallowed the Fed's decisions on how to "punish" the banks. The exceptions are people like Russ Feingold, Tulsi Gabbard, and Cynthia McKinney.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Answering two posts:
Quote:If today was the second term of President John McCain or the first term of Mitt Romney, you'd hate those Republicans more than Obama. You'll always get less than you deserve by compromising and supporting a Democratic Party President, but you'll get nothing from a Republican. Either compromise your heartfelt principles by supporting a Democrat or remain pure, smug, and uncompromising while a Republican President signs legislation to end every slight improvement since the Great Depression. Such a difficult choice you have.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I, on the other hand, hate Obama for what he's done, not for his skin color. . . . Democrats, with rare exceptions, do not offer an antidote to Republicans. Most Democrats will back down and vote they way the party leadership wants, no matter how craven or disingenuous the plan.
As a guide for what you should do now, you could look back at the choice you made in the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries to discover why you are unhappy with 2015's President. From completely different choices come small differences in outcomes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,
_2008
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:McCain is scary crazy. Romney might not have been as bad as Obama.
If today was the second term of President John McCain or the first term of Mitt Romney, you'd hate those Republicans more than Obama.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Romney might not have been as bad as Obama."
It's possible that Obama bent over backwards trying to be one of 'them', in a futile attempt at something that was not going to happen.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I can't decide if Obama is weak and stupid, or complicit.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'll deside for you then. He iz smart & strong and duz hiz best agenst tremendous oppozition.
Wen thingz get compicated, it can be hard to tell the good guyz frum the bad guyz, especially wen the bad guyz are pumping out massiv disinformation everywhere all the time.
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.nooalf.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Name me one thing that Obama did that was unequivocally good.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SECOND:Quote:Joker meant "This Town needs an Election!"
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
To quote Jack Nicholson's Joker, "This Town Needs an Enema!"
What a well-organized group of people does when faced with an election is: realize that the election is happening, obtain some grasp of the stakes, and then vote.
But Progressives are weak at organizing.
Every local area in the United States features a church, and people who attend religious services weekly are much more likely to vote Conservative, i.e. Republican.
The other major civic institution in American life is a local chamber of commerce through which leaders of the business community engage one another on issues of common interest. They, too, are much more likely to vote Conservative, i.e. Republican.
Secular people, most likely to vote Progressive, i.e. Democrats, don't meet weekly to hear a little speech about secular values and their application to ongoing events in the community. Progressive Environmental groups are generally not real mass-membership organizations that directly engage ordinary people.
Nothing will cure these organizational faults ailing the Progressives.
Republicans have a perfectly plausible path to Total Political Domination — win the 2016 presidential election — while Progressives don't.
www.vox.com/2015/11/5/9672706/kentucky-virginia-democrats-denial
Hey Second,
First off, I'd like to say that I agree 100% about the whole voting at a church thing. In the last 10 years I could count on my fingers and toes how many times I've been in a church. Weddings, funerals and voting...
For a country that seems to love separating church and state, it seems silly to me that the elections happen in churches 9 out of 10 times. Pragmatically speaking, I get it. Elections are usually on Tuesday and nobody is using the building, so why not have it there? Maybe the problem is that we do it in cold ass November. Maybe if we did it in the summertime instead we could just have it at your local K-Mart parking lot. Any time of day that place is empty. :)
Being somebody who believes very much in God and has a less than great relationship with him, I feel strange going to the church to vote. I only started voting since being a homeowner, so I can't say if it's this way everywhere, but I've never gone there once without having to say hi to a priest. It's a pleasant enough interaction, and he doesn't try to sell me on any religion or services, but I feel guilty that I don't ever go to church and it's something that I know is going to happen every time I go there and it's just off putting.
I disagree with you that "Progressives" are crappy at organizing though. Forget the fact that a vast majority of any successful protests in the last 100+ years were from the left, but you have to admit that aside from Fox News and WLS, the left pretty much owns the entire media.
While we're talking about Progress, I really wish we'd stop using the term "Progressive" to speak about Liberals. I'm sure that the people on the left are all for it, but in many ways I feel that it is a misnomer.
Don't get me wrong... I'm not saying that the Left should not have a title with a positive connotation, but I don't agree that Progressive should be it. On the flip side, I'm perfectly okay with the Right's use of "Conservative" as their positive flag, although I'll be the first to admit that they have abused that many times as well.... especially the Neo-Cons and the W. presidency that single handedly doubled the national deficit in 8 years.
I want to give you a Local example about how voting Republican was the Progressive move in my township, and I may have already mentioned this on another thread.
More than 4/5ths of my city shares its township with Gary, IN's township. For every dollar we paid in proper
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SECOND:
If today was the second term of President John McCain or the first term of Mitt Romney, you'd hate those Republicans more than Obama. You'll always get less than you deserve by compromising and supporting a Democratic Party President, but you'll get nothing from a Republican.
The problem with this logic is that we're only talking about PRESIDENTS!!!!
I live in Indiana, and because of the Electoral vote, my vote for president is meaningless anyway. Romney won in my state by over 100k votes, so I was pissed I didn't vote with my heart for Ron Paul.
Next year, the office of PRESIDENT is the ONLY office I WON'T be voting for.
Yep....
Local politics are where it's at. The closer you get to Federal level, the less meaningless they become, and the less of a difference between "sides" there actually is.
W. might as well have been a Liberal and Obama might as well have been a Republican for all the good they did us while we continue to bend over and get pounded.
My challenge to you is to forget completely about the Presidential election next year.
Think Globally, Vote Locally.
Fuck the President. ;)
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My point: that Obama was handed a dingy with several holes in it's hull to navigate through the rough seas of near economic meltdown. In other words, he was deep in the hole before setting foot in office.
Bush, as I recall, walked in with a surplus, and nearly doubled the national debt. Obama walked into a bear trap with a ball and chain attached to it. Bush mismanaged his way to the bottom, while Obama did what he could to dig his way out and up. The stimulus package may have been a risk but he was dealing with the worse economic collapse since the depression. No way he was coming out of that unscathed.
I'm not saying Obama was perfect, but his were errors of omission, while Bush were errors of commission (which is far worse). You say that Obama made the health insurance industry rich. Was this a purposeful maneuver on his part? So, if he does nothing - that would be better? The health care and insurance industries have been broken for years. I have seen this first hand - hospitals overcharging and double charging patients through careless, and purposeful, errors. So it's better to leave it alone and allow the industry to name it's price regardless. Yes, both industries are scum, praying on the weak and infirmed; Is there a better plan?
I'm no economic expert, but I dare say that the president tackled a heady subject, the opportunistic health care industry, and has attempted to reinvent the wheel. It seems to me that people want the status quo, rising health care costs and so forth. But, are overall health care costs really rising? The below article may shed some light on that subject.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-12-02/obamacare-isnt-drivin
g-up-health-costs-really
Yes, the national debt did rise under Obama's watch, but how and was it effective in averting, rather than inviting, financial disaster? Was the stimulus package successful in jump-starting the economy? What about double digit unemployment? What cost more, health insurance or emergency room visits? Did Congress do their part to assist the president in finding ways to putting the country back on track?
Bush's policies pushed war, which encouraged spending in the military sector (by the way, the VA was in no great shape then either). At the end of his term Bush handed over the keys to the kingdom, and the house was in a state of disrepair. You either bite the bullet to dig yourself out of a huge financial hole or you go hide in a corner until your four years are
up. Obama made some hard choices and here we are. We are able to say, remember when.
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Cherrypicking and selective memory ElvisChrist, sad but true. Bush & Co. made Halliburton obscene amounts of money over the 8 years they led/bled the country.
Some, I'm afraid to even think it, probably wanted the economic collapse to occur.
When the ship is sinking, you do whatever you can to keep her afloat.
SGGQuote:
Originally posted by ElvisChrist:
$12t to $18t is not "nearly doubling."
Math > You
Obama has not "nearly doubled" Bush's numbers. Not even close. Bush *DID* more than double Clinton's, though, and by a lot.
Not sure what your point here was SGG...
If it was anti-Bush, I get it. Once again I will remind you that you can look back 8 years ago and see I was one of the few people calling for the impeachment of W.
That doesn't excuse Obama's reckless spending today.
Bush gave billions (trillions?) to Halliburton. Obama gave billions (trillions?) to Blue Cross Blue Shield.
Woo Hoo! Everybody has insurance now!!!!!!
That doesn't change the fact that hospitals will charge you almost $10k today just to do an ultrasound on your nuts to figure out that you DONT have testicular cancer.
Back in 1989, my dad's insurance only paid a little over $100k to fly the best neurosurgeon in the country to operate on my 6 yeNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I accept your challenge and will now go completely off-topic with "The Unnatural" a short story by David Eagleman.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
My challenge to you is to forget completely about the Presidential election next year.
When you arrive in the afterlife, the Technicians inform you of the great opportunity awaiting you: make any single change you want, and then live life over again. Their pamphlet suggests that you might choose to make yourself two inches taller, or give everyone on the Earth a better sense of humor, or make birds talk. You then get to rerun that choice on the Earth to see what happens. They inform you proudly that this is a unique experiential education program.
Having just attended your own funeral, you may be tempted to propose a clever choice: you want to be the one who eradicates death altogether from our planet.
Just be forewarned: if you propose this, a kind Technician may pull you aside to let you know that you have tried this path before in your previous reruns of life, and it inevitably led to frustration.
Are you telling me this because it will put you out of a job? you ask.
No, the Technician replies.
Is this because death is incurable? you ask.
No, the Technician says.
In that case I would like to have my wish fulfilled.
Suit yourself, replies the Technician.
So in your new life you grow into a famous medical visionary. You argue that there is no such thing as a natural death and raise millions to fund your research. You program computers to calculate all possible mutations of viruses before they happen and design prophylactic treatments against them. You compute the exact effects of every medication on the normal cycles of the body. Your aggressive anti-death program is a success: after the final breath of an incurably ill elderly woman, you are able to announce that hers represented the last natural death. Great celebrations ensue. People begin to live forever, healing just as they would when they were young, free at last from the overhanging cloud of mortality. You are greatly admired.
But eventually, just as the Technician warned, your success begins to lose its shine. People come to discover that the end of death is the death of motivation. Too much life, it turns out, is the opiate of the masses. There is a noticeable decline in accomplishment. People take more naps. There’s no great rush.
In an attempt to salvage their once-dynamic lives, people begin to set suicide dates for themselves. It is a welcome echo of the old days of finite life spans, but superior because of the opportunity to say goodbye and complete your estate planning. That works well for a while, rekindling the incentive to live strongly. But eventually people begin to take the system with less than the appropriate seriousness, and if some large new development occurs, such as a new relationship, they simply postpone the suicide date. Whole cadres of procrastinators grow. When they reschedule a new date, others ridicule them by calling it a death threat. There develops enormous social pressure to follow through with the suicides. At long last, after many abuses of the system, it is legislated that there is no changing a preset death date.
But eventually it comes to be appreciated that not just the finitude of life but also the surprise timing of death is critical to motivation. So people begin to set ranges for their death dates. In this new framework, their friends throw surprise parties for them—like birthday parties—except they jump out from behind the couch and kill them. Since you never know when your friends are going to schedule your party, it reinstills the carpe diem attitude of former years. Unfortunately, people begin to abuse the surprise party system to extinguish their enemies under the protection of necrolegislation.
In the end, great masses of rioters break into your medical complex, kick the plugs out of the computers, and once again have a great celebration to mark the end of the last unnatural life, and you
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
By the way, I worked for personal injury attorneys who represented plaintiffs against hospitals and car accident victims. I had a case where our client was charged approx. $10,000 for a 4-day hospital visit.
His wife came to our office complaining that something was off with the bill and I investigated. It turned out he was charged double for the procedure and, not only that, he was charged for an item that was something to the affect named "domestic cleaning" something (I don't remember) some $200. When I asked what that was the hospital administrator was unable to tell me, she didn't know either. She looked it up and revealed that it was a box of Kleenex. She removed the item from the claim. In total their bill was a more reasonable $4,000 and change.
Multiply that by several hundred thousand or even million and you'll see why the health care industry is such a mess.
SGG
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You know something 6SJ, I think it may be closer to 96%, but why quibble indeed.
There are a number of factors contributing to the running of this country, and One Man does not tell the story. It's funny, but you're right, we agree on more than we probably care to admit. And, yes it's not that simple, but I agree that it is a distraction that will allow the magic trick to work.
The cushy job that Congress, in many ways the real culprits (partly because they supposedly represent us almost directly) have and the president, in today's modern world, is used as a political decoy. I remember seeing a report that Congress is scheduled to have the most amount of days off in our history. 9 days in session for November and 11 days in session for December 2015.
2016 fares no better. "The 110 days in-session for 2016 mark the lowest in the McCarthy era, compared to 133 days in 2015 and the 112 of 2014."
A whopping 255 days off. Now that's a sweet job, no wonder they fight tooth and nail to keep their cushy jobs. Plus, on top of that, they get all those fringe benefits.
Thing is I do know better, but sometimes I get caught up in the rhetoric and hyperbole of "gotcha" and cage-match politics. It has been very cleverly built over the years. I will try hard not to get caught up in it again.
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
The numbers don't lie, but it's not the whole story. Bush did not inherit a war and near financial meltdown when entering office. A war that has lasted nearly 14 years and has cost us billions.
I'm not saying Obama is perfect (by the way, we need to include Congress in this conversation, both sides) but when you're thrown into the deep end with a lead lifesaver, you do what you can to stay afloat. Anyway, at least we made Cheney rich beyond compare.
SGG
Numbers surely don't lie. But you're very right that they don't tell the whole story.
The Clinton economy was great for all of us in America. Nobody really talks today about how a big part of that was opening the floodgates of the WTO to every third world country that now employs most of the manufacturing jobs (China) and service jobs (India) that we used to do ourselves.
All that plastic crap we used to buy at the dollar store was nice. Now we're paying the piper.
All that being said... Bush Jr. might not have entered the office with an illegal war that he ended up starting, but he sure did enter office on the brink of financial collapse.
When Clinton left office, gas prices by me hovered somewhere between a buck and $1.30 a gallon. Nearly one month after W. took over they were creeping up to an unfathomable $2/gal and people thought the sky was falling.
As bad as a president as he was, and let me remind you again that we are in complete agreement on that, there is no way that he was responsible for that in only a month and it was one of those residual things that take time to culminate.
We've had quite a long string of bad Presidents. W. and Obama just happen to be the worst of the worst.
You're right about Congress' role in it all. They're even worse then the puppets we put into office. It's not just the presidents themselves, but their entire administrations behind them. (For example, your joke about president Cheny).
To quote Jack Nicholson's Joker, "This Town Needs an Enima!"
I say flush them all out.
Forget about impeaching anybody. Let them finish their term and then put them in the unemployment line.
If you want to spend your time and energy fighting anything, don't waste it on impeachments that will likely never happen. FLUSH OUT the OLD CREW and DEMAND that the new crew do away with all the "healthcare for life" and huge pensions that the taxpayers are paying for these self-serving assholes we mindlessly elect.
For a country with a government that is supposed to beNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You have ZERO claim on anything close to the AFTERLIFE after what my 6 year old brother had to go through and what he continues to live with every fucking day without any "Veteran" benefits...
I was at the park with him and my other brother and my Dad and he's the one who carried him back home on his shoulder and he ended up in the hospital, at 6 years old, to have brain surgery and somehow survive, and end up completely hatelful and bitter about everything and make you wish 9 times out of 10 that he just died on that operating table when he was 6 years old...
"Right" or "Left", you fuckers don't even have a clue...
There's actually been "Thesis's" written about my Brother....
He shouldn't even be alive today, considering the medicine and means available in the late 80s, let alone today.
Given all of that... He's the 'happy' one
If you see him taking pictures in Chicago, he'd be more than happy to take your pic for free with your friends or family there and email it to you the nxt day.
I was only 10 and there weren't politics back then. My dad made a good buck and my mom stayed at home. Growing up, my old man hated politics completely, so I never even really thought about them till I came to the RWED....
BTW... teh "beat" that Dennis Leary "stole" a decade before Rescue me started was Billy Joel's "Pianio Man"
(Oh right... i have to be fucking backwards and go by Haken's rules to make a fucking video play on this site in 2015... whatever)
Seriously,.... is any non 30 year old used up slut still fucking Haken now?
He's got to be older than fucking God in 2015
No fucking way that Deniss Leary at that time or any dead dude he was sing about whould admit that...
My Brother swears that Nibiroo is real....
Whatever man...
Everyday I wake up and I can't believe what's fucking happening...
I envy you for believing whatever whacked out Niberoo prophecies you believe in. I'll even talk to you at least once a month and let you indulge yourself all about them.
I'm the last person to judge you. Single White Male with a house full paid for. Hate's People in General. Sings Tom Petty better than Tom Petty ever did.
Fuck you, I'm cool.
:)
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Girls in their late teens and early 20s that still liked great rock icons????
Probably not if they weren't tied up.
Fuck you cops... Girls like being tied up around me ;)
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Allright.... let's be real here....
The closer to the fire the more you get burned.....
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Allright.... let's be real here....
The closer to the fire the more you get burned.....
Do Right, Be Right. :)
P.S. It's fucking ridiculous that I hvae to remove an "s" to a site to have songe here.....
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
My point: that Obama was handed a dingy with several holes in it's hull to navigate through the rough seas of near economic meltdown. In other words, he was deep in the hole before setting foot in office.
Bush, as I recall, walked in with a surplus, and nearly doubled the national debt. Obama walked into a bear trap with a ball and chain attached to it. Bush mismanaged his way to the bottom, while Obama did what he could to dig his way out and up. The stimulus package may have been a risk but he was dealing with the worse economic collapse since the depression. No way he was coming out of that unscathed.
I'm not saying Obama was perfect, but his were errors of omission, while Bush were errors of commission (which is far worse). You say that Obama made the health insurance industry rich. Was this a purposeful maneuver on his part? So, if he does nothing - that would be better? The health care and insurance industries have been broken for years. I have seen this first hand - hospitals overcharging and double charging patients through careless, and purposeful, errors. So it's better to leave it alone and allow the industry to name it's price regardless. Yes, both industries are scum, praying on the weak and infirmed; Is there a better plan?
I'm no economic expert, but I dare say that the president tackled a heady subject, the opportunistic health care industry, and has attempted to reinvent the wheel. It seems to me that people want the status quo, rising health care costs and so forth. But, are overall health care costs really rising? The below article may shed some light on that subject.
So, to re-cap.... Obama came to power during the worst economic and financial collapse since the Great Depression. He had the backing of a large majority of people who believed in his promises. And he labored and brought forth the status quo, breaking ALL of his promises along the way? IS THAT what you're saying?
I dispute that these were "errors" of omission, or that they were errors at all. He took many positive (and by positive, I don't mean favorable, I mean provable actions, not just lack of action) that made many things worse- everything from expanding internal security to violating Constitutional rights to bombing Libya (yet another failed state!) and droning everywhere else to pushing for mandated private health insurance to bailing out the banks instead of the people.
Roosevelt, for his part, came to power under exactly the same circumstances. There was the same anti-tax, feed-the-rich feeling in Congress. (Funny how some things never change)
As far as "would things be better without Obamacare?" the answer- for me and mine at least, is YES. There were many state programs that were experimenting with solutions to the high cost of medical care. Thos experiments would have gone on. What my family has experienced overall is a loss of coverage and a HUGE increase in premiums.
"Is there a better plan?" you ask? YES, OF COURSE. There are MANY better plans.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Name me one thing that Obama did that was unequivocally good.
Averted a depression.
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.nooalf.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, Bill Clinton raised the minimum wage. He wasn't ALL bad, he just set the stage for worse things to happen eight years after he left office.
When Obama's chosen mechanism to "avoiding a depression" (feed the rich) comes crashing down to make a worse depression than what we've just had, I'll get back to you.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by G:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Well, Bill Clinton raised the minimum wage. He wasn't ALL bad, he just set the stage for worse things to happen eight years after he left office.
When Obama's chosen mechanism to "avoiding a depression" (feed the rich) comes crashing down to make a worse depression than what we've just had, I'll get back to you.
So just curious, do you think the US has ever had a good president?
I know lets get our own version of Stalin and make him president
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Needs some thought.There is never anybody who is 100% good, but some who are more good than bad- Jefferson, Adams, FDR.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Ventriloquist - is an act of stagecraft in which a person changes his or her voice so that it appears that the voice is coming from elsewhere......."
Funny how when I write a response you find some way to distort or reinvent my words. You started out okay and then slowly the train began to veer off it's track. I admit, I may not use the correct words to depict my full meaning but, NO I did not say that he broke ALL of his promises (name me just one president that has kept all of his promises), nor did I say that he worked to maintain the status quo. Those are your words.
He has worked to change that, which we as Americans have come to know as
same-o, same-o (status quo). But I'm not here to argue for what I clearly stated, that the president was tossed headlong into a firestorm, and people like yourself have pointed fingers but offer no solutions. Please don't
try to put words into my mouth or try to change my POV. I'm not falling for that game. Please re-read my response and you will see that I believe that
POTUS did his level best to "right the ship" as it were, and no amount of
Republican doublespeak will change my mind.
By the way, I don't expect for you to agree or disagree, but to merely be open to a different POV. I am open to yours and consider the possibilities, that is, of course, whenever I understand the point you wish to make. I reject, out of hand, the notion that this president was looking to sabotage
the country, as many have suggested. Seven years ago there were right-wing enthusiasts swearing up and down that Obama was going to repeal the 2nd Amendment (which is Constitutionally impossible, no One Man can do that),
yet here we are and it's still intact. Foolish humans!
Believe what you will, it's a free country. I, for one, appreciate the president for his hard work to lead the nation in a positive direction. Has he made mistakes, of course, no one in history can ever say that they've never made mistakes.
The NSA thing, that's a load of crap.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-passes-nsa-reform-bill-the-usa-free
dom-act/
The ACA - pre-existing conditions, being able to add your kids up to age 26,
the premiums rose for some and decreased for others. It would take some time for the industry to be positively affected in terms of costs coming down (Medicaid met with similar negative response).
Before there was the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (The Stimulus Package, a move the president was forced to make to jumpstart the economy)There was the:
- Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008: "enacted October 3, 2008), commonly referred to as a bailout of the U.S. financial system, is a law enacted in response to the subprime mortgage crisis authorizing the United States Secretary of the Treasury to spend up to $700 billion to purchase distressed assets, especially mortgage-backed securities, and supply cash directly to banks."
Bailing out the banks was established well before Obama took office - Bush, Bernanke, Paulson - any of these names ring a bell? Congress?
Obama took a calculated risk and it paid off. Unemployment is at 5.0%, the lowest it's been since April 2008 (before the near economic collapse).
The rich are making gobs of money, of course they don't exactly share that
with the general public. Need I go further?
And where exactly is this better plan? Can you share the MANY better plans you speak of?
SGG
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Good post SSG
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:OK
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
"Ventriloquist - is an act of stagecraft in which a person changes his or her voice so that it appears that the voice is coming from elsewhere......."
Funny how when I write a response you find some way to distort or reinvent my words. You started out okay and then slowly the train began to veer off it's track. I admit, I may not use the correct words to depict my full meaning but, NO I did not say that he broke ALL of his promises (name me just one president that has kept all of his promises), nor did I say that he worked to maintain the status quo. Those are your words.
Quote:He has? Aside form giving speeches which express a preference for this or that, what has he done? Devise a cabinet-level group of economic advisors, publicists, and lawyers to form and press forward with a plan of action on ... anything?
He has worked to change that
Quote:But I have. The very first thing Obama could have done was appoint someone who knew how banks run and how they fail: Shiela Bair. Instead, he appointed a New York regulator with close ties to Wall Street.
which we as Americans have come to know as same-o, same-o (status quo). But I'm not here to argue for what I clearly stated, that the president was tossed headlong into a firestorm, and people like yourself have pointed fingers but offer no solutions.
Quote:I'm not a Republican. In fact, I'm a registered Democrat, and if you were to re-read my posts of old (like the one on Libertarianism) you'll see that not only do I disagree vehemently with most Republicans (esp rightwing ones) I was an early Obama supporter. I voted for him the first time around to give him a chance.
Please don't try to put words into my mouth or try to change my POV. I'm not falling for that game. Please re-read my response and you will see that I believe that POTUS did his level best to "right the ship" as it were, and no amount of Republican doublespeak will change my mind.
Quote:Obama did what most Presidents before him: feed the rich.
By the way, I don't expect for you to agree or disagree, but to merely be open to a different POV. I am open to yours and consider the possibilities, that is, of course, whenever I understand the point you wish to make. I reject, out of hand, the notion that this president was looking to sabotage the country, as many have suggested. Seven years ago there were right-wing enthusiasts swearing up and down that Obama was going to repeal the 2nd Amendment (which is Constitutionally impossible, no One Man can do that), yet here we are and it's still intact. Foolish humans!
Quote:Obama can veto legislation that he thinks is unconstitutional. He DIDN'T have to engage in drone strikes against American citizens.
Believe what you will, it's a free country. I, for one, appreciate the president for his hard work to lead the nation in a positive direction. Has he made mistakes, of course, no one in history can ever say that they've never made mistakes.
The NSA thing, that's a load of crap.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-passes-nsa-reform-bill-the-usa-free
dom-act/
Quote:
The ACA - pre-existing conditions, being able to add your kids up to age 26, the premiums rose for some and decreased for others. It would take some time for the industry to be positively affected in terms of costs coming down (Medicaid met with similar negative response).
Before there was the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (The Stimulus Package, a move the president was forced to make to jumpstart the economy)There was the:
- Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008: "enacted October 3, 2008), commonly referred to as a bailout of the U.S. financial system, is a law enacted in response to the subprime mortgage crisis authorizing the United States Secretary of the Treasury to spend up to $700 billion to purchase distressed assets, especially mortgage-backed securiNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
President Obama makes history again.
"President Barack Obama has been affectionately referred to as the “first gay president,” due to historical LGBT rights achievements during his tenure in the White House, and a new OUT magazine cover story seeks to solidify his image as a champion of equality."
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/obama-graces-the-cover-lgbt-themed-out-maga
zine
Every time you open your mouth SIG you put your foot into it. You are batting a 1000 when it comes to being a moron.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes, the banks are bigger and more powerful than ever before, the wealthier have a larger portion of the pie than ever before, jobs have continued to leave the USA as the nation de-industrializes, and our military is as busy as ever fucking up nations everywhere, but BY GOD GAYS HAVE THEIR RIGHT TO JOIN THE ARMY!
Yeesh!
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Do you actually believe that gays just joined the Army during Obama's tenure as president?
As for the banks, ever since the Great Depression they have been in control, this is not a new phenomenon.
And jobs:
"The loss of the manufacturing industry manifests itself most clearly in job losses. According to the Economist, “For the first time since the Industrial Revolution, fewer than 10 percent of American workers are now employed in manufacturing” (Oct. 1, 2005). But even this figure is probably double the actual percentage, because many workers in a typical manufacturing firm have service-type jobs. In comparison, during the 1970s, approximately 25 percent of American workers were employed in manufacturing. From 1990 to present, manufacturing jobs have decreased every single year; since 1996, they have plummeted by almost one fifth."
(Source: The Trumpet, by Robert Morley, circa 2006)
https://www.thetrumpet.com/article/2061.24.80.0/economy/the-death-of-a
merican-manufacturing
The above article was written in 2006, and it reveals the affect of greed and avarice of the American manufacturers. Not only are they abandoning their workers, but the very consumers that put them at the top of the industrial food chain globally. For whom the bell tolls won't just be the name of a classic novel, but also the death knell of the manufacturers themselves, as Americans will be unable to afford the lifestyle of their forefathers.
Yes, the game has been cleverly rigged to not only maintain, but enhance and reaffirm the status quo. And while we are bickering amongst ourselves
trying to determine if One Man is at fault (something of this magnitude does not come about from the mind of one man, no matter how smart he
may be), the rich keep getting richer and us poor slobs get separated
from our money. So, in a way, you are right.
The system, it's a Clockwork Orange.............
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Yes, the banks are bigger and more powerful than ever before, the wealthier have a larger portion of the pie than ever before, jobs have continued to leave the USA as the nation de-industrializes, and our military is as busy as ever fucking up nations everywhere, but BY GOD GAYS HAVE THEIR RIGHT TO JOIN THE ARMY!
Yeesh!
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
T'was easy!
Thanks THGRRI
Of course, Sig will find a way to deflect and distort or not answer at all.
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Good post SSG
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It is not Obama. The same complaints have been made for centuries. Try reading the following Introduction to Capital in the Twenty-First Century by Thomas Piketty and then come back and blame Obama. But he cannot be the cause because the same problems have been happening everywhere in the world for centuries.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Yes, the banks are bigger and more powerful than ever before, the wealthier have a larger portion of the pie than ever before, jobs have continued to leave the USA as the nation de-industrializes, and our military is as busy as ever fucking up nations everywhere, but BY GOD GAYS HAVE THEIR RIGHT TO JOIN THE ARMY!
Yeesh!
Introduction
The distribution of wealth is one of today’s most widely discussed and controversial issues. But what do we really know about its evolution over the long term? Do the dynamics of private capital accumulation inevitably lead to the concentration of wealth in ever fewer hands, as Karl Marx believed in the nineteenth century? Or do the balancing forces of growth, competition, and technological progress lead in later stages of development to reduced inequality and greater harmony among the classes, as Simon Kuznets thought in the twentieth century? What do we really know about how wealth and income have evolved since the eighteenth century, and what lessons can we derive from that knowledge for the century now under way?
These are the questions I attempt to answer in this book. Let me say at once that the answers contained herein are imperfect and incomplete. But they are based on much more extensive historical and comparative data than were available to previous researchers, data covering three centuries and more than twenty countries, as well as on a new theoretical framework that affords a deeper understanding of the underlying mechanisms. Modern economic growth and the diffusion of knowledge have made it possible to avoid the Marxist apocalypse but have not modified the deep structures of capital and inequality—or in any case not as much as one might have imagined in the optimistic decades following World War II. When the rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of growth of output and income, as it did in the nineteenth century and seems quite likely to do again in the twenty-first, capitalism automatically generates arbitrary and unsustainable inequalities that radically undermine the meritocratic values on which democratic societies are based. There are nevertheless ways democracy can regain control over capitalism and ensure that the general interest takes precedence over private interests, while preserving economic openness and avoiding protectionist and nationalist reactions. The policy recommendations I propose later in the book tend in this direction. They are based on lessons derived from historical experience, of which what follows is essentially a narrative.
A Debate without Data?
Intellectual and political debate about the distribution of wealth has long been based on an abundance of prejudice and a paucity of fact.
To be sure, it would be a mistake to underestimate the importance of the intuitive knowledge that everyone acquires about contemporary wealth and income levels, even in the absence of any theoretical framework or statistical analysis. Film and literature, nineteenth-century novels especially, are full of detailed information about the relative wealth and living standards of different social groups, and especially about the deep structure of inequality, the way it is justified, and its impact on individual lives. Indeed, the novels of Jane Austen and Honoré de Balzac paint striking portraits of the distribution of wealth in Britain and France between 1790 and 1830. Both novelists were intimately acquainted with the hierarchy of wealth in their respective societies. They grasped the hidden contours of wealth and its inevitable implications for the lives of men and women, including their marital strategies and personal hopes and disappointments. These and other n
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think we should have a reasoned discussion, so is there a way to tone down the emotion?
Curious! I'm going to reply to this statement (above) from your last paragraph, first. I have to say that I'm a little taken aback by this. I have to tell you that
I responded with clarity, a level head and put sufficient thought into my response.
I was not emotional. Granted in the recent past, I have been known to release some frustration, but not in this case.
I have learned that you get better dialogue when a topic is discussed rationally and calmly (as I am doing now). So please know that I am working hard to discuss matters, rather than shout and cuss to get my point across.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"He has? Aside form giving speeches which express a preference for this or that, what has he done ? Devise a cabinet-level group of economic advisors, publicists, and lawyers to form and press forward with a plan of action on ... anything?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Precisely. He did just that. By the way, what exactly is "speeches which express a preference for this or that"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But I have. The very first thing Obama could have done was appoint someone who knew how banks run and how they fail: Shiela Bair. Instead, he appointed a New York regulator with close ties to Wall Street.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I gather that you have no faith in Geithner. I looked up Shiela Bair and found her credentials impressive. But I'm not going to pretend I know the inner workings of the president's mind, so sure he could have picked her. But here's my thought on that:
He chose Geithner because he knows how banks tick, after all he was the Secretary of the Treasury and Federal Reserve Bank, he pushed for the bailout to be implemented, much to the dismay of the Banks:
Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner sat around a conference room table with his advisers as they relayed the concerns of banks protesting President Obama’s push for new rules for Wall Street.
Geithner, widely thought to be a friend of the financial industry, did not lend a sympathetic ear.
“F--- the banks,” he said, according to people familiar with the episode.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/tim-geithners-legacy-a
n-unpopular-bailout-that-helped-save-the-economy/2013/01/24/f1bf4fb6-64af-11e2-85f5-a8a9228e55e7_story.html
The article sheds some light on his role in the bailout. What was your main concern with Geithner's appointment?
Obama may have chose him because he had some experience with the bailout, plus:
'He said Mr. Geithner, now president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, has “unique insight into the failures of today’s market” and noted each person on the team shares his view that a “strong, vibrant middle class” must be the core of a successful economic policy.'
You never mention why he should have chosen Bair. I'm going to end here, I need to get some sleep. I'll pick it up later today.
END OF PART ONE
SGG
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SGG, I'm sure you're a busy person so I appreciate your post.
I do have some questions, and these are not meant to entrap but to enlighten me.
Quote:
"He has? Aside form giving speeches which express a preference for this or that, what has he done ? Devise a cabinet-level group of economic advisors, publicists, and lawyers to form and press forward with a plan of action on ... anything?"-SIGNY
Precisely. He did just that. By the way, what exactly is "speeches which express a preference for this or that"? - SGG
So I guess my question is, what cabinet-level group(s) did Obama create, who was in them, what problem were they selected to address, and what was the outcome? I'm thinking specifically of FDR's "Brain Trust".
What I mean by Obama's speeches expressing a preference for this or that are his speeches in which he promises things like closing Gitmo, transforming Washington and making his the most transparent administration ever, restoring the middle class, ending the war in Afghanistan, signing a universal health care law bill, reforming tax law to keep American businesses at home ... Many of which he hasn't managed to accomplish. So, what I get out of this is that these aren't supposed to be interpreted as commitments but preferences ... "I would like to restore the middle class ... provided that there aren't too many obstacles in the way". Now, part of Obama's problem is that he made A LOT of promises! If you were to websearch "obama promises 2008" you will come up with many websites that claim to fact-check whether he did what he said he would. Each website has somewhere between 10-20 Obamises (Obama promises), and each website has a DIFFERENT LIST. So, how many promises is that?
-----
The problem with Geithner is that he is so deeply embedded in the Wall Street/ banker's POV that while he THINKS he's being a tough guy ... I'm going to force feed these bailouts on you whether you want them or not, and force you to absorb smaller banks" ... the reality is that the banks are now bigger than ever (obviously still too big to fail TBTF), the Sarbanes Oxley bill still doesn't separate YOUR SAVINGS from speculative investments by the banks, and the "wind down" procedure for "globally active, systemically important" insolvent banks now includes the procedure by which YOUR SAVINGS can be confiscated in exchange for banks shares (of speculative value) because YOUR SAVINGS aren't your money, they're unsecured loans to the bank!
Here is the original agreement between the FDIC and the Bank of England.
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/news/2012/nr156.
The "bail in" procedure was implemented in Cyprus and agreed to by the G20 in Australia in 2014
http://ellenbrown.com/2014/12/01/new-rules-cyprus-style-bail-ins-to-hi
t-deposits-and-pensions/
There are overall a lot of reforms that the banks should be subject to. Not all of these are Geithner's fault, he was the Treasury Secretary, not Congress and not The Fed. But he sure wasn't a tough guy.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Here you go SIG, and if you don't understand how this answers your question to SHINYGOODGUY, do some research.
P.S., the outcome you ask about is President Obama's record while in office. You post like you know everything. It appears you don't know much about anything. It took me two seconds to find the answer to your question.
Below are links to some of Obamas brain trust, like for business, banking, foreign policy and then some. Enough to get you started.
The Cabinet
President Obama leads a Cabinet meeting in the Cabinet room
Established in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, the Cabinet's role is to advise the President on any subject he may require relating to the duties of each member's respective office.
The tradition of the Cabinet dates back to the beginnings of the Presidency itself. Established in Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, the Cabinet's role is to advise the President on any subject he may require relating to the duties of each member's respective office.
The Cabinet includes the Vice President and the heads of 15 executive departments — the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs, as well as the Attorney General.
In order of succession to the Presidency:
Vice President of the United States
Joseph R. Biden
Department of State
Secretary John Kerry
state.gov
Department of the Treasury
Secretary Jack Lew
treasury.gov
Department of Defense
Secretary Ashton Carter
defense.gov
Department of Justice
Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch
usdoj.gov
Department of the Interior
Secretary Sally Jewell
doi.gov
Department of Agriculture
Secretary Thomas J. Vilsack
usda.gov
Department of Commerce
Secretary Penny Pritzker
commerce.gov
Department of Labor
Secretary Thomas E. Perez
dol.gov
Department of Health and Human Services
Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell
hhs.gov
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Secretary Julián Castro
hud.gov
Department of Transportation
Secretary Anthony Foxx
dot.gov
Department of Energy
Secretary Ernest Moniz
energy.gov
Department of Education
Secretary Arne Duncan
ed.gov
Department of Veterans Affairs
Secretary Robert McDonald
va.gov
Department of Homeland Security
Secretary Jeh Johnson
dhs.gov
The following positions have the status of Cabinet-rank:
White House Chief of Staff
Denis McDonough
Environmental Protection Agency
Administrator Gina McCarthy
epa.gov
Office of Management & Budget
Director Shaun L.S. Donovan
whitehouse.gov/omb
United States Trade Representative
Ambassador Michael Froman
ustr.gov
United States Mission to the United Nations
Ambassador Samantha Power
usun.state.gov
Council of Economic Advisers
Chairman Jason Furman
whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cea
Small Business Administration
Administrator Maria Contreras-Sweet
sba.gov
http://www.nysun.com/national/obamas-brain-trust-taking-shape/71580/
http://www.brandeis.edu/now/2013/april/marder.html
http://www.informationweek.com/cloud/infrastructure-as-a-service/obama
s-developer-brain-trust-inside-the-big-battle/d/d-id/1108182
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/10/obamas-brain-trust-speaks_n_1
42606.html
http://nymag.com/news/politics/55511/
http://www.politico.com/story/2008/09/obamas-banking-brain-trust-01360
6
http://archive.fortune.com/galleries/2008/fortune/0806/gallery.obamas_
advisors.fortune/6.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I wasn't clear. I didn't mean whether Obama had a Cabinet ... all modern Presidents do. I was wondering whether Obama had a Brain Trust ...
Quote:A group of close non-appointed advisors to help develop economic or social policies.
Although at first a casual circle, the group became tightly organized after FDR's nomination. After the election, they were publicly christened the "Brain Trust," and became the central component of the New Deal. This exhibition will focus on the three key members of the Brain Trust—Raymond Moley, Rexford Tugwell, and Adolph Berle—and two of the New Deal cabinet members with whom they worked to bring about FDR's radical changes—Frances Perkins and Harry Hopkins.
I think the confusion came in when I said "Cabinet-level", when what I really meant was "close, top-level" advisors.
BTW, most of Obama's Cabinet are underwhelming. Penny Pritzker, Chicago billionaire, was Obama's chief fundraiser and his national finance chair of President Obama's presidential campaign in 2008. Samantha Powers is neocon-in-Democratic-drag and a former Obama campaign aide. Some of his former Cabinet members were well-meaning but ineffective (Energy Scy Steven Chu, and EPA head Lisa Jackson). Just as an overall and not well-researched impression, it seems to me that Obama tends to appoint people that he likes, not necessarily those who are able to carry his agenda forward in the face of opposition.
In the current political climate, the President needs to marshal his or her forces, recognizing that everyone needs to be able to pitch in and carry the ball.
But I will reiterate though that in 2008, when Obama was elected, the situation was different. Obama had HUGE support, and a fully-Democratic Congress. It was a historic election at a historic moment, when the possibilities were vast. If he had been able to make ONE CLEAN SIGNIFICANT CHANGE in American prospects (I'm thinking public option) he would have gained significant support for his administration and for left-of-center Democrats as well, but he completely squandered his opportunity by playing center and in the end lost the Democratic Congress as well.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I wasn't clear. I didn't mean whether Obama had a Cabinet ... all modern Presidents do. I was wondering whether Obama had a Brain Trust ...Quote:A group of close non-appointed advisors to help develop economic or social policies.
Although at first a casual circle, the group became tightly organized after FDR's nomination. After the election, they were publicly christened the "Brain Trust," and became the central component of the New Deal. This exhibition will focus on the three key members of the Brain Trust—Raymond Moley, Rexford Tugwell, and Adolph Berle—and two of the New Deal cabinet members with whom they worked to bring about FDR's radical changes—Frances Perkins and Harry Hopkins.
I think the confusion came in when I said "Cabinet-level", when what I really meant was "close, top-level" advisors.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
look up sig I was still working on it, no confusion on my part. I have to assume there was a lot of confusion on your part seeing how you had to ask someone else to find this shit for you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
THUGR
Quote:It's up to the person making the argument to find their own supporting information, not someone else (me) to find it for them (you).
I have to assume there was a lot of confusion on your part seeing how you had to ask someone else to find this shit for you.
My god, I just can't believe the idiocy that comes off your keyboard! You have a problem not only with basic reasoning and conversational skills, you also have problems handling the necessity of finding information to back up your statements! Apparently you've never been in a situation where you had to actually ... *gasp!* ... LOOK STUFF UP AND MAKE A CASE FOR YOUR POV.
Get used to it, sonny. This is discussion board. If you can't discuss, don't blame me for your failings.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
THUGRQuote:It's up to the person making the argument to find their own supporting information, not someone else (me) to find it for them (you).
I have to assume there was a lot of confusion on your part seeing how you had to ask someone else to find this shit for you.
My god, I just can't believe the idiocy that comes off your keyboard! You have a problem not only with basic reasoning and conversational skills, you also have problems handling the necessity of finding information to back up your statements! Apparently you've never been in a situation where you had to actually ... *gasp!* ... LOOK STUFF UP AND MAKE A CASE FOR YOUR POV.
Get used to it, sonny. This is discussion board. If you can't discuss, don't blame me for your failings.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
I'll let others be the judge of what I post SIG. You were just trying to be sophisticated again using intelligence that belongs to someone else.
Quote:
SIG
So I guess my question is, what cabinet-level group(s) did Obama create, who was in them, what problem were they selected to address, and what was the outcome? I'm thinking specifically of FDR's "Brain Trust".
You asked what Cabinet members Obama assigned to be in his brain trust. Here is the definition for a Cabinet member: a body of persons, usually a limited number, of the ministers of state of a country.
I'll make it simple. They work for the government
Those asked to be advisors on particular topics like business or banking could be considered Obamas brain trust. They don't work for the government. Therefore they are not cabinet members. The way you asked the question showed you didn't know what you were really asking at all.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes, you seem to be astonished and somewhat miffed that anyone has to look up their own facts to support their own arguments. Wow. It's a process you seem not to have run into before!
I'll let others be the judge of what I post SIG.
HAHAHA!
Quote:No, I didn't. Reading is not one your skills either.
You asked what Cabinet members Obama assigned to be in his brain trust.
Quote:Yes, and I was wondering who those people were, if any.
Those asked to be advisors on particular topics like business or banking could be considered Obamas (sic) brain trust.
Anyway, "others" ARE judging your posts, and this is probably not one of your winners. I'm done talking about you now.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There are no Cabinet level groups SIG, only Obamas Cabinet is Cabinet level,
again you don't understand what you are asking.
I answered the question covering both possible choices.
1. The actual Cabinet
2. Advisors or as you say, brain trust.
Not even close to Cabinet level. Those on the Cabinet carry out and create policy.
Advisors or brain trust don't. They advise on issues.
This happens to you every time you think for yourself and don't cut and paste.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, scrolling up, I see many of you have said that the problems that I mentioned - wealth inequality, de-industrialization, control by the banking sector and the wealthy, the American oligarchy etc - are problems of longstanding.
In general, I agree.
While it seems to be well within the scope of the Presidency to cause much mischief -to start wars, snoop on everyone, feed the wealthy, coddle the banks and Wall Street, ravage the industrial sector, and impoverish the poor - the scope for doing good is much more limited.
That's because, as I see it, the wealthy already have a tremendous amount of influence on politics in general and on our politicians specifically, so kowtowing to the wealthy is like rolling a boulder downhill. Doing otherwise is like pushing that same boulder uphill.
The President as a single person can sometimes reverse years of inertia and set a course on a new path, but it takes intelligence, determination, and historic circumstances for that to happen. FDR was one such President, and JFK probably would have been another if he had lived.
Obama COULD have been another. I will re-post what I just posted earlier
Quote:
But I will reiterate though that in 2008, when Obama was elected, the situation was different. Obama had HUGE support, and a fully-Democratic Congress. It was a historic election at a historic moment, when the possibilities were vast. If he had been able to make ONE CLEAN SIGNIFICANT CHANGE in American prospects (I'm thinking public option which had considerbale public support) he would have gained significant support for his administration and for left-of-center Democrats as well, but he completely squandered his opportunity by playing center and in the end lost the Democratic Congress as well.
YES, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFICULT. Nobody us saying it would be easy. What Obama would have had to do was recognize that HIS term was not like Bill Clinton's term, and therefor Clinton-esque advice (find a middle ground between whatever opposing viewpoints were being expressed) was irrelevant to HIS situation. He would have needed to bring onboard very smart and very savvy advisors who could develop a plan and secure the funding and round up the votes in Congress. He would have had to make it WORK. It would have to be a significant difference to people in their daily lives, something along the lines of ... "I'm out of a job, my family's almost on the street, but at least we can get insulin/inhalers for my wife/child, even if we're living in our van." A bedrock for Americans. Something that the President could point to to get further support for further action.
Now, if you're going to tell me that this was beyond Obama's capabilities ... that even the smartest, most determined President with the best advisors and sharp elbows that can be found couldn't possibly have done any better than he did, then maybe Obama shouldn't have made so many promises to begin with.
AND WHY IS HE PUSHING FOR THE TPP AND THE TTIP? Obama knows how to go "balls-to-the-wall" when it's something benefiting the wealthy, heck, he's willing to roll right over the Democrats in Congress for these babies!
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Okay, scrolling up, I see many of you have said that the problems that I mentioned - wealth inequality, de-industrialization, control by the banking sector and the wealthy, the American oligarchy etc - are problems of longstanding.
In general, I agree.
While it seems to be well within the scope of the Presidency to cause much mischief -to start wars, snoop on everyone, feed the wealthy, coddle the banks and Wall Street, ravage the industrial sector, and impoverish the poor - the scope for doing good is much more limited.
That's because, as I see it, the wealthy already have a tremendous amount of influence on politics in general and on our politicians specifically, so kowtowing to the wealthy is like rolling a boulder downhill. Doing otherwise is like pushing that same boulder uphill.
The President as a single person can sometimes reverse years of inertia and set a course on a new path, but it takes intelligence, determination, and historic circumstances for that to happen. FDR was one such President, and JFK probably would have been another if he had lived.
Obama COULD have been another. I will re-post what I just posted earlierQuote:
But I will reiterate though that in 2008, when Obama was elected, the situation was different. Obama had HUGE support, and a fully-Democratic Congress. It was a historic election at a historic moment, when the possibilities were vast. If he had been able to make ONE CLEAN SIGNIFICANT CHANGE in American prospects (I'm thinking public option which had considerbale public support) he would have gained significant support for his administration and for left-of-center Democrats as well, but he completely squandered his opportunity by playing center and in the end lost the Democratic Congress as well.
YES, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFICULT. Nobody us saying it would be easy. What Obama would have had to do was recognize that HIS term was not like Bill Clinton's term, and therefor Clinton-esque advice (find a middle ground between whatever opposing viewpoints were being expressed) was irrelevant to HIS situation. He would have needed to bring onboard very smart and very savvy advisors who could develop a plan and secure the funding and round up the votes in Congress. He would have had to make it WORK. It would have to be a significant difference to people in their daily lives, something along the lines of ... "I'm out of a job, my family's almost on the street, but at least we can get insulin/inhalers for my wife/child, even if we're living in our van." A bedrock for Americans. Something that the President could point to to get further support for further action.
Now, if you're going to tell me that this was beyond Obama's capabilities ... that even the smartest, most determined President with the best advisors and sharp elbows that can be found couldn't possibly have done any better than he did, then maybe Obama shouldn't have made so many promises to begin with.
AND WHY IS HE PUSHING FOR THE TPP AND THE TTIP? Obama knows how to go "balls-to-the-wall" when it's something benefiting the wealthy, heck, he's willing to roll right over the Democrats in Congress for these babies!
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
You're all over the place SIG. Totally subjective. And thanks for taking credit for getting us to recognize poverty.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
troll
THUGGR
Humanitarian. (snicker)
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=58208&p=5
Who gives a shit?
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just to make my point HERE about Obama being a serial, bulk Constitution-violator (not a person who made "mistakes") I see he got the judicial smackdown that he so richly deserves.
Snowden vindicated
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60152
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If any white guy did the things that Obama has done, he'd be crucified for it.
The very best that anybody in his corner can hope to do at this point is sweep everything under the rug and hope that history doesn't notice.
If this weren't true, the Democratic fore-runner for president in 2016 would be another black man, and not Hillary Clinton.
I just hope in the mean time somebody does something to get Trump the hell out of the race. Otherwise this is the most meaningless presidential race in the history of America.
Might as well be voting for Ren against Stimpy.
Fuck you, idiots on all sides.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm sure the president has a "Brain Trust," as you keep referring to FDR, but if he does I'm not aware of who they are. I would think that there are those within the cabinet that he confides in more than others, and there is, of course, the vice president.
But, as you have stated, these are different times. And, I assume from the rest of your response, that you are not impressed by his choices for his cabinet. All of us, Americans that is, have every right, as taxpayers and voters, to speak and criticize.......but, it seems to me that you're suggesting the president is not intelligent enough to choose a "proper" cabinet. It is obvious in your discourse and tone. I would never assume to take away your right to speak on what you believe, but I can say that in this case you are wrongheaded.
FDR faced some difficult circumstances, especially when it came to near financial collapse, that Obama faced as he stepped into the Oval Office.
Now, I don't know enough about FDR, nor do I care to compare the two men, to make an intelligent offer in my reply, but I would think that navigating
the turbulent financial waters would be enough to consider for that one contribution to the overall American good. Sometimes presidents have to do what would be considered unpopular to achieve that end. You may ask why do I believe you are wrongheaded: I look at where our country is now, also what has been done to dig us out of the hole we were in, for all of us and not just a few. All this despite a Congress that has admittedly and publically made it their mission to oppose him at every turn.
There is so much more, but I know that this will fall on deaf ears, because you're convinced that he's reneged on his "promises." Tell me, do you believe Trump will keep his word and deport all 11 million illegal
immigrants? Or that Rubio or Carson will rid us of ISIS even if they had 8 years to do so? Did FDR keep all his promises? So, let's say that Obama
over-promised and under-delivered. Does that mean he deliberately worked
to have the country fail? Or did he, in his idealistic approach, truly believe that he would lead a nation tired of the vitriol to a better way
of life. If he was ever disillusioned he never showed it publicly. To me, the vitriol has become worse. And you, a democrat, one who voted for him (if that is true) have joined in the ranks of the naysayers and haters.
It makes me wonder. I am not so gullible to believe that any president is
capable, or would he be allowed to, position this country where the most good for the most people will come about. The system is too rigged against
it.
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I wasn't clear. I didn't mean whether Obama had a Cabinet ... all modern Presidents do. I was wondering whether Obama had a Brain Trust ...Quote:A group of close non-appointed advisors to help develop economic or social policies.
Although at first a casual circle, the group became tightly organized after FDR's nomination. After the election, they were publicly christened the "Brain Trust," and became the central component of the New Deal. This exhibition will focus on the three key members of the Brain Trust—Raymond Moley, Rexford Tugwell, and Adolph Berle—and two of the New Deal cabinet members with whom they worked to bring about FDR's radical changes—Frances Perkins and Harry Hopkins.
I think the confusion came in when I said "Cabinet-level", when what I really meant was "close, top-level" advisors.
BTW, most of Obama's Cabinet are underwhelming. Penny Pritzker, Chicago billionaire, was Obama's chief fundraiser and his national finance chair of President Obama's presidential campaign in 2008. Samantha Powers is neocon-in-Democratic-drag and a former Obama campaign aide. Some of his former Cabinet members were well-meaning but ineffective (Energy Scy Steven Chu, and EPA head Lisa Jackson). Just as an overall and not well-researched impresNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Couple of points here:
-Snowden violated his contract
-If he thought that what he did was right, why then did he run?
-If the NSA violated the rights of Americans, then he would be a hero
for having exposed the truth
-You think Obama personally told the NSA to spy on Americans?
-This has been going on for quite some time
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Just to make my point HERE about Obama being a serial, bulk Constitution-violator (not a person who made "mistakes") I see he got the judicial smackdown that he so richly deserves.
Snowden vindicated
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60152
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Responses to your points:
Quote:If your contract required you to do something massively illegal, what should YOU do?
Snowden violated his contract
Quote:You're kidding, right? OR are you being ironic?
If he thought that what he did was right, why then did he run?
Before I answer that one, I'm going to give you a chance to answer it yourself.
Quote:He is.
If the NSA violated the rights of Americans, then he would be a hero
for having exposed the truth
Quote:Pretty much, yes.
-You think Obama personally told the NSA to spy on Americans?
Obama has publicly defended the program
He funded for five years that massive data-center in Utah, the one that's going to hold the several thousand petabytes of info on all Americans
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/07/24/blueprints-of-nsa-d
ata-center-in-utah-suggest-its-storage-capacity-is-less-impressive-than-thought/
Eric Holder himself set the "rules" for data collection, just like the weasel before him (Alberto Gonzales).
The WH CONTINUED its' data collection even while under judicial review. (Since 2013)
This asn't just some automatic program quietly running amok in the background, it was vetted, approved, and funded at the highest levels.
Quote:So?
-This has been going on for quite some time
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The company that planned to build the Keystone pipeline actually requested that the project be withdrawn from consideration before Obama rendered his rejection. But the oil will flow without a pipeline. It will cross the border on barge or on train, both of which are more dangerous and carbon-intensive than a pipeline. If this is the president’s answer to combating global warming, then educated debates about climate change simply aren’t happening at the White House. So where is Obama's "Brain Trust"?
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I'm sure the president has a "Brain Trust," as you keep referring to FDR, but if he does I'm not aware of who they are.
In an ironic twist, Obama’s action could actually end up growing the global carbon footprint. After a victory in the Keystone fight, environmental groups have become emboldened in their crusade against pipelines of all kinds. So instead of building more connections between North Dakota’s Bakken fields and East Coast refineries, for example, the United States is stuck relying upon imports from Nigeria. Sending those oil tankers across the Atlantic Ocean emits more greenhouse gases than a mere pipeline, Ed Hirs, a University of Houston energy economist, told the Houston Chronicle editorial board.
The growing irrational fear of pipelines also creates economic problems in addition to environmental ones. Just look to Boston, where consumers had to buy liquified natural gas to heat their homes last winter.
“Just like Tokyo,” Hirs said, referring to the archipelago nation that’s isolated from energy resources.
There’s plenty of cheap natural gas in Pennsylvania, but no easy way to move it east. Rather than encouraging construction, U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., worked to block a much-needed natural gas pipeline through her state. The approval and construction process is moving forward, but it still faces plenty of ill-informed opposition.
For want of proper oil and gas infrastructure, Bostonians were forced to pay the expensive, international price on heating fuel while affordable, American sources remained in the ground.
This anti-pipeline movement doesn’t help the Earth. It doesn’t help people stay warm during winter. It doesn’t save anyone money. But it does make Obama look good to people who don’t understand how oil and gas markets work.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:We need a second example of Obama's "Brain Trust", if it ever existed, not performing well. Because Obama was talking about it before his Inauguration Day, the fiscal stimulus will do as that example:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I'm sure the president has a "Brain Trust," as you keep referring to FDR, but if he does I'm not aware of who they are.
How Did We Know The Stimulus Was Too Small?
July 28, 2010 8:05 am July 28, 2010 8:05 am
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/how-did-we-know-the-stimul
us-was-too-small/
Those of us who say that the stimulus was too small are often accused of after-the-fact rationalization: you said this would work, but now that it hasn’t, you’re just saying it wasn’t big enough. The quick answer to that accusation is that people like me said that the stimulus was too small in advance. But the longer answer is that it’s all in the math: Keynesian analysis provides numbers as well as qualitative predictions, and given reasonable projections of the economy’s path in January 2009, the proposed stimulus just wasn’t big enough. Let’s go back to the tape, January 9, 2009:
www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/opinion/09krugman.html
Even the C.B.O. says, however, that “economic output over the next two years will average 6.8 percent below its potential.” This translates into $2.1 trillion of lost production. “Our economy could fall $1 trillion short of its full capacity,” declared Mr. Obama on Thursday. Well, he was actually understating things.
To close a gap of more than $2 trillion — possibly a lot more, if the budget office projections turn out to be too optimistic — Mr. Obama offers a $775 billion plan. And that’s not enough.
Now, fiscal stimulus can sometimes have a “multiplier” effect: In addition to the direct effects of, say, investment in infrastructure on demand, there can be a further indirect effect as higher incomes lead to higher consumer spending. Standard estimates suggest that a dollar of public spending raises G.D.P. by around $1.50.
But only about 60 percent of the Obama plan consists of public spending. The rest consists of tax cuts — and many economists are skeptical about how much these tax cuts, especially the tax breaks for business, will actually do to boost spending. (A number of Senate Democrats apparently share these doubts.) Howard Gleckman of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center summed it up in the title of a recent blog posting: “lots of buck, not much bang.”
The bottom line is that the Obama plan is unlikely to close more than half of the looming output gap, and could easily end up doing less than a third of the job.
In practice, it was even worse, because one of the key elements of the plan — aid to state and local governments — was cut back sharply in the Senate. We ended up with only about $600 billion of real stimulus over that two-year period.
So this wasn’t a test of fiscal stimulus, even though it has played out that way in the political arena: the whole thing was obviously underpowered from the start.
Once the unemployment rate had passed 9 percent, despite the early round of stimulus spending, Mr. Obama finally conceded that a bigger stimulus was needed.
But he couldn’t get his new plan through Congress because approval for his economic policies had plummeted, partly because his policies were seen to have failed, partly because job-creation policies were conflated in the public mind with deeply unpopular bank bailouts.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You have to go with the bill you can get passed. Everything else is just wishful thinking.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:As President, you have to know why your particular version of a bill, not some half-ass bill written by ignoramuses, nincompoops, crooks and Republicans, should pass. And then you have to energetically explain it to Congress, over and over again, time after time, until even the dumbest understand. For example: if the USA needs 2 trillion for Fiscal Stimulus by infrastructure improvement, it cannot be purchased for 0.75 trillion, most of which was tax cuts.
Originally posted by THGRRI:
You have to go with the bill you can get passed. Everything else is just wishful thinking.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:As President, you have to know why your particular version of a bill, not some half-ass bill written by ignoramuses, nincompoops, crooks and Republicans, should pass. And then you have to energetically explain it to Congress, over and over again, time after time, until even the dumbest understand. For example: if the USA needs 2 trillion for Fiscal Stimulus by infrastructure improvement, it cannot be purchased for 0.75 trillion, most of which was tax cuts.
Originally posted by THGRRI:
You have to go with the bill you can get passed. Everything else is just wishful thinking.
I agree with what you say two but in general congress does not pass bills that will get them kicked out of office. Neither does the Senate.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It does not work that way. Voting for the Iraq War should have ended hundreds of Congressional careers. It has not.
Originally posted by THGRRI:
I agree with what you say two but in general congress does not pass bills that will get them kicked out of office. Neither does the Senate.
$2 trillion is such a high number for Obama! Not really. The USA pissed away that much and has nothing positive to show for it: The Iraq war cost U.S. more than $2 trillion. Including benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest. www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/14/us-iraq-war-anniversary-idUSBRE92D0
PG20130314
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:It does not work that way. Voting for the Iraq War should have ended hundreds of Congressional careers. It has not.
Originally posted by THGRRI:
I agree with what you say two but in general congress does not pass bills that will get them kicked out of office. Neither does the Senate.
$2 trillion is such a high number for Obama! Not really. The USA pissed away that much and has nothing positive to show for it: The Iraq war cost U.S. more than $2 trillion. Including benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest. www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/14/us-iraq-war-anniversary-idUSBRE92D0
PG20130314
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
Yes it does. What you suggest as a argument is anecdotal. In most instances if voting for something is going to hurt their chances for reelection, they won't vote for it.
Most Democrats voted to give Bush the authority to go into Iraq for the same reason I suggest. The mood of the country was foul and they wanted blood. Most felt it would be political suicide not to vote for it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Anecdotal my ass! The way a person's brain responds to a single disgusting image is enough to reliably predict whether he or she identifies politically as liberal or conservative. Voters don't think, they simply react. Your Congresswoman can vote any goddamn way she wants on Iraq or Fiscal Stimulus and it makes no difference come reelection time. Voters pay no attention to any substance. Their brains will never know how the Congresswoman voted. The only thing that registers will be voters' perceptions based on advertisements.
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Yes it does. What you suggest as a argument is anecdotal. In most instances if voting for something is going to hurt their chances for reelection, they won't vote for it.
Most Democrats voted to give Bush the authority to go into Iraq for the same reason I suggest. The mood of the country was foul and they wanted blood. Most felt it would be political suicide not to vote for it.
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141029124502.htm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:Anecdotal my ass! The way a person's brain responds to a single disgusting image is enough to reliably predict whether he or she identifies politically as liberal or conservative. Voters don't think, they simply react. Your Congresswoman can vote any goddamn way she wants on Iraq or Fiscal Stimulus and it makes no difference come reelection time. Voters pay no attention to any substance. Their brains will never know how the Congresswoman voted. The only thing that registers will be voters' perceptions based on advertisements.
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Yes it does. What you suggest as a argument is anecdotal. In most instances if voting for something is going to hurt their chances for reelection, they won't vote for it.
Most Democrats voted to give Bush the authority to go into Iraq for the same reason I suggest. The mood of the country was foul and they wanted blood. Most felt it would be political suicide not to vote for it.
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141029124502.htm
OK, I think my point is being expanded on. Plain and simple. Politicians are cowards for the most part. I say if they are taking a vote that is going to hurt them politically they will vote no.
You apparently think they vote their conscious. Fine, we disagree.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don't agree about the cowardliness.
Originally posted by THGRRI:Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:Anecdotal my ass! The way a person's brain responds to a single disgusting image is enough to reliably predict whether he or she identifies politically as liberal or conservative. Voters don't think, they simply react. Your Congresswoman can vote any goddamn way she wants on Iraq or Fiscal Stimulus and it makes no difference come reelection time. Voters pay no attention to any substance. Their brains will never know how the Congresswoman voted. The only thing that registers will be voters' perceptions based on advertisements.
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Yes it does. What you suggest as a argument is anecdotal. In most instances if voting for something is going to hurt their chances for reelection, they won't vote for it.
Most Democrats voted to give Bush the authority to go into Iraq for the same reason I suggest. The mood of the country was foul and they wanted blood. Most felt it would be political suicide not to vote for it.
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141029124502.htm
OK, I think my point is being expanded on. Plain and simple. Politicians are cowards for the most part. I say if they are taking a vote that is going to hurt them politically they will vote no.
You apparently think they vote their conscious. Fine, we disagree.
I forgot the obvious: your Congresswoman's brain probably works on the same general basis as voters' brains, unless your Congresswoman takes the time to think carefully and clearly. But Congress makes most decisions based on, well, nothing more than feelings. And it's anecdotally evident from hundreds of crappy Congressional decisions.
At least we are lucky that Congress can afford a staff that can draft laws even it the Congresswoman providing guidance is more than half crazed with mindless fears and uncertainty.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:I don't agree about the cowardliness.
Originally posted by THGRRI:Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:Anecdotal my ass! The way a person's brain responds to a single disgusting image is enough to reliably predict whether he or she identifies politically as liberal or conservative. Voters don't think, they simply react. Your Congresswoman can vote any goddamn way she wants on Iraq or Fiscal Stimulus and it makes no difference come reelection time. Voters pay no attention to any substance. Their brains will never know how the Congresswoman voted. The only thing that registers will be voters' perceptions based on advertisements.
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Yes it does. What you suggest as a argument is anecdotal. In most instances if voting for something is going to hurt their chances for reelection, they won't vote for it.
Most Democrats voted to give Bush the authority to go into Iraq for the same reason I suggest. The mood of the country was foul and they wanted blood. Most felt it would be political suicide not to vote for it.
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141029124502.htm
OK, I think my point is being expanded on. Plain and simple. Politicians are cowards for the most part. I say if they are taking a vote that is going to hurt them politically they will vote no.
You apparently think they vote their conscious. Fine, we disagree.
I forgot the obvious: your Congresswoman's brain probably works on the same general basis as voters' brains, unless your Congresswoman takes the time to think carefully and clearly.
*But Congress makes most decisions based on, well, nothing more than feelings. And it's anecdotally evident from hundreds of crappy Congressional decisions*
At least we are lucky that Congress can afford a staff that can draft laws even it the Congresswoman providing guidance is more than half crazed with mindless fears and uncertainty.
If that were true, Lobbyists would be out of business.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey there Second:
Quote:With 95% accuracy, may I add.
The way a person's brain responds to a single disgusting image is enough to reliably predict whether he or she identifies politically as liberal or conservative.
Quote:I believe it's true of most people, most of the time, in general.
Voters don't think, they simply react.
I've read bits and pieces of Picketty, who was quite the splash for a while, as well as summaries and critiques. The following purports to be an accurate summary. Do you agree?
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/05/economist-ex
plains
But there are no natural forces pushing against the steady concentration of wealth. Only a burst of rapid growth (from technological progress or rising population) or government intervention can be counted on to keep economies from returning to the “patrimonial capitalism” that worried Karl Marx. Mr Piketty closes the book by recommending that governments step in now, by adopting a global tax on wealth, to prevent soaring inequality contributing to economic or political instability down the road.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
If that were true, Lobbyists would be out of business.
Lobbyists actually WROTE bills during dumbya's reign! They were quite busy and their business was doing well.
But in general - lobbyists prey on congressional mental laziness and desire for campaign cash. As such, the congressional mind is more focused on getting the best deal for their vote, and the best talking points, with the least amount of effort. Given the fertile fields of the congressional minds, there is always something for lobbyists to do.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SGG
I think you and Signy are looking at different vistas. For example, you I believe are looking at unemployment rates, while Signy is looking at labor participation rates. One looks quite rosy, the other looks quite dire. I think you're looking at daily life which, while for many people has sunk quite a bit but, isn't in active crisis. While Signy is looking at fundamentals, for example that your bank money is at ongoing risk due to the fact that depositors banks are still allowed to make investment gambles, AND they are NOW allowed to take your money to make their investors whole should they fail. (BTW, that was driven by the acknowledged fact that in a major failure, the FDIC would NEVER be able to cover your losses. Now there's a system in place where there's no FDIC required! Which makes me wonder about the meaning of 'FDIC insured', as it looks to me to be a worthless phrase.)
I agree that some figures look good. I also agree that the things that drove the economic meltdown in the first place haven't been fixed - which makes us vulnerable to another, similar (and some predict far worse) crash.
If she agrees with your data, would you consider hers?
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Something else Obama is responsible for:
US Approves $11 Billion Deal To Sell Combat Ships To "Brutal Dictatorship"
10/25/2015 14:20
Submitted by Sarah Lazare
Defying the international call for an arms embargo over war crimes concerns, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) announced Tuesday it has approved an $11.25 billion deal to sell combat ships to Saudi Arabia, which has been waging a military assault against Yemen for more than six months.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah right 1kiki, Saudi Araba a long time ally. Can't help yourself can you backstabber.
The author Sarah Lazare is an anti-militarist organizer
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I have no idea what you're trying to say. Are you disputing that Saudi Arabia is a long-time ally? Because it is, and the facts show it. Or are you emphasizing that Saudi Arabia is a long-time ally? Because if you are, I think that's something we already know.
Yeah right 1kiki, Saudi Araba a long time ally. Can't help yourself can you backstabber.
And who is KIKI stabbing in the back? Is KIKI stabbing various USA administrations in the back because she is attacking their relationship with a brutal nation of terrorist-funders? In which case you've conceded that Saudi Arabia is, indeed, a long-term ally. Or are you somehow trying to say that KIKI is stabbing Saudi Arabia in the back, because they somehow don't deserve to be attacked?
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, if you consider that manure makes things grow really well, then, yes, I suppose you COULD call Congressional minds "fertile"!
Given the fertile fields of [most of] the congressional minds, there is always something for lobbyists to do.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Horse-puckies!
Yes it does. What you suggest as a argument is anecdotal. In most instances if voting for something is going to hurt their chances for reelection, they won't vote for it.
Most Democrats voted to give Bush the authority to go into Iraq for the same reason I suggest. The mood of the country was foul and they wanted blood. Most felt it would be political suicide not to vote for it. -THUGR
Does anyone remember the reaction to 9-11?
I do.
Where I work, we're a pretty dispassionate lot. Also, we were 2700 miles away from the scene, but in about 10 minutes we had pretty much reconstructed how a plane could be brought down with box cutters - how many hijackers, how empty the plane etc.
But I was also at the time online with a bunch of mothers whose children were neurologically damaged in some way, these were mostly midwestern stay-at-home moms who were politically naive, and they were SHOCKED and TERRIFIED. The unfathomable had just happened, and they just wanted to go and hide in the closet, or the storm cellar, or under the bed.
That must have been the mood of the nation, because people stopped shopping, avoiding malls and other large gatherings. BUSH had to tell people to go out and SHOP!
Halloween was dismal, parents thought that children could be poisoned by a candy-giving terrorist. So if there is one word that described the mood of the nation it would be FRIGHTENED.
It took many weeks of "Smoke 'em out, dead or alive" and "drain the swamp" to prod people into a different mood, and many MORE months of hearing about Saddam Hussein's (nonexistent) WMD and his involvement in 9-11 (Saddam and 9-11 are about as relate-able as Santa Claus and shrimp) to get people to focus on Iraq.
But eventually, people dutifully went out and shopped, and dutifully invaded a nation that had fuck-all to do with 9-11.
Under pressure of fear, people have been manipulated to make all kinds of stupid decisions. The idea that people were out for blood is nonsense.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
But he couldn’t get his new plan through Congress because approval for his economic policies had plummeted, partly because his policies were seen to have failed, partly because job-creation policies were conflated in the public mind with deeply unpopular bank bailouts.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above is the key element in your response, except for one thing "partly because his policies were seen to have failed." I find that to be part and parcel of the beginning of the "obstructionist movement," every negative thought was heaped upon the president, every obstacle and nuanced prejudice hurled his way - and then the coup de grace - the use of the mainstream media to affirm the lies, deceit and innuendos (the right wing media did their part aw well).
It was a concentrated effort, but Dems were so afraid of their own shadow that they dodged and deflected as Obama twisted in the wind. The GOP and the right wing media conspired to ruin the man's reputation and crush his will. How can his policies fail before they're implemented? The GOP plan was to constantly say the opposite of what was true. If Obama said BLUE, the GOP, right wing media said it was red. If the GOP reached an agreement, but had not yet signed it into law, and Obama compromised to get things moving forward; they would change their mind and vote opposing their own
law.
The creation of jobs was deeply entrenched in the stagnant economy, due to the near disaster of economic collapse - and yes, people did conflate the issues of the job market (actually the lack of a job market) with that of the unpopular bailout, which was timed perfectly for the Democrat about to take office. It was cleverly set up by the GOP and Wall Street, and craftily orchestrated as to appear that Obama was at fault. There are those here that keep mentioning the Bailout as though Obama was lashing the American public to the train tracks as the steam engine barrels down the track. Thank goodness that the majority of the people in this country are not easily fooled by rhetoric and outright lies.
No one questions the fact that Congress's arm was twisted by Paulson, Bernanke and company to accept the Bailout package during the waning months of Bush's Administration. Paulson even put some clauses in the fine print that would practically absolve the banks of any wrong-doing, and of any financial responsibility. It's easy to dash off a quick sentence or two to infer that somehow the convoluted truth of the matter magically appeared. It is my belief it was a cold, calculated maneuver...........period.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26987291/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/t/bu
sh-signs-billion-financial-bailout-bill/#.VkW7hJ0o69I
The banks and Wall Street captains of industry had a secret society of scoundrels and schemers that carefully kept the whole operation under wraps, with nary a slip of paper, that traded in the Trillions (with a capital T). A scheme so powerful as to involve the richest countries
in the world; the unregulated (a GOP staple) exchange and transfer
of monies based on junk assumptions and hedges. An insurance and banking scam that would make Bernie Madoff look like a choir boy. As I stated earlier, carefully orchestrated; first Paulson, Bernanke move to avoid a meltdown and then along comes Obama. So naturally, he gets the shit end of the stick.
SGG
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:I have no idea what you're trying to say. Are you disputing that Saudi Arabia is a long-time ally? Because it is, and the facts show it. Or are you emphasizing that Saudi Arabia is a long-time ally? Because if you are, I think that's something we already know.
Yeah right 1kiki, Saudi Araba a long time ally. Can't help yourself can you backstabber.
And who is KIKI stabbing in the back? Is KIKI stabbing various USA administrations in the back because she is attacking their relationship with a brutal nation of terrorist-funders? In which case you've conceded that Saudi Arabia is, indeed, a long-term ally. Or are you somehow trying to say that KIKI is stabbing Saudi Arabia in the back, because they somehow don't deserve to be attacked?
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
Yep and since you asked who 1kiki stabbed first in the back, if she is to be believed, first her father. Then all the countries that stepped up to the plate to help her and her family as well as help exile Russia from her homeland of Poland.
Quote:
Me in response to 1kiki
I'm the moron, you expect me to buy into this shit you are posting. By your own admission your father was against Russian rule and forced to stay in exile. And you don't get that you are betraying him with all the propaganda you post here in favor of Russia.
And by the way every country that assisted yours all theses years. Like United States President Ronald Regan and the Pope coming together to help free Poland from Russian rule. This is how you repay that?
Nope 1kiki I'm not buying it. You want it both ways which is typical of you. You just can't tell the truth.
It's over troll.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:Horse-puckies!
Yes it does. What you suggest as a argument is anecdotal. In most instances if voting for something is going to hurt their chances for reelection, they won't vote for it.
Most Democrats voted to give Bush the authority to go into Iraq for the same reason I suggest. The mood of the country was foul and they wanted blood. Most felt it would be political suicide not to vote for it. -THUGR
Does anyone remember the reaction to 9-11?
I do.
Where I work, we're a pretty dispassionate lot. Also, we were 2700 miles away from the scene, but in about 10 minutes we had pretty much reconstructed how a plane could be brought down with box cutters - how many hijackers, how empty the plane etc.
But I was also at the time online with a bunch of mothers whose children were neurologically damaged in some way, these were mostly midwestern stay-at-home moms who were politically naive, and they were SHOCKED and TERRIFIED. The unfathomable had just happened, and they just wanted to go and hide in the closet, or the storm cellar, or under the bed.
That must have been the mood of the nation, because people stopped shopping, avoiding malls and other large gatherings. BUSH had to tell people to go out and SHOP!
Halloween was dismal, parents thought that children could be poisoned by a candy-giving terrorist. So if there is one word that described the mood of the nation it would be FRIGHTENED.
It took many weeks of "Smoke 'em out, dead or alive" and "drain the swamp" to prod people into a different mood, and many MORE months of hearing about Saddam Hussein's (nonexistent) WMD and his involvement in 9-11 (Saddam and 9-11 are about as relate-able as Santa Claus and shrimp) to get people to focus on Iraq.
But eventually, people dutifully went out and shopped, and dutifully invaded a nation that had fuck-all to do with 9-11.
Under pressure of fear, people have been manipulated to make all kinds of stupid decisions. The idea that people were out for blood is nonsense.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
Your imagination ran wild then as it always does SIG. In my world we were not in any kink of panic, instead we were in revenge mode. The fact that your agenda is to devalue what America is all about, to only post the negative, what you claim to be factual about that or any other event is suspect.
From you there is a constant condemnation of this country in thread after thread. How we feel in America and things according to you is always based on a negative Russian perspective about us. Your reality is warped and therefore valued only in your own sick mind.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Here is a different moral and conceptual framework from a leading candidate for President. Even though the policy context was relatively narrow in this speech from 2007, it's a profound indictment. It isn't a question of bad apples or rogue traders. What Wall Street did is legal, but the legal aspects of the financial system are fundamentally broken and not accomplishing what a financial system should do. Guess which candidate:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
The banks and Wall Street captains of industry had a secret society of scoundrels and schemers that carefully kept the whole operation under wraps, with nary a slip of paper, that traded in the Trillions (with a capital T). A scheme so powerful as to involve the richest countries
in the world; the unregulated (a GOP staple) exchange and transfer
of monies based on junk assumptions and hedges. An insurance and banking scam that would make Bernie Madoff look like a choir boy.
Now, who's exactly to blame for the housing crisis? Well, that's always a question that the press and people ask and I think there's plenty of blame to go around.
Responsibility belongs to mortgage lenders and brokers, who irresponsibly lowered underwriting standards, pushed risky mortgages, and hid the details in the fine print.
Responsibility belongs to the Administration and to regulators, who failed to provide adequate oversight, and who failed to respond to the chorus of reports that millions of families were being taken advantage of.
Responsibility belongs to the rating agencies, who woefully underestimated the risks involved in mortgage securities.
And certainly borrowers share responsibility as well. Homebuyers who paid extra fees to avoid documenting their income should have known they were getting in over their heads. Speculators who were busy buying two, three, four houses to sell for a quick buck don't deserve our sympathy.
But finally, responsibility also belongs to Wall Street, which not only enabled but often encouraged reckless mortgage lending. Mortgage lenders didn't have balance sheets big enough to write millions of loans on their own. So Wall Street originated and packaged the loans that common sense warned might very well have ended in collapse and foreclosure. Some people might say Wall Street only helped to distribute risk. I believe Wall Street shifted risk away from people who knew what was going on onto the people who did not.
Wall Street may not have created the foreclosure crisis, but Wall Street certainly had a hand in making it worse.
www.vox.com/2015/11/12/9716034/hillary-clinton-nasdaq-speech
http://decoechoes.deviantart.com/art/Firefly-571642867
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Wow, you ARE in fantasy-land, aren't you? You've built up this whole false narrative about me (and I know how false it is!) and you've built up another equally false narrative about KIKI, if not even worse. I mean, how did you ever get from Saudi Arabia to Poland in one leap?
Yep and since you asked who 1kiki stabbed first in the back, if she is to be believed, first her father. Then all the countries that stepped up to the plate to help her and her family as well as help exile Russia from her homeland of Poland.
Here, have another straw to grasp!
* tosses straw*
[/snicker]
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Your imagination ran wild then as it always does SIG.
Uh huh. If this is all my imagination, why did Bush have to get on TV and encourage people to get out and shop? Why did we give away a paltry amount of candy that year (and the year after?)
Why did Bush have to scare-monger for months, with videos of bin Laden supposedly testing poison gas on caged animals in the mountains of Afghanistan? IF people were so hot for revenge, why did the entire top-level of Bush's admin- Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell have to relentlessly thump for war, with images of nuclear bombs and poison gas and biological threats constantly being pushed on TV and in the NYT?
Quote:Oh, do you mean the world in your head? Or do you mean your small group of failed military buddies sitting around the TV and drinking beer? In any case, whatever small world THAT was, you just gave up the claim to be speaking for "the nation as a whole".
In my world
Quote:You say this like it was a good thing!
we were not in any kink of panic, instead we were in revenge mode
YEAH! LET'S TAKE REVENGE BY DESTROYING THREE BYSTANDER NATIONS!.
Revenge is for idiots. Being scared is the appropriate response. If people had had time to process the whys and wherefores and hows of this terrorist attack on the USA, instead of being relentlessly stampeded into giving up their rights (Patriot Act) and attacking three bystander nations, they might have learned something.
Quote:I'm not devaluing Americans, THUGR, just you.
The fact that your agenda is to devalue what America is all about
Quote:The American response wasn't negative, it was realistic. It should have been the moment that allows people to pause and reassess. But it was over-ruled by an administration hell-bent on wars of it's own choosing.
to only post the negative
Quote:I have evidence ... pretty broad-based objective evidence that I can pull up from Youtube any time you want. Retail sales statistics. Quotes from leaders and ordinary people. What do YOU have? The voices in your head?
what you claim to be factual about that or any other event is suspect.
Done with you. Back to the topic.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AT the time Obama took office, the entire Congress was Democratic ... House and Senate both. 51 Dems in the Senate, and 233 (54%) in the House.
In 2009- the next election- there were even MORE Democrats in Congress- 55 Dems in the Senate, and 59% (256/435) in the House.
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm
Are you trying to sy that even with overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate, Obama couldn't get his way on SOME issues??? All Obama had to do was apply some good old-fashioned Party discipline, the kind that says, "If you don't back me on this issue, the Party won't support you in your next election". It's not a threat you make lightly (usually you win support by negotiating something positive for the recalcitrant member) so you have to pick your battles carefully, but its always the big stick in the closet. That, and rousing up the public to support your goals.
Now, Democrats rode in on Obama's coattails because he promised to be different than the previous eight years. Up thru 2009, they were willing to cut him- and the Democratic Party- a lot of slack on the bank bailout thing, partly because they didn't really know about it and partly because it was already going on from Bush's admin. But it WAS unpopular with a lot of people, Democrats and Republicans alike. By 2010, the public - fed up with same-old same-old- repudiated the Democrats en masse.
The flagship program, IMHO, had to be DIFFERENT than government spending on shovel-ready projects (which weren't really shovel-ready at the time, the elephant labored and brought forth a mouse two years later). It could have been a viable healthcare program - which had high popular support. It could have been in the form of mortgage relief for PEOPLE ... maybe a suspension of foreclosures ... while the banks sorted out the robo-signing, interlocking naked Credit-Default-Swap, fraudulent-mortgage mess they made. (BTW- NO IT WAS NOT LEGAL.) Dramatic reduction in military spending to pay for domestic programs. Extensive prosecution of banksters. Re-instituting Glass Steagall.
What Obama chose to do was operate in dribs and drabs ... extended unemployment, for example. When he DID do something big - like bail out the banks and shovel people into the maw of the health insurances - it was industry-friendly and doomed to fail (in terms of solving the underlying problem.) And he is still pushing the TTIP/ TPP "free trade" deals. Just more of the same oligarchy, IMHO.
Sins of omission, sins of commission, not forced on him by a recalcitrant Congress but what he chose to do all by himself.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'll give you the facts and you decide what Obama should have done:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Democrats rode in on Obama's coattails because he promised to be different than the previous eight years.
Over the past 25 years, the economy has grown 83 percent, after adjusting for inflation — and the typical family’s income hasn’t budged. In that time, corporate profits doubled as a share of the economy. Workers today produce nearly twice as many goods and services per hour on the job as they did in 1989, but as a group, they get less of the nation’s economic pie. In 81 percent of America’s counties, the median income is lower today than it was 15 years ago.
What happened? Why did the economy stop boosting ordinary Americans in the way it once did?
In this new reality, a smaller share of Americans enjoy the fruits of an expanding economy. This isn’t a fluke of the past few years — it’s woven into the very structure of the economy. And even though Republicans and Democrats keep promising to help the middle class reclaim the prosperity it grew accustomed to after World War II, their prescriptions aren’t working.
www.washingtonpost.com/sf/business/2014/12/12/why-americas-middle-clas
s-is-lost/
Now that you have the facts AND a plan that is different than Obama's, why can't your different plan go into action? Hint: You will need the cooperation of the wealthy and powerful to put your plan into action, but they won't cooperate in dividing the nation’s economic pie. As a matter of fact, they will fight you to your death, then piss on your grave.
Do you understand why Obama did not change the path that the USA has been following for decades? I find it perfectly clear why Obama didn't do what he didn't do.
http://scottzirkel.deviantart.com/art/Firefly-Sketch-Cards-570111805
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There are more urgent events, but I have a question of my own - one that I've asked already: If Obama knew that change was impossible, why did he promise so much?
And, my other point: It's not that Obama "failed" to do anything substantive, he also actively campaigned for very regressive measures. Sins of omission AND sins of commission. You might explain away sins of omission, but not the other.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:To get elected.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
There are more urgent events, but I have a question of my own - one that I've asked already: If Obama knew that change was impossible, why did he promise so much?
What is the net worth of Hillary Clinton? I google it to find that Bill and Hillary left the White House essentially broke in 2001, only to make an incredible $230 million over the next 14 years through speaking engagements, book deals, and consulting gigs. Rhetorical question: Did Obama google Clinton?
I am so sorry to burst your idealistic bubble, but while in office Obama will not make enemies that would prevent him from eventually becoming as wealthy as Clinton. You might want to argue that the Clintons made many enemies, but I say they did not. The wealthy and powerful class did not rise up against the Clintons. Obama does NOT believe in his heart what he says he wishes to accomplish and Obama's actions in office will NOT stand in the way of his great fortune once he leaves. Obama is not an idealist like Jimmy Carter. Starting in 2017, we can track Obama's retirement and compare it to Carter's. I predict Obama will be following the Clinton path to great wealth, not Carter's path of serving others.
And there is Obama's unconscious fear of being assassinated if he steps too far out of the line that began with Ronald Reagan. The Secret Service is always there to remind Obama that the danger is not just an overactive imagination.
www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2015/09/29/the-richest-and-poorest-
presidential-candidates-from-hillarys-millions-to-marco-rubios-debts/
http://theporkchopexpress.deviantart.com/art/They-Hatin-570515694
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME