World Politics

Page 320 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 9, 2009
6,625
0
0
benpounder said:
What's with the non-sequitur?
That is just the way his mind works.
I have more of a problem with the idea that they are all just as bad as each other. There are differences, maybe not always as great as we want them to be, but differences none the less. Repubs will always favor big business over humanity or ecology, Dems always at least somewhat less so.
I also find fault with your characterization of Obama's presidency as a trainwreck, at worst it is the aftermath and protracted cleanup of a trainwreck with zero bipartisan support. IMO the only fault to be found with this administration is that a lot of promises have not been kept, almost all the dirrect result of staunch and unwavering enmity from the Repub side of the isle.
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,312
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
I also find fault with your characterization of Obama's presidency as a trainwreck, at worst it is the aftermath and protracted cleanup of a trainwreck with zero bipartisan support.
Obama signed on to Bush's TARP bail out. Wow, a (then) current President and to-be President agreeing? and you see no bipartisanship?

Politicians of all flavors have put us in the position we find ourselves today. They sell us stories of how we might be successful while painting grisly pictures of what would happen were the "wrong" side to win election.

[To all] I am so tired of that. There are problems to solve, problems that supersede partisan bickering. If you want contribute, you have to get out of your comfortable echo chamber.
 
May 23, 2010
2,409
0
0
benpounder said:
Obama signed on to Bush's TARP bail out. Wow, a (then) current President and to-be President agreeing? and you see no bipartisanship?

Politicians of all flavors have put us in the position we find ourselves today. They sell us stories of how we might be successful while painting grisly pictures of what would happen were the "wrong" side to win election.

[To all] I am so tired of that. There are problems to solve, problems that supersede partisan bickering. If you want contribute, you have to get out of your comfortable echo chamber.
Wall Street had 5 months to convince everyone what "or else means" Bush's final gift of trainwreckism
 
May 23, 2010
2,409
0
0
Of course

""In a speech at the pro-GOP Americans for Prosperity dinner, former Massachusetts governor and contender for the GOP presidential nomination Mitt Romney said he would "hang" Obama, then immediately realized his gaffe and tried to smooth over his mistake. His spokeswoman said the blunder was not meant to be malicious.

Referring to Ronald Reagan's "misery index" that he wanted to "hang around Jimmy Carter's neck" in the 1980 presidential election, Romney said of Obama, "Well, we’re going to have to hang the ‘Obama Misery Index’ around his neck.”

Romney continued, “We’re going to hang him — ” before pausing, Politico reported, then continuing and clarifying. “So to speak — metaphorically. You have to be careful.”
The implications of mentioning "hanging" in reference to an African-American are not positive.
Romney's spokeswoman, Andrea Saul, told Politico that the comment was not intended to be malicious.""
 
Jul 9, 2009
6,625
0
0
benpounder said:
Obama signed on to Bush's TARP bail out. Wow, a (then) current President and to-be President agreeing? and you see no bipartisanship?

Politicians of all flavors have put us in the position we find ourselves today. They sell us stories of how we might be successful while painting grisly pictures of what would happen were the "wrong" side to win election.

[To all] I am so tired of that. There are problems to solve, problems that supersede partisan bickering. If you want contribute, you have to get out of your comfortable echo chamber.
A Democrat giving in to the Repub side is unfortunately not nearly as unusual as the other way. The only bipartisanship in this administration is when the Dems cave, on healthcare, budget, whatever.
Yours is the easy way out, "oh they are all bad' what can we do?"
And yeah, I think Obama made a mistake there.
 
May 23, 2010
2,409
0
0
benpounder said:
how about a response to the meat of my post, not the cheapshot, and distorting of context reply you gave.
What Hugh has been saying.. They are both as bad..That is like the non apology..Your republicans cause these hellacious problems and then the closest their supporters come to taking responsibility for it is to say...Oh WTH they are both as bad so I'll just vote for the certified bad guys again. Stay the course.. Continue on the bad road..preserve the status quo..NO..remember back when. Ronald Reagan!! Real Americans!
 
