World Politics

[rhubroma]

you and I don't amount to a pile of ...beans.... What can we change? But we can yak it up with the best of 'em.

I could just as easily go to a conservative forum and find a bunch of people who agree with me... how boring, especially when I can lob grenades and watch liberals lose their minds...plus when you are with people who tend to agree, a scripted set of beliefs take ahold, i am not very crazy about GWB, for wildly different reasons than you, but nonetheless, I am not going to have a support of him enforced simply to get along with conservatives that I agree with overall.

As I said early on, attaching oneself to a person (like Obama) is really dangerous compared to settling for being attached to ideas. The problem is we have to vote for people, and people never fail to let our ideals down. How would you like to have been a die hard John Edwards supporter? My God, if you couldn't see what a transparent phony he was from the get go, you were in for one helluva rude awakening. At the hands of The Enquirer, no less.

Oh well. My pants were too tight this morning. Time to go for another walk.

What a sappy bunch of sentimental drivel.

Attached to ideas? That's the funniest thing I've read this morning!

As if conservatives had any kultur to come up with ideas..which is something that goes against their conservative nature. In fact to them ideas are a most dangerous thing and extremely upsetting to their reactionary conservative mindset, given that they are inevitably the fruit of some philosophical and social perspective that is hostile to the status quo and hence their own priviledges. Consequently the conservative mindset can't stomach ideas which only a revolutionary spirit can handle.

There is thus no mindset more inimical to free thought, and therefore ideas, than the conservitive one, which is the fruit of a base and self-serving instinct.

In fact the the most "profound" thinking that the conservative ideology has ever come up with is that eons old, and incredibly boring one (because, in point of fact, conservative), that government (or the power structure) should leave the rich and powerful unfettered to "liberally" earn as much bucks as they possibly can without any social responsibility, which, obviously to them, should be the responsibility burden to bear of each individual to look after his own self and kin. That in essence the role of those in charge should be to stay out of the affairs of the rich and let society "take care of itself." However they either deny or, for convenience sake, forget any role that the collective has played in their own privilidged economic and social status: something which makes such an ideology of the most base, insipid and intellectually uninspired of types. Because it simply re-affirms that feudal arrangement, so congenial to the conservative world view, that democratic principles were supposed to transform into an obsolete relic of the past.

So now everyone knows why conservitives like yourself are "liberal" in the traditional sense and not, as you say, in the contemporary meaning of the term.

Given that in the way of so-called ideas your kind aspires to nothing more than the rather base materialism of Ayn Rand, I will be taking a look at Antonio Gramsci again to find some intellectual solace.

 

[Anonymous]

What you posted would be an example of deficit scare mongering.

Unemployment and underemployment is at least 17% . If these people were working then more wealth would be being generated, putting the country in a better position to sort out it's debt. Why have them idle just to keep an arbitrary number (the deficit) low? More people working means more tax revenue, which means smaller deficits, and eventually surpluses.

When there is an output gap (as there currently is) then stimulus spending is the best (only?) way to get people working again.

If you disagree, what is the process that would lead to the elimination of this output gap and economic growth? Why would businesses hire workers and invest in capital if they are unable to sell their increased output? Why would consumers increase their spending if many are jobless and the ones working are anxious about their jobs?

Well, now I think you are just pulling my chain, but I'll play along.

The US Congress is raising the nataional debt ceiling a couple times a year nowadays.

The Presidents recently proposed budget has $1.56 Trillion in red ink (this year).

The projections are for our national debt to balloon to over $24 Trillion over the next 10 years.

The first trillion spent by this bunch didn't do much to reduce unemployment. The reason? piss-poor policy, bankrupt thinking, scaring the hell out of private enterprise with idiotic proposals like cap and trade and employer mandates regarding their heathcare plan. I could go on...

Scare mongering? Your perception. I'm actually more concerned with people like you who think that debt of this magnitude is desireable.

As for the job situation, this country needs something sustainable. The govt propping up the job market with pet project spending is temporary and amounts to playing the game "kick the can." The govt taking money from one group and redsitributing it to another might equal social justice to some but won't create a single job.

I'm an employer. Between what the State of California is doing and some of this administrations proposals there is no way I would take on more payroll obligation right now. Now way. About a year ago I get a call from my accountant saying the State legislature just approved an increase of 25.5% to employer paid unemployment insurance (part of payroll taxes), retro-active to 1/1/09. Just like that.

I'm expecting more of this as the State I live in is Bankrupt, the Federal Govt is well on it's way because many of their proposals are patterned after policies already in place in Cali. Even if I had the demand to justify more people (my business currently does not) I'd wait because trimming workforce is painful, expensive, heartbreaking and I am not confident that the demand would be sustainable (unless the demand was generated by something other than additional govt spending).

 

[Anonymous]

What a sappy bunch of sentimental drivel.

Attached to ideas? That's the funniest thing I've read this morning!

As if conservatives had any kultur to come up with ideas..which is something that goes against their conservative nature. In fact to them ideas are a most dangerous thing and extremely upsetting to their reactionary conservative mindset, given that they are inevitably the fruit of some philosophical and social perspective that is hostile to the status quo and hence their own priviledges. Consequently the conservative mindset can't stomach ideas which only a revolutionary spirit can handle.

There is thus no mindset more inimical to free thought, and therefore ideas, than the conservitive one, which is the fruit of a base and self-serving instinct.

In fact the the most "profound" thinking that the conservative ideology has ever come up with is that eons old, and incredibly boring one (because, in point of fact, conservative), that government (or the power structure) should leave the rich and powerful unfettered to "liberally" earn as much bucks as they possibly can without any social responsibility, which, obviously to them, should be the responsibility burden to bear of each individual to look after his own self and kin. That in essence the role of those in charge should be to stay out of the affairs of the rich and let society "take care of itself." However they either deny or, for convenience sake, forget any role that the collective has played in their own privilidged economic and social status: something which makes such an ideology of the most base, insipid and intellectually uninspired of types. Because it simply re-affirms that feudal arrangement, so congenial to the conservative world view, that democratic principles were supposed to transform into an obsolete relic of the past.

So now everyone knows why conservitives like yourself are "liberal" in the traditional sense and not, as you say, in the contemporary meaning of the term.

Given that in the way of so-called ideas your kind aspires to nothing more than the rather base materialism of Ayn Rand, I will be taking a look at Antonio Gramsci again to find some intellectual solace.

I'm bored with your over the top academic BS. Theory, theory, theory. I think you've been in the lecture hall so long you actually belive what you write.

You have a wonderful vocabulary though.

 

[rhubroma]

I'm bored with your over the top academic BS. Theory, theory, theory. I think you've been in the lecture hall so long you actually belive what you write.

You have a wonderful vocabulary though.

If it makes you feel any better, I'm bored to hell with it too...but then I think of the alternative (Sarah Palin ).

Cheers

 

[Anonymous]

If it makes you feel any better, I'm bored to hell with it too...but then I think of the alternative (Sarah Palin ).

Cheers

Palin is un-electable. You don't have much to worry about there.

Cheers to you.

 

[Anonymous]

Well, now I think you are just pulling my chain, but I'll play along.

The US Congress is raising the nataional debt ceiling a couple times a year nowadays.

The Presidents recently proposed budget has $1.56 Trillion in red ink (this year).

The projections are for our national debt to balloon to over $24 Trillion over the next 10 years.

The first trillion spent by this bunch didn't do much to reduce unemployment. The reason? piss-poor policy, bankrupt thinking, scaring the hell out of private enterprise with idiotic proposals like cap and trade and employer mandates regarding their heathcare plan. I could go on...

Scare mongering? Your perception. I'm actually more concerned with people like you who think that debt of this magnitude is desireable.

As for the job situation, this country needs something sustainable. The govt propping up the job market with pet project spending is temporary and amounts to playing the game "kick the can." The govt taking money from one group and redsitribution it to another might equal social justice to some but won't create a single job.

I'm an employer. Between what the State of California is doing and some of this administrations proposals there is no way I would take on more payroll obligation right now. Now way. About a year ago I get a call from my accountant saying the State legislature just approved an increase of 25.5% to employer paid unemployment insurance (part of payroll taxes), retro-active to 1/1/09. Just like that.

I'm expecting more of this as the State I live in is Bankrupt, the Federal Govt is well on it's way because many of their proposals are patterned after policies already in place in Cali. Even if I had the demand to justify more people (my business currently does not) I'd wait because trimming workforce is painful, expensive, heartbreaking and I am not confident that the demand would be sustainable (unless the demand was generated by something other than additional govt spending).

Check the numbers. You cannot blame him for job loss and then not credit him when the employment statistics turn positive.

The $24 Trillion is based on current government revenue and will change dramatically as the economy improves.

And as was pointed out yesterday, there sure were some Republican congressmen at ribbon cuttings for projects that brought jobs to their districts.

See, the debt becomes a problem only if we continue to flounder economically like the Republicans want. Problem is that just isn't what is going on. Again, you may very well take the mid-terms, but if you think you are looking at a paper tiger in Obama come 2012, you severely underestimate the man and what is happening in our economy.

 

[Anonymous]

Palin is un-electable. You don't have much to worry about there.

Cheers to you.

My goodness I hope so. She did step on some toes regarding her Tea Party speaking fees.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm bored with your over the top academic BS. Theory, theory, theory. I think you've been in the lecture hall so long you actually belive what you write.

You have a wonderful vocabulary though.

Again, I point out that your economic philosophy is the biggest theory out there. You have not one single example for a major industrialized country that implemented anything like it in the past 100 years, and yet you all act like you have some plan with a proven track record. I suggest actually looking at what happened in the 19th century with your proposals, and then maybe alter the rhetoric a bit.

Fact.

 

[tifosa]

Palin is un-electable. You don't have much to worry about there.

I never used to worry about things like that...


until I started dwelling on:


the uneducated electorate who resemble sheep more than people, and how easy it is for the Supreme Court to rule on the outcome of elections when the voting system has apparently failed the electorate.

 

[Anonymous]

Check the numbers. You cannot blame him for job loss and then not credit him when the employment statistics turn positive.

The $24 Trillion is based on current government revenue and will change dramatically as the economy improves.

And as was pointed out yesterday, there sure were some Republican congressmen at ribbon cuttings for projects that brought jobs to their districts.

See, the debt becomes a problem only if we continue to flounder economically like the Republicans want. Problem is that just isn't what is going on. Again, you may very well take the mid-terms, but if you think you are looking at a paper tiger in Obama come 2012, you severely underestimate the man and what is happening in our economy.

The 24 trillion is anticipating economic recovery/growth. It'll be larger if the economy flounders.

I saw the down-tick in unemployment. 9.7% when it was expected to be 10.1%. That's good news and I hope it continues but but I'm pessimistic. What's my incentive to hire more people? Higher taxes combined with more gvt regs and mandates?

I realize an economy like ours does not turn on a dime but I'm telling you this; the business world is terrified of the proposals and potential tax liabilities of this President. Spin it how you want but that is a fact. Until and unless some sanity returns to policy making the current employment issues will be with us.

BTW, what happened to unemployment not rising above 8% as long as the Prez got his 'stimulus'?

It's no secret that a good portion of the Republican party are not fiscal conservatives, so the ribbon cutting thing does not impress me.

Business owners actually have their capital at risk. Overwhelmingly, business owners are fiscal conservatives. Why the hell would we stick our necks out on the block only to chop off our own heads? Repubs want the economy to thrive and object when;

it's not thriving,

there's no plan to encourage it to thrive,

no country has ever taxed and spent it's way to prosperity,

nobody in the current administration has business experience,

everybody in the administration is under-qualified,

big govt solutions in and of themselves don't work,

etc., etc., etc.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Bla bla bla.
Hey where's ravens this morning? Off to the big convention?

 

[Anonymous]

I never used to worry about things like that...


until I started dwelling on:


the uneducated electorate who resemble sheep more than people, and how easy it is for the Supreme Court to rule on the outcome of elections when the voting system has apparently failed the electorate.

Gotta give it to you there. Look at how many votes Obama received.

 

[Anonymous]

The 24 trillion is anticipating economic recovery/growth. It'll be larger if the economy flounders.

I saw the down-tick in unemployment. 9.7% when it was expected to be 10.1%. That's good news and I hope it continues but but I'm pessimistic. What's my incentive to hire more people? Higher taxes combined with more gvt regs and mandates?

I realize an economy like ours does not turn on a dime but I'm telling you this; the business world is terrified of the proposals and potential tax liabilities of this President. Spin it how you want but that is a fact. Until and unless some sanity returns to policy making the current employment issues will be with us.

BTW, what happened to unemployment not rising above 8% as long as the Prez got his 'stimulus'?

It's no secret that a good portion of the Republican party are not fiscal conservatives, so the ribbon cutting thing does not impress me.

Business owners actually have their capital at risk. Overwhelmingly, business owners are fiscal conservatives. Why the hell would we stick our necks out on the block only to chop off our own heads? Repubs want the economy to thrive and object when;

it's not thriving,

there's no plan to encourage it to thrive,

no country has ever taxed and spent it's way to prosperity,

nobody in the current administration has business experience,

everybody in the administration is under-qualified,

big govt solutions in and of themselves don't work,

etc., etc., etc.

That is the problem. If you actually look at our economic history, you will see that the panic is unwarranted.

As to no country ever taxing and spending its way to prosperity, again, actually look at the economic history of major economic powers in the 1930's and show me one, just one, that did anything other than that. You can then point to WWII, but if you look, you will see some that got out before the war started, and did so by government spending.

Now, just show me the counter example, and I will buy your fear.

Everyone in the administration under-qualified? That is a talking point, and nowhere near reality Scott.

What you don't see is that even Democrats are capitalists, they just believe that there is a certain amount of government protection that needs to be in place in terms of economic policy. You guys act like they want communism, and there may be a few who lean that way more heavily than others, but most would be considered raving capitalists by real communists. That is the REALITY. Go talk to one and see.

I will keep preaching this because I feel it is vitally important for people to understand. We have had a mixed economic system for over 100 years. It has worked better for the greatest number of peoplem than any other economic system in the history of mankind. It has at times included government programs that were FAR more market invasive than ANYTHING we have now, or is even being proposed now. That is just a FACT.

Unfortunately, we also have people like Beck, Limbaugh, Malkin, Hannity, etc, etc, etc, who just don't get REALITY. They understand how to make people fearful, but they either don't know our economic history, or they simply avoid its reality. Either way, if you are sitting in a corner, terrified to do anything different or new because the big scary man in Washington might take a dollar or two more from you, then you will lose business to the guy who isn't. There is a lot of optimism out there, and if you aren't on the train, you should get on.

That, and answer me this. It is a well researched phenomenon that public attitude has an enormous amount of influence on the economy. Is staying negative simply because the big scary man in Washington is doing some things you think might hurt you really beneficial to anyone? I mean, I realize Wall St is playing a power game as we speak because the government wants to limit the ability of financial institutions to carry out business in the manner that got us here (funny, no Republicans are on board for this???). They are taking their balls and going home for a short time to prove a point. Sad thing is that the large investors will be just fine, but the small guy is the one they are aimed at influencing anyway. What better way to do that than threaten the paper billions in 401K, etc?

When I woke up this morning, I realized that I actually believe the game is already over. Corporations can so manipulate public policy, that people like you and me are just floaters, having no ability as individuals or as a consumer group to do anything but go where the river takes us. They already paid for the government, and the fact is that Republicans have been more responsible for that than anyone. They are your real base, because small business owners may seem important to you, but the people with real money (that top 1%) just use you to do their bidding. Look at TARP. There was nothing you could do but take it. They used you to privatize their profits, and the used your government to socialize their loss. And while Democrats played their role in that, the fact is that if you care to look up the campaign contributions of the heads of the major financial institutions, you will find it is weighted to your party.

When will any of you stop being their pawns and think for yourselves?

 

[ravens]

Bla bla bla.
Hey where's ravens this morning? Off to the big convention?

It ought to be apparent to anyone by now that I am a part of no movement other than my own bowel's. And even then it is against my will.

As I have been lamenting/anticipating for some time, the idle time is drawing to a close. I will pause while you all weep....

here is another interesting (and terribly long) article about the phoniness of the blame that the dems use to deflect blame from their abject failure as leaders.

UPDATE: The following is a link to an article, the paragraph below is not my words.
On Monday when releasing his budget the President said:

The fact is, 10 years ago, we had a budget surplus of more than $200 billion, with projected surpluses stretching out toward the horizon. Yet over the course of the past 10 years, the previous administration and previous Congresses created an expensive new drug program, passed massive tax cuts for the wealthy, and funded two wars without paying for any of it -– all of which was compounded by recession and by rising health care costs. As a result, when I first walked through the door, the deficit stood at $1.3 trillion, with projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade.

This is a common refrain from the President and his team.

I am going to miss our never ending battling, picking, insulting, but I am going to have much less time to engage with you all.

who am I kidding? eff you!

this thread is really quiet when i am not around, someone else will have to take up the posting duties

 

[ravens]

My goodness I hope so. She did step on some toes regarding her Tea Party speaking fees.

What little I know, the fee is supposed to be given to charity, but the left and their media sockpuppets are eager to portray a fissure within any opposition's organization even when none exists.

 

[ravens]

I never used to worry about things like that...


until I started dwelling on:


the uneducated electorate who resemble sheep more than people, and how easy it is for the Supreme Court to rule on the outcome of elections when the voting system has apparently failed the electorate.

If someone as unqualified as Obama can get elected, then we all need to be concerned about the potential for the electorate to drive the country off a cliff.

 

[ravens]

ok.....

now i am done

 

[Anonymous]

What little I know, the fee is supposed to be given to charity, but the left and their media sockpuppets are eager to portray a fissure within any opposition's organization even when none exists.

Problem is that at first, she and the organization said there was no fee. Then when it came out that there was, and it was 6 figures, they claim charity. Uh, okay...but hey, the people organizing the event in Nashville are clear that they are a for profit venture. Seems that many tea baggers don't like that idea, but aren't they the profit motive prophets?

Hey, Bachmann is speaking too. Two of the dumbest, most bat sh!t crazy people in our country at the same venue. Maybe they will make a sex tape with each other and give the males in the movement what they really want from those two, because their "ideas" are not worth listening to.

 

[Hugh Januss]

It ought to be apparent to anyone by now that I am a part of no movement other than my own bowel's. And even then it is against my will.

As I have been lamenting/anticipating for some time, the idle time is drawing to a close. I will pause while you all weep....

here is another interesting (and terribly long) article about the phoniness of the blame that the dems use to deflect blame from their abject failure as leaders.

On Monday when releasing his budget the President said:

The fact is, 10 years ago, we had a budget surplus of more than $200 billion, with projected surpluses stretching out toward the horizon. Yet over the course of the past 10 years, the previous administration and previous Congresses created an expensive new drug program, passed massive tax cuts for the wealthy, and funded two wars without paying for any of it -– all of which was compounded by recession and by rising health care costs. As a result, when I first walked through the door, the deficit stood at $1.3 trillion, with projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade.

This is a common refrain from the President and his team.

I am going to miss our never ending battling, picking, insulting, but I am going to have much less time to engage with you all.

who am I kidding? eff you!

this thread is really quiet when i am not around, someone else will have to take up the posting duties

Did you finally land that Demand Media writing job? Now you can be a Lance Tea Bagger as well. Is it still tea bagging with only one nut?
Anyway what you highlighted in blue is a "common refrain" only because it is true.
Good luck in whatever new venture you are undertaking, we'll miss you like hemorrhoids.

 

[fatandfast]

Did you finally land that Demand Media writing job? Now you can be a Lance Tea Bagger as well. Is it still tea bagging with only one nut?
Anyway what you highlighted in blue is a "common refrain" only because it is true.
Good luck in whatever new venture you are undertaking, we'll miss you like hemorrhoids.

Everybody should be happy it's world Nutella day

 

[Anonymous]

now i am done

Lady's and gentlemen, Elvis has left the building.

 

[Anonymous]

That is the problem. If you actually look at our economic history, you will see that the panic is unwarranted.

As to no country ever taxing and spending its way to prosperity, again, actually look at the economic history of major economic powers in the 1930's and show me one, just one, that did anything other than that. You can then point to WWII, but if you look, you will see some that got out before the war started, and did so by government spending.

Now, just show me the counter example, and I will buy your fear.

Everyone in the administration under-qualified? That is a talking point, and nowhere near reality Scott.

What you don't see is that even Democrats are capitalists, they just believe that there is a certain amount of government protection that needs to be in place in terms of economic policy. You guys act like they want communism, and there may be a few who lean that way more heavily than others, but most would be considered raving capitalists by real communists. That is the REALITY. Go talk to one and see.

I will keep preaching this because I feel it is vitally important for people to understand. We have had a mixed economic system for over 100 years. It has worked better for the greatest number of peoplem than any other economic system in the history of mankind. It has at times included government programs that were FAR more market invasive than ANYTHING we have now, or is even being proposed now. That is just a FACT.

Unfortunately, we also have people like Beck, Limbaugh, Malkin, Hannity, etc, etc, etc, who just don't get REALITY. They understand how to make people fearful, but they either don't know our economic history, or they simply avoid its reality. Either way, if you are sitting in a corner, terrified to do anything different or new because the big scary man in Washington might take a dollar or two more from you, then you will lose business to the guy who isn't. There is a lot of optimism out there, and if you aren't on the train, you should get on.

That, and answer me this. It is a well researched phenomenon that public attitude has an enormous amount of influence on the economy. Is staying negative simply because the big scary man in Washington is doing some things you think might hurt you really beneficial to anyone? I mean, I realize Wall St is playing a power game as we speak because the government wants to limit the ability of financial institutions to carry out business in the manner that got us here (funny, no Republicans are on board for this???). They are taking their balls and going home for a short time to prove a point. Sad thing is that the large investors will be just fine, but the small guy is the one they are aimed at influencing anyway. What better way to do that than threaten the paper billions in 401K, etc?

When I woke up this morning, I realized that I actually believe the game is already over. Corporations can so manipulate public policy, that people like you and me are just floaters, having no ability as individuals or as a consumer group to do anything but go where the river takes us. They already paid for the government, and the fact is that Republicans have been more responsible for that than anyone. They are your real base, because small business owners may seem important to you, but the people with real money (that top 1%) just use you to do their bidding. Look at TARP. There was nothing you could do but take it. They used you to privatize their profits, and the used your government to socialize their loss. And while Democrats played their role in that, the fact is that if you care to look up the campaign contributions of the heads of the major financial institutions, you will find it is weighted to your party.

When will any of you stop being their pawns and think for yourselves?

It's funny. We are not that far apart. I realize there is a vital role for govt and pure capitalism does not work. I get that.

We are really arguing over the blend (amount of govt involvement) and it's a good argument to have.

Business makes projections trying to predict the future in terms of production, demands, labor needs and so on. When Obama says "energy will necessarily skyrocket" due to his cap and trade BS, how would you expect business to react? Questions spring to mind like;

How much will that hurt my bottom line?

How much will that effect my customer's bottom line?

How will a change in my customer's bottom line effect their purchasing decisions?

How will their change in purchasing decisions effect my production/growth/need for labor, etc?

Now if this were for some 'greater good' then so be it. But the sole purpose of cap and trade is to generate additional and extremely lucrative revenue sources for the govt under the auspices of correcting a problem that does not even exist AND to further finance the great socio-economic wealth redistribution/social justice ideology. It should'nt ever be done and darn should'nt be done right now.

When this administration attempts to subvert the will of the people (my perception) with healthcare legislation paid for with additional payroll taxes (among other things) from business' like mine then look above as to the questions I start asking. This goes on and on and on.

Just so you know, I'd vote for either of the Clinton's in a heartbeat over Obama because they are pragmatic. Obama is ideologue (when he stood up in front of the Repubs a week ago and stated he was not I nearly wet my pants from laughing so hard).

Fear unfounded? Not unless what the Prez says and actually does are decidedly different.

 

[tifosa]

Gotta give it to you there. Look at how many votes Obama received.

My point exactly.

Also my point with Bush 2.


It will take decades to rebuild this Republic.

 

[tifosa]

If someone as unqualified as Obama can get elected, then we all need to be concerned about the potential for the electorate to drive the country off a cliff.

See my above post.

 

[tifosa]

One might say I'm a high maintenance voter.

I prefer 'more thoughtful' voter.