Hugh Januss said:
That is just the way his mind works.
I have more of a problem with the idea that they are all just as bad as each other. There are differences, maybe not always as great as we want them to be, but differences none the less. Repubs will always favor big business over humanity or ecology, Dems always at least somewhat less so.
I also find fault with your characterization of Obama's presidency as a trainwreck, at worst it is the aftermath and protracted cleanup of a trainwreck with zero bipartisan support. IMO the only fault to be found with this administration is that a lot of promises have not been kept, almost all the dirrect result of staunch and unwavering enmity from the Repub side of the isle.
Unfortunately since everything has been wrapped up in lobby appeasement and the economy, there's not much of an ideological distinction anymore within the US bipartisan political class; and there hasn't been much since the Reagan years and deregulated market capitalism's triumph over totalitarian Soviet ("people's") communism.

But let's, just for once, pretend that none of this happened, that we can therefore see the political differences between the parties by breaking them down to what essentially distinguishes a right-wing ideology from a left-wing one. And it is this: the left wants to help the poor and less fortunate by "responsibilizing" the rich, which the latter of course always interprets as unjust penalizing; whereas the right want's to "help" the poor by helping the rich. The left has a concept of community, while for the right only the individual counts.

But the fiscal woes of America today are the result of work and wages not being any longer a basic Truth of the economy, which is the failure of the left, whereas that there no longer exists a relationship between profit and actual individual merit (as at Wall Street) is the failure of capitalism and this is something that the right has passed on to the backs of society at large. And all that credit consumerism. It's a phantom wealth that has destroyed the former economic relationship mentioned above, and means that instead of worker's paultry wages contributing to public programs like health care and reducing the nation's exorbitant public debt, they are being used to pay off their creditors.

In Europe things are a bit different, in that what is most distinguishing are not the economic issues, but the social ones, for which neo-nationalism and the right-wing are becoming synonymous (and this is Europe's biggest danger - just look at the case of Hungary) as a result of globalization and immigration, whereas the left seeks to be more "humane" and open to a world in constant flux, though has not come up with an alternative model to resist the reactionary and hysterical agendas of the right, which means they stand on a rather weak political ground. Although no one in the right would be arguing for a private healthcare system, because, even for the misguided and often racist reasons, it still has a sense of community, which is something that America's right-wing totally lacks.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bala Verde said:
Hey Scott, did you read the economist lately? They have an interesting special on California. I thought you might be interested.

See http://www.economist.com/node/18563638 (2011) CA Direct Democracy

Other stuff that's worth a read (I saw your post about TX v. CA) are:

http://www.economist.com/node/13990207 (2009) TX v CA
http://www.economist.com/node/18442083 (2011) TX
Thanks. I had not read these.

Prop 13 in Cali has been controversial since is was passed in the late 1970's. At it's core, prop 13 assess taxes based on acquisition value versus market value. Liberal Dems do not like this method as they want more revenue from property taxes.

The article illustrating the problem with the Texas model is interesting. It really is the age old question. How much government do people want?

The bottom line is this: In the absence of a strong private sector generating revenue for the State, there can be no such thing as a strong public sector. If, as is the case in California, the public sector continues to pressure the private sector (AB 32 for example) then the revenue that funds all things public will continue to dwindle. There will be fewer services in Cali until and unless those that control how the state is run become more tolerant towards the private sector. It's a classic study in how attempting to tax it's way to prosperity California is actually doing the opposite.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
1
0
redtreviso said:
18 thousand seats for the outdoor stadium. That is a bargain comparred to this!

11 thousand seats and 72million dollars. check out the cost and side on the right of the wiki page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_E._Berry_Educational_Support_Center


If I was a member of the ISD then I would have voted against it. Funny they are doing exactly the same thing all around Houston now. I think there is 3 proposals that are either approved or upcoming for stadiums this size and cost. Nutz.
 
Jul 9, 2009
6,625
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Thanks. I had not read these.

Prop 13 in Cali has been controversial since is was passed in the late 1970's. At it's core, prop 13 assess taxes based on acquisition value versus market value. Liberal Dems do not like this method as they want more revenue from property taxes.

The article illustrating the problem with the Texas model is interesting. It really is the age old question. How much government do people want?

The bottom line is this: In the absence of a strong private sector generating revenue for the State, there can be no such thing as a strong public sector. If, as is the case in California, the public sector continues to pressure the private sector (AB 32 for example) then the revenue that funds all things public will continue to dwindle. There will be fewer services in Cali until and unless those that control how the state is run become more tolerant towards the private sector. It's a classic study in how attempting to tax it's way to prosperity California is actually doing the opposite.
California is a nice place to live, most of the year the weather is decidedly more pleasant than, say North Dakota for instance. Overall I think we would find that more people want to live here than in a bunch of other states (I don't want to touch off a debate on the relative merits of other places, so please just bear with me here, I agree not everyone wants to live here). The law of supply and demand would indicate then that it would cost more to live here. It costs more to buy a house, it costs more to start and run a business, rent costs more, food costs more, workers need to make a higher wage so they can afford to live and work here, and so on right across the board. At the same time it is however a stinkin' desert and without the EPA it quite possibly would soon or already be uninhabitable.
Stands to reason (to me anyway) that it costs more to run a government here too then. Perhaps the problem then is business owners who are so big that they can afford to move the business to a less desireable location while continuing to enjoy living in a more desireable location. With of course a summer home in Montana and a condo in Vail. I know I can't do that because my business is such that I have to be there every day, I am guessing that your's is not either as if it were you would most likely already have done so and we wouldn't hear you complaining.

I do not really know what the solution is, perhaps if we just got rid of all those pesky poor people (leaving just enough to pick our crops, and clean our houses, and oh yeah, work in our businesses) then we would not have these problems. Wait maybe you are way ahead of me on this one and that is why you have the views that you have on health care. I wonder how long it would take for them to all die off.:rolleyes:
 
Jul 9, 2009
6,625
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
18 thousand seats for the outdoor stadium. That is a bargain comparred to this!

11 thousand seats and 72million dollars. check out the cost and side on the right of the wiki page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_E._Berry_Educational_Support_Center


If I was a member of the ISD then I would have voted against it. Funny they are doing exactly the same thing all around Houston now. I think there is 3 proposals that are either approved or upcoming for stadiums this size and cost. Nutz.
The schools in the district have been experiencing a paper shortage as a result of the debt the district has accumulated.
Perhaps we have discovered the real problem with Public Education.:cool:
 
May 23, 2010
2,409
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
California is a nice place to live, most of the year the weather is decidedly more pleasant than, say North Dakota for instance. Overall I think we would find that more people want to live here than in a bunch of other states (I don't want to touch off a debate on the relative merits of other places, so please just bear with me here, I agree not everyone wants to live here). The law of supply and demand would indicate then that it would cost more to live here. It costs more to buy a house, it costs more to start and run a business, rent costs more, food costs more, workers need to make a higher wage so they can afford to live and work here, and so on right across the board. At the same time it is however a stinkin' desert and without the EPA it quite possibly would soon or already be uninhabitable.
Stands to reason (to me anyway) that it costs more to run a government here too then. Perhaps the problem then is business owners who are so big that they can afford to move the business to a less desireable location while continuing to enjoy living in a more desireable location. With of course a summer home in Montana and a condo in Vail. I know I can't do that because my business is such that I have to be there every day, I am guessing that your's is not either as if it were you would most likely already have done so and we wouldn't hear you complaining.

I do not really know what the solution is, perhaps if we just got rid of all those pesky poor people (leaving just enough to pick our crops, and clean our houses, and oh yeah, work in our businesses) then we would not have these problems. Wait maybe you are way ahead of me on this one and that is why you have the views that you have on health care. I wonder how long it would take for them to all die off.:rolleyes:
""Then the chilly winds blew down
Across the desert
through the canyons of the coast, to
the Malibu
Where the pretty people play,
hungry for power
to light their neon way
and give them things to do

Some rich men came and raped the land,
Nobody caught 'em
Put up a bunch of ugly boxes, and Jesus,
people bought 'em
And they called it paradise
The place to be
They watched the hazy sun, sinking in the sea ""
 
May 23, 2010
2,409
0
0
""Liberals are frustrated with Barack Obama for not aggressively pushing gun control, but you wouldn't know it from the National Rifle Association's annual meeting.

With no clearly preferred Republican candidate among the 70,000 people who descended on the convention center here this weekend, Obama's name came up more than any other.

Leaders of the powerful gun lobby talked as if the president had declared an all-out war on the Second Amendment. The dire rhetoric is intended to galvanize activists going into the 2012 election season, despite huge legislative gains last November and significant progress advancing their agenda at the state level.

"In Barack Obama, we have a president who is more opposed to gun ownership than any in our history and who still believes he'll prevail," said conservative activist David Keene, the NRA's incoming president. "Make no mistake about it: Barack Obama, his minions in the Justice Department, his allies in the Congress, and his friends in the media would take our guns if they could and they will if they can."""
 
Jul 9, 2009
6,625
0
0
redtreviso said:
""Liberals are frustrated with Barack Obama for not aggressively pushing gun control, but you wouldn't know it from the National Rifle Association's annual meeting.

With no clearly preferred Republican candidate among the 70,000 people who descended on the convention center here this weekend, Obama's name came up more than any other.

Leaders of the powerful gun lobby talked as if the president had declared an all-out war on the Second Amendment. The dire rhetoric is intended to galvanize activists going into the 2012 election season, despite huge legislative gains last November and significant progress advancing their agenda at the state level.

"In Barack Obama, we have a president who is more opposed to gun ownership than any in our history and who still believes he'll prevail," said conservative activist David Keene, the NRA's incoming president. "Make no mistake about it: Barack Obama, his minions in the Justice Department, his allies in the Congress, and his friends in the media would take our guns if they could and they will if they can."""
But it's not because he's black, oh nosiree.:rolleyes:





Disclaimer; Glenn this is not aimed at you, I know you are not amongst that crowd.
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,080
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Well, I think you are only a few years from getting exactly what you want. Let's hope it does not end up like public education.
This is a pretty naive view......

First, there are plenty of examples throughout the world where government run, or heavily regulated private, healthcare works very well. Here is a pretty good rundown of several of them: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

Second, there are no proposals (at least there weren't 12 months ago when I left the US) for US government-run healthcare, just regulations to prevent Insurance companies from ripping people off and denying coverage as soon as those covered get sick. The only people that benefit from the current US healthcare system are the insurance companies and their stockholders. Everyone else is getting screwed!
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,280
0
0
redtreviso said:
""Then the chilly winds blew down
Across the desert
through the canyons of the coast, to
the Malibu
Where the pretty people play,
hungry for power
to light their neon way
and give them things to do

Some rich men came and raped the land,
Nobody caught 'em
Put up a bunch of ugly boxes, and Jesus,
people bought 'em
And they called it paradise
The place to be
They watched the hazy sun, sinking in the sea ""

What in the hELL are you smoking?
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
1
0
Osama DEAD.

Osama.............DEAD .....burn in hell you SOB.

Thank you President Obama. I think that is A mission accomplished!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Cobber said:
This is a pretty naive view......

First, there are plenty of examples throughout the world where government run, or heavily regulated private, healthcare works very well. Here is a pretty good rundown of several of them: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

Second, there are no proposals (at least there weren't 12 months ago when I left the US) for US government-run healthcare, just regulations to prevent Insurance companies from ripping people off and denying coverage as soon as those covered get sick. The only people that benefit from the current US healthcare system are the insurance companies and their stockholders. Everyone else is getting screwed!

The last hundred or so pages the debate has been raging about how crappy our public education system is. The underlying theme seems to be a lack of funding particularly when it come to teachers compensation. The thought seems to be that teacher comp packages need to be significantly higher to attract the best and brightest.

Meanwhile, doctors in Germany earn 1/2 of what American doctors earn. Are the German people getting the very best pursuing a career in medicine??

I'm guessing (probably) not.

Naive? Maybe. I think the left in this country has all but convinced the American people that the government is best to handle a multitude of (what used to be) personal decisions.

We just can't do it without the bureaucrats help. We just can't.

Naive or not, that is where we are headed and not just with healthcare.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Glenn_Wilson said:
Osama.............DEAD .....burn in hell you SOB.

Thank you President Obama. I think that is A mission accomplished!
That's big. Really big.

A big step for the Obama admin and our intelligence/military. Well done.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
S General 11
Similar threads
2019 Rugby World Cup

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS