In the 8 years I bitched and bitched and bitched about George W. Bush, I would like to apologize for voting for Barack Obama. I don't know who this man is, he is not the man I voted for, it is like Goldman Sachs and the Carlyle group killed the guy who ran for president and stuck in a clone to do their bidding.
He's not running for re-election in 2012, he's governing like he believes the world will end in 2012.
When he came out with TARP IV, I said it was the worst Idea in modern history, probably since Hitler. Then when he said he'd fine people $1000 dollars for not having health insurance, I said "F*** Y***".
Almost all of my economic predictions have come true.
We are headed for total disaster.
Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan and the other satanic demons have took the bailout money and SPECULATED the meteoric rise in oil prices. All the banks that took bailout money? Their stocks are 3 times their low at the moment, where most companies stocks haven't even doubled from their low.
JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, BOA and the rest just posted RECORD profits this quarter, 6 months from the bailout. How did they do it? TRADING.
Wake up, America. The evidence is in front of your eyes.
ALL our national politicians are EVIL. EVIL. EVIL.
T
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
What do you propose is the remedy for this?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I have a sneaking suspicion the remedy will involve long, rambling, extremely critical Monday morning quarterbacking posts.
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
Capital letters will really enhance the rambling posts, though. They give the eye something to catch on.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Hitler
gasp hitler
quote:satanic demons
gasp satanic demons
quote:Wake up, America. The evidence is in front of your eyes.
ALL our national politicians are EVIL. EVIL. EVIL.
gasp danlo
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I voted for Pres. Obama, not becuase I thought he was the messiah, but because the other choice was McCain.... I was raised in Arizona, am infatuated with his daughter Megan. But if McCain were in office for the N. Korea threats some country in South East Asia would not exist anymore. Politicians have degrees in law, business, and politics if not some hybrid of the three, and I have never trusted any businessman or lier- I mean lawyer. Its all about lesser evils, and McCain is wrinkly evil.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
::::yawn::::
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Hey Danlo, you might like this.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Heavens, it's absolutely terrible that banks we gave money to have gotten back on their feet! I'd much rather they languish in putrid incompetency for several more decades like Chrysler and Harley Davidson, that way we can bail them out some more!
It would have been far more tactful for these banks to slow down their recovery time so at least it looks like they put alot of effort into it. Bless those patriotic banks like Bear Stearns, and little guy loving Lehman Brothers, who charitably collapsed before funds could be marshaled and wasted on their resuscitation.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
The problem is that banks like Goldman Sachs didnt need our money in the first place.
My question is this, when do we get our money back? theyre showing profits equal and greater than the money we loaned them, so why cant they give back the money when it would come out of thier profits?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Lisa: Come now, how can you head such a group when it's almost a certainty you did not vote for Obama?
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Danlo the Wild: He's not running for re-election in 2012, he's governing like he believes the world will end in 2012.
You realize, don't you, that it will?
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
Strider -
The remedy I would suggest is illegal for me to even suggest.
Black -
Henry Paulson was the CEO of Goldman Sachs before he became Head of the Fed. Then at the end of his term, right after Goldman Sachs two biggest rivals fail, he bails out the entire banking industry? And six months after the 'Financial Crisis' Goldman Sachs posts record profits? And how did they do it? TRADING ON THE STOCK MARKET.
But, I guess if the banks needed to take the bailout money and pump it into Crude commodities and shorting the real estate market. That's ok. Because it is legal and it made them a lot of money.
All the banks that 'failed' and needed a bailout, failed on the SAME DAY and all had the highest Credit rating
Goldman Sachs was the first in line to payback their 'loan' and the first one who doesn't have to report its bonuses to our Government.
Bill O'Reilly did a long piece on how Goldman Sachs paid ZERO corporate taxes last year. It seems that 10,000 of the 52,000 pages of the Tax Code are written for Goldman and Sachs.
Hey. 8 more 'small banks' (2 billion and under) failed on Friday! The FDIC swooped in and picked up all the toxic assets and the good assets were quickly sold to JPMorgan.
Since 1980, there have been 21 major Bank Bailouts, each bailout was solver with cash infusions. Not once has anything been done to solve the problem.
But hey. With REAL unemployment at 12% to 15% and the economy contracting at a catastrophic rate, The Banks are raking in mass profits from short term Stock Trading. And that's ok, right?
Goldman Sachs DESERVES all those billions because it is damn hard work being an investment firm for Governments, Corporations and Earth's wealthiest families. Goldman Sachs needs that money so they can continue to revolutionize our economy with great inventions! They were the men of courage who brought us the monetization of Debt and then resold the debt into hedge funds and money markets where the working class was locked into their 401k's.
Where would our country be without great men like that?
So of course! When the stock market hits rock bottom, the best thing to do is give cash to those banks and investment firms, so they can re-invest in the stock market.
Great news! Not only did Goldman Sachs report $3.4 billion in profit from trading this quarter, but their stock is now at $148! Wow, and to think, that only 6 months ago it was at $45 dollars.
Hmmm. I remember when Warren Buffett got on the TV and said that he was investing $8 billion in Goldman Sachs to help the economy. Wow! He made $16 billion in 6 months!
Have no fear kids! Nancy Pelosi. Barney Frank. Goldman Sachs. JPMorgan. The Carlyle Group. And OPEC. Are good Christian people who care about the children. They are going to do everything they can to make sure that America is #1 forever and always!
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
I thought that the bank bailout was done during the previous administration?
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
Goldman Sachs is a bank holding company that engages in investment banking, securities services and investment management. The firm has offices in all global financial centers and acts as a financial advisor and money manager for corporations, governments, and wealthy families around the world.
Goldman offers its clients mergers & acquisitions advice, underwriting services, asset management, and engages in proprietary trading, and private equity deals. It is a primary dealer in the U.S. Treasury securities market.
The firm is also heavily involved in energy trading, including the oil speculation market, on both a principal and agent basis. Its sizable profits made during the 2007 Subprime mortgage financial crisis led the New York Times to proclaim that Goldman Sachs is without peer in the world of finance.
Today, the company ranks #1 in Annual Net Income when compared with 86 peers in the Investment Services sector. Blankfein earned a $67.9 million bonus in his first year. He chose to receive "some" cash unlike former United States Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson, his predecessor who chose to take his bonus entirely in company stock.
Recently Goldman Sachs has been increasingly involved in both advising and brokering deals to privatize major highways by selling them off to foreign investors. In addition to advising Indiana on the Toll Road deal, Goldman Sachs has worked with Texas governor Rick Perry's administration on privatization projects, and according to John Schmidt, the former adviser to the Chicago mayor's office, it was a Goldman Sachs representative who first pitched the city on the idea of leasing out the Skyway. Goldman Sachs has played a major role in advising states on how to structure privatization deals—even while positioning itself to invest in the toll road market. Conflicts of interest in such transactions are difficult to quantify.
In May 2006, Henry Paulson left the firm to serve as U.S. Treasury Secretary.
On September 21, 2008, Goldman Sachs received Federal Reserve approval to transition from an investment bank to a bank holding company
In March 2009 it was reported that in 2008, Goldman Sachs, alongside other major US and international financial institutions, had received billions of dollars during the unwind of insurance arrangements purchased from AIG, including $12.9 billion from funds provided by the US Federal Reserve to bail out AIG.
And although Goldman was among ten large financial institutions that the Treasury allowed to pay back their TARP emergency capital infusions, the firm still has benefits from $28 billion in subsidization from the government in form of cheap debt backed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Their Investment Banking is divided into two divisions and includes Financial Advisory (mergers and acquisitions, investitures, corporate defense activities, restructurings and spin-offs) and Underwriting (public offerings and private placements of equity, equity-related and debt instruments)
On November 11, 2008, the Los Angeles Times reported that Goldman Sachs, which earned $25 M from underwriting California bonds, had advised other clients to "short" those bonds. Shorting is essentially betting that the state will default on the bonds, which serves to drive up the cost of the issue to the state.
During 2008 Goldman Sachs came under criticism for an apparent revolving-door relationship in which its employees and consultants have moved in and out of powerful US Government positions, where there may exist the potential for a conflict of interest. Former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson was a former CEO of Goldman Sachs. The current chief economic adviser to President Obama, Lawrence Summers, was noted for receiving $5.2 million from hedge fund D.E. Shaw in 2008 and speaking fees (ranging from $45 thousand to $135 thousand per event) from banks including Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch at a time when he was expected to become the most influential financial official in the U.S. Government. Former bank regulator William K. Black, appearing on Bill Moyers Journal on April 3, 2009, accused the financial industry of massive fraud, citing the role Tim Geithner played before being promoted to Treasury Secretary as well as the successful efforts of Alan Greenspan, former Goldman CEO Robert Rubin (Geithner's mentor) and Larry Summers in the late 1990s to block regulation of the financial derivatives market. According to Brooksley Born, former head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Summers, Rubin and Greenspan blocked her efforts to regulate the derivatives market, on the grounds that the financial industry were objecting.
Additional controversy attended the selection of former Goldman Sachs lobbyist Mark Patterson as chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Geithner, despite President Barack Obama's pledge to limit the influence of lobbyists in his administration.
In July 2009, Rolling Stone contributer Matt Taibbi published an article on Goldman Sachs titled, 'The Great American Bubble Machine', where he condemns the company as "a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money," and going on to assert that Goldman Sachs and similar companies have come out ahead in every economic recession and bubble since The Great Depression.
As of June 22, 2009, the company was on track to complete its "most profitable year ever".
In May 2009, it was reported that the Chairman of the New York Fed, Stephen Friedman, was a former-director at, and shareholder of Goldman Sachs, having retired from the firm in 1994 and retained substantial stock. The controversy and criticism caused by what was seen as a conflict of interest between Friedman's new role as supervisor and regulator to Goldman Sachs (due to its conversion from securities firm to a bank holding company), and in particular, his purchase of shares in the firm when it traded at historical lows in Q4 2008, forced him to resign on May 7 2009.
On May 10, 2009 the Goldman Sachs Group agreed to pay up to $60 million to end an investigation by the Massachusetts attorney general’s office into whether the firm helped promote unfair home loans in the state. Michael DuVally, a spokesman for Goldman said it was “pleased to have resolved this matter,” and declined to comment further.
Despite the 2007 subprime mortgage crisis, Goldman was able to profit from the collapse in subprime mortgage bonds in the summer of 2007 by selling subprime mortgage-backed securities short. Two Goldman traders, Michael Swenson and Josh Birnbaum, are credited with bearing responsibility for the firm's large profits during America's sub-prime mortgage crisis. The pair, who are part of Goldman's structured products group in New York, made a profit of $4 billion by "betting" on a collapse in the sub-prime market, and shorting mortgage-related securities.
In 2006, Goldmans Sachs' mortgage-bonds division, Alternative Mortgage Products (known as GSAMP for short), issued 83 home-loan-backed bonds, valued at $44.5 billion. In the subprime sector, it grew its business by 59% from 2005, offloading some $12.9 billion on to fund managers.
According to Inside Mortgage Finance, that made GSAMP the 15th biggest issuer of subprime-backed bonds in 2006. According to the website ABAlert.com (Asset-backed Alert), Goldman Sachs was one of the top 10 sellers of Collateralized Mortgage Obligations (CMO's) and may have sold about $100 billion in CMO's over the last two and a half years.
Allan Sloane in The Washington Post stated that one of Goldman's 2006 crop - the GSAMP Trust 2006- S3 - may actually be "the worst deal…floated by a top-tier firm." One in every six of the 8,274 mortgages bundled together in GSAMP Trust 2006-S3 was already in default 18 months later. Whoever bought the S3 bonds will have either taken a 100% loss, or are waiting to sell it off at a heavy discount.
Ian Welsh:
Zero Hedge has made the case that Goldman could be using their program trading to move the markets in the direction they prefer, as the largest program trader in the market, twice as large as the next biggest. The case was reasonably strong, but was made stronger when the New York Stock Exchange suddenly decided to stop releasing the data on program trading which made it possible to track what Goldman was doing.
Goldman's profits only count as "profit" if you consider a pass-through federal subsidy to AIG, quick and easy loans and multiple bailout programs made available to them by the FDIC and the Fed after converting themselves into a bank holding company, the forced collapse of much of its competition and fees from stock issuance from other banks having to repay TARP to be something based on hard work and ingenuity and not political connections and corporate welfare.
Les Leopold:
I'm starting to wonder about the mental health of our nation when I read stuff like, "Analysts estimate that [Goldman Sachs] will set aside enough money to pay a total of $18 billion in compensation and benefits this year.
Robert Reich:
Goldman's resurgence should send shivers down the backs of every hardworking American who has lost a large chunk of retirement savings in this economic debacle, as well as the millions who have lost their jobs. Why? Because Goldman's high-risk business model hasn't changed one bit from what it was before the implosion of Wall Street. Goldman is still wagering its capital and fueling giant bets with lots of borrowed money. While its rivals have pared back risks, Goldman has increased them. And its renewed success at this old game will only encourage other big banks to go back into it.
The New York Times adds:
On Thursday, JPMorgan Chase became the latest big bank to announce stellar second-quarter earnings. Its $2.7 billion profit, after record gains for Goldman Sachs, underscores how the government's effort to halt a collapse has also set the stage for a narrowing concentration of financial power. Both banks now stand astride post-bailout Wall Street, having benefited from billions of dollars in taxpayer support and cheap government financing to climb over banks that continue to struggle. They are capitalizing on the turmoil in financial markets and their rivals' weakness to pull in billions in trading profits.
Paul Krugman weighs in:
Goldman made profits by playing the rest of us for suckers. And Wall Streeters have every incentive to keep playing that kind of game. The huge bonuses Goldman will soon hand out show that financial-industry highfliers are still operating under a system of heads they win, tails other people lose. ... The bottom line is that Goldman's blowout quarter is good news for Goldman and the people who work there. It's good news for financial superstars in general, whose paychecks are rapidly climbing back to precrisis levels. But it's bad news for almost everyone else.
As of June 22, 2009, the company was on track to complete its "most profitable year ever".
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Originally posted by Danlo the Wild: In the 8 years I bitched and bitched and bitched about George W. Bush, I would like to apologize for voting for Barack Obama.
As someone who always thought W did the best he could with a lousy situation, I appreciate that.
I don't know who this man is, he is not the man I voted for, it is like Goldman Sachs and the Carlyle group killed the guy who ran for president and stuck in a clone to do their bidding.
My biggest argument against Obama was that he didn't have enough experience for us to know how he'd go about doing all the spiffy things he said he would. I maintain people voted more for the idea of the man than the man himself. The idea was good, but devil and details and all.
When he came out with TARP IV, I said it was the worst Idea in modern history, probably since Hitler.
Unfortunately, it was bailout the biggest banks or rewrite the laws that made them essential to business. When utilities have to borrow tens of millions to get anything done, there has to be someone with tens of millions to lend them. Smaller banks just don't have the assests for it. Bailing out the banks was easier than actually looking at the laws and improving them.
Then when he said he'd fine people $1000 dollars for not having health insurance, I said "F*** Y***".
This is the one that really confuses me. I don't get the new insurance proposal. It seems like it'll help people with pre-existing conditions and the insurance companies. I don't see where it helps the working poor, unemployed, or homeless. Aren't these the people that are supposedly destroying the system with their lack of access to preventative care who run up emergency room bills that can't be paid?
The unemployed and homeless can't afford anything, fine or no fine, so they can't buy insurance. Without access to free preventative care, their situation doesn't change. And the working poor have enough problems to worry about, they're going to have to pick the cheapest plans. Assuming that's the government plan, it'll probably be like Medicare where it underpays doctors and they won't take it. So now they'll be paying for the privilege of having no access to a regular doctor.
I'm still praying the Democrats have the sense to see that this doesn't help the people it's supposed to. It's one thing to help the insurance companies out, but I don't like the government conning us about what it's up to.
We are headed for total disaster.
Well, we're not headed for anything good, anyway.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Lisa: Come now, how can you head such a group when it's almost a certainty you did not vote for Obama?
Are homeless shelters built by the homeless?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
also, that group isn't so much a group of people who are upset with the difference between Obama the campaigner and Obama the president, but a mean spirited attack on the pres.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: I maintain people voted more for the idea of the man than the man himself.
:yawn:
ooo Rivka, that's contagious!
Avid, how 'bouts you let the people who voted for him tell you why they voted for him, rather than infer what you want to believe. Since I know you've been told plenty of times why people voted for him, and I'm fairly sure that your answer was either never expressed, or was a tiny minority, maybe you should, you know, listen to those people and maybe take them at their word- it would help everyone.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Danlo the Wild: When he came out with TARP IV, I said it was the worst Idea in modern history, probably since Hitler. Then when he said he'd fine people $1000 dollars for not having health insurance, I said "F*** Y***".
OK, I give up. Which four-letter censor-worthy profanity starts with a Y?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Lisa: Come now, how can you head such a group when it's almost a certainty you did not vote for Obama?
Are homeless shelters built by the homeless?
The very first line of the group's little rant/purpose statement:
quote:This is a group for anyone who voted for Barack Obama
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Lisa: Come now, how can you head such a group when it's almost a certainty you did not vote for Obama?
Are homeless shelters built by the homeless?
Point taken.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Lisa: Come now, how can you head such a group when it's almost a certainty you did not vote for Obama?
Are homeless shelters built by the homeless?
The very first line of the group's little rant/purpose statement:
quote:This is a group for anyone who voted for Barack Obama
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
I repeat: Are homeless shelters built by the homeless?
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: I maintain people voted more for the idea of the man than the man himself.
:yawn:
ooo Rivka, that's contagious!
Avid, how 'bouts you let the people who voted for him tell you why they voted for him, rather than infer what you want to believe. Since I know you've been told plenty of times why people voted for him, and I'm fairly sure that your answer was either never expressed, or was a tiny minority, maybe you should, you know, listen to those people and maybe take them at their word- it would help everyone.
Ok, let me ask you then. Do you feel you knew enough about Obama when you voted for him to anticipate his current actions?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Of course not. Why would I need to be able to anticipate someone's actions in order to vote for him? The President is privy to a great deal more information than the voters- we vote for a leader, not just a representative to carry out our will.
That said, it so happens that nothing Obama has done so far surprises me. He himself has warned the public, repeatedly and explicitly, that the situation is going to get worse before it gets better. I voted for him because I believed he had the judgment, the temperament, and the skills to do his job well- not because I believed he could do more than was possible. So far I haven't been disappointed by him at all. Is that not good enough for you? Would you prefer that I would wish toa substitute my own judgment for the President's? You see, it was never that I thought I knew more than Bush did about the situation he was in, but with Bush I was convinced that he was not the best person to do his job. I wasn't old enough to have voted against him in 2000, but it didn't take only 6 months for me to decide I would not vote to re-elect him- he had ample opportunity, much more than Barack has yet been afforded, to prove that he was a disaster as President.
So what do you want? A President who acts according to a rigid set of predictable behaviors that you can rely upon no matter the changing situation? Sounds like you were pretty happy with Bush! God knows why...
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Lisa: Come now, how can you head such a group when it's almost a certainty you did not vote for Obama?
Are homeless shelters built by the homeless?
The very first line of the group's little rant/purpose statement:
quote:This is a group for anyone who voted for Barack Obama
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
I repeat: Are homeless shelters built by the homeless?
Your analogy doesn't hold. homeless people can't build their own shelters. Why do you assume that disgruntled Obama supporters can't start their own facebook group? Why have you nominated yourself as the facilitator of this Buyer's Remorse group?
Now, someone may have many legitimate reasons for being disappointed with Obama's presidency. I'm not arguing that. But when you include lines like this:
quote:Feel free to list your own reasons for regretting having elected this buffoon.
it doesn't seem like your focus is to point out legitimate reasons why President Obama did not hold up to the promise of candidate Obama, but to use that page as a vessel to air the same negative feelings and ideas you had before the election.
I'll also mention, that while i was, and still am, a strong supporter of Obama, he has done things in office that I've been extremely disappointed with. But the idea of buyer's remorse is silly. He's got a long long way to go before he can disappoint me as much as simply having McCain in office, and i've been incredibly pleased with most of his actions thus far.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
BlackBlade, it's not a valid point, so I don't know why you're taking it.
Nor is the question, "Are homeless shelters built by the homeless?"
Lisa, the title of the group you recommended to THOR was 'Official Presidential Buyers' Remorse Group'. The description of the group is as follows:
quote: This is a group for anyone who voted for Barack Obama, either in the primaries or the presidential election, and who has the creeping suspicion that they may have made a really, really bad mistake.
So by the group's own name and description, unless you voted for President Obama, you shouldn't be in the group. Your recommendation to THOR, on the other hand, is valid as he at least meets the group's membership requirements.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:The remedy I would suggest is illegal for me to even suggest.
Even as a joke, the fact that you thought it was worth typing makes it very difficult for me to consider anything else you've written.
Also not sure why the buyer's remorse about TARP, which started long before Obama took office. Most of the dates in your history lesson above are 2008 and earlier. You're saying Obama should not have carried out legislation created before his term?
If there's a specific change Obama made or requested to be made to TARP, maybe that's what you should talk about?
I'd also be interested in hearing what you have done differently. (Seriously, no sarcasm, I'd like to know. Personally I'd have overhauled the regulatory agencies and given them teeth while the bailout was getting settled so that there'd be actual oversight in place before dollar one was handed over. And I would have stuck to tougher restrictions on bonuses and existing management. Don't like it, you can let your company die.)
quote:Then when he said he'd fine people $1000 dollars for not having health insurance, I said "F*** Y***".
Not for not having health insurance. For refusing to get health insurance, which is supposed to become cheaper with restrictions against premium rates for existing conditions. And the bill states that there will be exemptions for hardship cases. It's based on the existing system already in place in Massachusetts. At no point was it suggested that everyone without insurance would be fined, although that's how the blowhards are spinning it.
The analogy given is that of car insurance for drivers, which isn't quite accurate since you can always choose not to drive.
I think before I can pass judgment I'll want a detailed breakdown of what the proposed insurance will cost an uninsured family or single person, and what exactly is considered a hardship case. Still too many unanswered questions for me.
However, I can't say I have a problem with putting the cost of health care on the people who incur it. From USA Today: "The average U.S. family and their employers paid an extra $1,017 in health care premiums last year to compensate for the uninsured, according to a study to be released Thursday by an advocacy group for health care consumers." Granted, that's from an advocacy group so take it with several pounds of salt.
If you're uninsured because you can't afford it or because you had a pre-existing condition, hopefully the new reduced costs will now fit in your budget. If you still can't afford it, you should meet the "hardship" requirements (still waiting to hear about that). But if you're uninsured because you just don't want to, and I'm the one paying to cover your medical bills, then hell yes I think you should be fined for it. Why should I pay for you?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I repeat: Are homeless shelters built by the homeless?
Do the people who build the homeless shelters subsequently take up residence there?
gg
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I repeat: Are homeless shelters built by the homeless?
Do the people who build the homeless shelters subsequently take up residence there?
gg
You do realize that you can't start a group on Facebook and then leave it empty, right?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yes.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Of course not. Why would I need to be able to anticipate someone's actions in order to vote for him? The President is privy to a great deal more information than the voters- we vote for a leader, not just a representative to carry out our will.
That said, it so happens that nothing Obama has done so far surprises me. He himself has warned the public, repeatedly and explicitly, that the situation is going to get worse before it gets better. I voted for him because I believed he had the judgment, the temperament, and the skills to do his job well- not because I believed he could do more than was possible. So far I haven't been disappointed by him at all. Is that not good enough for you? Would you prefer that I would wish toa substitute my own judgment for the President's? You see, it was never that I thought I knew more than Bush did about the situation he was in, but with Bush I was convinced that he was not the best person to do his job. I wasn't old enough to have voted against him in 2000, but it didn't take only 6 months for me to decide I would not vote to re-elect him- he had ample opportunity, much more than Barack has yet been afforded, to prove that he was a disaster as President.
So what do you want? A President who acts according to a rigid set of predictable behaviors that you can rely upon no matter the changing situation? Sounds like you were pretty happy with Bush! God knows why...
Fair enough. A lot of what I've been hearing from people is that Obama is not what they expected and they're disappointed with him. For them, they probably voted more for who they thought he was than who he is.
And yes, I like predictability. I like it when people say they believe in a set of principles and then act accordingly. I think W did that for the most part. I didn't always agree with him, but I did always believe he was doing what he thought he needed to protect America.
Obama has me a bit more confused. I'm not sure I understand yet how some of his plans match his ideals. I'm waiting to see how it unfolds. I'm not ready to say he's a Goldman Sach's clone, but I can see how people besides just Thor might feel let down.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Are homeless shelters built by the homeless?
If there were zero cost and marginal effort required to build them? Yeah, that would probably be who builds them.
One might even look a bit askance at any non-homeless people who were making of point of making shelters for people that are able to make them themselves for pretty much the effort required to wish them into existence.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: BlackBlade, it's not a valid point, so I don't know why you're taking it.
Nor is the question, "Are homeless shelters built by the homeless?"
Lisa, the title of the group you recommended to THOR was 'Official Presidential Buyers' Remorse Group'. The description of the group is as follows:
quote: This is a group for anyone who voted for Barack Obama, either in the primaries or the presidential election, and who has the creeping suspicion that they may have made a really, really bad mistake.
So by the group's own name and description, unless you voted for President Obama, you shouldn't be in the group. Your recommendation to THOR, on the other hand, is valid as he at least meets the group's membership requirements.
If I were to find out the head of a major SSM advocacy group was a heterosexual man or woman, I wouldn't think it mars their message. Nor does the abolition movement having been lead by white non slave owners render their efforts hypocritical.
If Lisa wants to benevolently restrain herself from saying "I told you so" to a group of remorseful Obama voters, it seems her papers are still in order so to speak.
But beyond that, Lisa has been strongly suspicious of Obama's character from the moment she learned he even existed. I think she is a bit excessively critical of him, but I doubt I have the wherewithal to change her mind, so I'd rather accept her point about the homeless, rather than head in the inevitable direction of arguing about Obama's character.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
From the Facebook page:
quote:* Almost every one of his cabinet appointments has been either withdrawn because of tax evasion or approved despite tax evasion.
I count 5.
Tom Daschle withdrew after it was revealed he didn't pay more than $100,000 in taxes on a car and driver provided by a friend and on consulting fees after he left the Senate. Nancy Killefer withdrew because of a lien against her home for failure to pay unemployment tax for household help. Hilda Solis was confirmed despite outstanding liens being paid the day before. Timothy Geithner was confirmed despite $34,000 in self-employment taxes still owed. Ron Kirk was confirmed despite owing $10,000 in back taxes for speaking fees over three years and other tax issues.
Several others dropped out for various reasons, some because of scandal or investigation (Richardson) and some for unspecified reasons (Jane Garvey, Caroline Atkinson, Annette Nazareth, Dr. Sanjay Gupta). And 5 nominees guilty of tax evasion is certainly something that should shame Obama, his fact-checkers, and his supporters.
But out of 18 cabinet posts, 5 is hardly "almost all."
quote: * He has demonstrated a habit of withdrawing ideas once people object (such as mandatory public service), and then reintroducing them on the down low so that no one will notice.
When did he call for mandatory public service? He has called for voluntary public service many times, during the campaign and as president. And he signed a national service bill that tripled the size of the AmeriCorps service program over the next eight years and provided students and seniors with ways to earn money for college through volunteer work. Please cite precisely where he has ever called for mandatory public service.
quote:* He proposed (and will eventually push through) that veterans should have to pay for their own health insurance.
No, he didn't. There was an idea floated to have veterans' existing insurance companies cover war-related injuries, but it was made clear at the time that veterans themselves would not pay an extra dime, even if those companies ordinarily had deductibles, and they would not have to get insurance if they didn't already have it. Veterans' organizations pointed out that the administration's plan might indeed cost the veterans more and Obama dropped it immediately. Done. Where is your evidence that he plans to push it through anyway?
Lisa, when you start talking about Obama I just shut it out because of exaggerations and hyperbole such as this, and that's a shame because when he does screw up I want to know about it. But when you cry wolf so many times, no one's going to hear you when you're right.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If I were to find out the head of a major SSM advocacy group was a heterosexual man or woman, I wouldn't think it mars their message. Nor does the abolition movement having been lead by white non slave owners render their efforts hypocritical.
BlackBlade,
It's all good that Lisa wants to hate on President Obama-American right and all. But your likening it to a heterosexual heading a SSM advocacy group doesn't really wash, because it's not really the same situation as Lisa's here unless the advocacy group was named 'Gays for Gay Rights' and the leader and founder was a straight guy.
It's not hypocritical for Lisa to belong to a group expressing discontent with Pres. Obama. It's hypocritical for Lisa to belong to a group purporting to express discontent with Pres. Obama after voting for him, which unless I'm mistaken she never did.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: ... One might even look a bit askance at any non-homeless people who were making of point of making shelters for people that are able to make them themselves for pretty much the effort required to wish them into existence.
My thoughts precisely.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I believe there is little difference between the government and the tabacco industry. So many brands to choose from, all owned by the same company. There is little difference between the parties other than ultralight, light, menthol and full flavor. I only wonder what percentage of the American economy the government will control before the next presidential election. Health Care-16% of the US economy. How about banking, auto production, energy, oil, insurance and housing (latest great idea, govt owns and rents forclosures to people). By the time the next elections comes, the Fed will be in control of at least half the US economy. Maybe they'll let us run diners -- or maybe not --- they'll regulate trans fats and put the diners out of business before it's over. Both parties are on the same cancerous path. The only difference is, one is filterless. It's all marketing and lies. They stand there and tell you the government doesn't plan to take over the entire industry and Obama promises, "You like what you have keep it". Problem is, the bill outlaws all new private sector policies. In other words, you change jobs, you're forced on the government policy. You can never change policies. Outlaws the establishment of new policies in the private sector. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2009/07/16/bozell-media-read-health-care-bill-reporting-it
Do you want to buy a slap-chop. Our politicians are dime store pitchmen, both sides. Obama is trying to appear fiscally conservative by calling for 100 Million in cuts. The sheep will see these cuts and he'll make a television appearance as being fiscally conservative and you'll fall in line. Forgetting the fact he made a 1.5 Trillion dollar one year deficit. The same people who fall for the 90% sale at the jewelry store. (one week after they marked up the price 300%)
Lets do the math....he'll be out bragging about being such a fiscal conservative for saving .001% of the biggest one year deficit in the history of mankind. Half of this country can't point out Montana on a map thanks to their "free" government education and will vote for him again. 100 million vs 1 trillion, may as well say infinity times infinity to the average voter (and the politicians know it). The same people who buy the line that he "saved or created 150,000 jobs" in the month we lost a million. Marketing....there is no measure of "jobs saved or created" but the poparazzi culture will buy that line. Keep paying attention to the death of Michael Jackson, that's more important than Iran's nuclear capability.
[ July 20, 2009, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I believe there is little difference between the government and the tabacco industry.
I believe that Unicorns and Leprechauns are second cousins.
We believe things! Yay!
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I believe there is little difference between the government and the tabacco industry. So many brands to choose from, all owned by the same company. There is little difference between the parties other than ultralight, light, menthol and full flavor. I only wonder what percentage of the American economy the government will control before the next presidential election. Health Care-16% of the US economy. How about banking, auto production, energy, oil, insurance and housing (latest great idea, govt owns and rents forclosures to people). By the time the next elections comes, the Fed will be in control of at least half the US economy. Maybe they'll let us run diners -- or maybe not --- they'll regulate trans fats and put the diners out of business before it's over. Both parties are on the same cancerous path. The only difference is, one is filterless. It's all marketing and lies. They stand there and tell you the government doesn't plan to take over the entire industry and Obama promises, "You like your health care, keep it". Problem is, the bill outlaws all new private sector policies. In other words, you change jobs, you're forced on the government policy. You can never change policies. Outlaws the establishment of new policies in the private sector. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2009/07/16/bozell-media-read-health-care-bill-reporting-it
Do you want to buy a slap-chop. Our politicians are dime store pitchmen, both sides. Obama is trying to appear fiscally conservative by calling for 100 Million in cuts. The sheep will see these cuts and he'll make a television appearance as being fiscally conservative and you'll fall in line. Forgetting the fact he made a 1.5 Trillion dollar one year deficit. The same people who fall for the 90% sale at the jewelry store. (one week after they marked up the price 300%)
Lets do the math....he'll be out bragging about being such a fiscal conservative for saving .001% of the biggest one year deficit in the history of mankind. Half of this country can't point out Montana on a map thanks to their "free" government education and will vote for him again. 100 million vs 1 trillion, may as well say infinity times infinity to the average voter (and the politicians know it). The same people who buy the line that he "saved or created 150,000 jobs" in the month we lost a million. Marketing....there is no measure of "jobs saved or created" but the poparazzi culture will buy that line. Keep paying attention to the death of Michael Jackson, that's more important than Iran's nuclear capability.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Uhhh.
Best rebuttal EVER.
See, there are very few people who could go from equating the government to tobacco companies (spelling is key here, btw), to a doomsday scenario about fascism, or Leninism, or whatever the hell you think you're describing, then jump off to a little riff on those ugly politicians and "slap chops" (wtf?), then a little hackneyed jab at "half the country" and it's inability to do x simple task (allegedly), then send it home with a bowl of sour grapes about the paparazzi, mistakenly equating them with the actual media (can you imagine paparazzi covering Korea? Because I'm fascinated by the prospect), and serving that up as an example of why America sucks.
It's not that your rambling, incoherent, verbal diarrhea is all rather silly and simplistic and sort of laughable, even as it remains almost utterly unreadable, it's that you write as if you truly believe that your piss is perfume. That's what really impresses me.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Did you catch Barack on the ESPI's last night.....? Isn't it great?? I'm sure it guaranteed votes from the people who only care about sports sector of the voting population.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
We now have no reason not to assume that malanthrop = Thor. Thanks for clearing it up.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: When did he call for mandatory public service? He has called for voluntary public service many times, during the campaign and as president. And he signed a national service bill that tripled the size of the AmeriCorps service program over the next eight years and provided students and seniors with ways to earn money for college through volunteer work. Please cite precisely where he has ever called for mandatory public service.
quote: Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year.
Which could be interperted as all students in MS, HS, and college had a mandatory community service requirement. After some outrage the website was changed to
quote: Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Who the hell is Thor? Oh, wait....I guess Thor=Beleaured=Shinob=Malanthrop. Not the first time I've been accused of being someone else. No possible way more than one person in the world could have an opinion other than yours.
You didn't answer...wasn't Obama great on ESPI's? Maybe he'll be on Jon Stewart next week.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
mal, seriously, this has nothing whatsoever to do with your opinion. It's entirely about how you present yourself.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Not for not having health insurance. For refusing to get health insurance, which is supposed to become cheaper with restrictions against premium rates for existing conditions.
The bill also states that employers must provide insurance or face a fine of 8% of their payroll so this sort of goes after both groups. The employers and employees. I don't know if a small business who doesn't provide coverage to minimum wage employees will be fined if the employees get health care on their own. My guess is that the business would be fined since the business didn't provide health insurance.
quote: It's based on the existing system already in place in Massachusetts.
[URL=http://www.mahealthconnector.org/portal/site/connector/template.MAXIMIZE/menuitem.3ef8fb03b7fa1ae4a7ca7738e6468a0c/?javax.portlet.tpst=2fdfb140904d489c8781176033468a0c_ws_MX&j avax.portlet.prp_2fdfb140904d489c8781176033468a0c_viewID=content&javax.portlet.prp_2fdfb140904d489c8781176033468a0c_docName=affordability tool&javax.portlet.prp_2fdfb140904d489c8781176033468a0c_folderPath=/FindInsurance/Individual/Affordability Calculator/&javax.portlet.begCacheTok=com.vignette.cachetoken&javax.portlet.endCacheTok=com.vignette.cachetoken]Payment scales according to the Massachusetts system FYI[/URL]
[ July 20, 2009, 10:15 AM: Message edited by: DarkKnight ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
(edit: directed at mal)
Uhuh. That's the reason. Tell yourself that- it has *nothing* to do with the generic nature of your "opinions," which are not so much opinions as they are a collection of postcards strewn with magazine clippings bearing cryptic messages in the words of other people, or of no one in particular. It's not that your personality is big or looming or simply contrary, it's that it is insubstantial, and always trite.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I'll swear on my daughter who is named after my dead sister, I don't know who Thor is. I completely understand how it can never be proven online that I don't have alternate logins. In the short time I've visited this site I've been accused of being three other people thus far. I can only say accept that I am an individual poster (not perpetrating as multiples for backup) or not.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
Damn you!
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: (edit: directed at mal)
Uhuh. That's the reason. Tell yourself that- it has *nothing* to do with the generic nature of your "opinions," which are not so much opinions as they are a collection of postcards strewn with magazine clippings bearing cryptic messages in the words of other people, or of no one in particular. It's not that your personality is big or looming or simply contrary, it's that it is insubstantial, and always trite.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Again, flawless.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: (edit: directed at mal)
Uhuh. That's the reason. Tell yourself that- it has *nothing* to do with the generic nature of your "opinions," which are not so much opinions as they are a collection of postcards strewn with magazine clippings bearing cryptic messages in the words of other people, or of no one in particular. It's not that your personality is big or looming or simply contrary, it's that it is insubstantial, and always trite.
Wow, big words....I'm sure you were quite impressed with yourself for stringing together that statement. Using trite on top of it, I'm sure you've impressed anyone reading this, if not as much as you've impressed yourself.
The words are mine and mine alone. Dismiss everyone who shares the words and opinion if you like. Insubstantial?....don't even know what you mean. Anyone one who can waste their time one a blog is insubstantial. In that arena, you've definitely got me beat. Do you even have a job?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: At the same time President Obama is asking members of Congress to take one of the most politically difficult votes of their careers, he is also pressing lawmakers to give up one of their most valued perks of office: boosting Medicare payments to benefit hometown providers.
quote: Setting reimbursement rates for local hospitals, doctors, home health-care centers and other providers is a legislative ritual that amounts to one of the most effective and lucrative forms of constituent service. Delivering federal money through Medicare, the country's largest insurance program, can be a powerful tool on the campaign trail, allowing lawmakers to argue that they are creating jobs and improving the quality of health care for voters.
Longtime members of Congress have become masters at dominating the tug of war between keeping providers flush and trying to rein in the entitlement program's dramatic growth. House Ways and Means Chairman Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) champions New York City's teaching hospitals. Charles E. Grassley (Iowa), the Senate Finance Committee's ranking Republican, makes sure rural health-care services are amply funded. Months before Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) left office, he secured a permanent 35 percent increase in Medicare payments for Alaska physicians.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Well..I need to get some rest. You see, I work night shift and although I've been supporting myself since I was 16 and worked full time while putting myself through college, I now make over six figures and am considered privileged. I need to pay my fair share to the unfortunate high school dropouts who didn't have the same opportunities that I had. I work two weeks per month for my family and hope the money from my other two weeks is going to good use at the hands of the government.
[ July 20, 2009, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Well..I need to get some rest. You see, I work night shift and although I've been supporting myself since I was 16 and worked full time while putting myself through college, I now make over six figures and am considered privileged. I need to pay my fair share to the unfortunate high school dropouts who didn't have the same opportunities that I had. I work two weeks per month for my family and hope the money from my other two weeks is going to good use at the hands of the government.
Ask yourself that question again when you hop on the freeway, or open an important piece of mail. My parents just moved into a home they built with decades worth of savings, one of the movers noticed my mothers jewelry box and helped himself to four rings. The fact the rings are worth a fortune is inconsequential compared to the emotional bond those particular pieces meant to my mother.
The police were at our house the next day, the work crew were all questioned, prints were lifted off the box, they made an arrest that same morning, obtained a confession, returned the loot to my mother. It was solid police work, I'm more than happy to support those men in what they do.
Oh, btw, why don't you go look up how many people lose their jobs and have their companies actively litigate against them in an attempt to block their claiming unemployment benefits. The state of Maryland had to help out a friend of mine dealing with just that. Your tax dollars working towards stopping greedy corporations from stiffing workers.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You make over six figures on the night shift? Why not take a pay cut and work better hours?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Malanthrop, perhaps the reason folks suspect you're lying is because it's in the experience of plenty of folks that when guys on the Internet make unprompted statements about remarkable life stories and very high salaries, they turn out to be less than trustworthy folks on such matters.
Particularly when they've so very, very clearly got axes to grind.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Well..I need to get some rest. You see, I work night shift and although I've been supporting myself since I was 16 and worked full time while putting myself through college, I now make over six figures and am considered privileged. I need to pay my fair share to the unfortunate high school dropouts who didn't have the same opportunities that I had. I work two weeks per month for my family and hope the money from my other two weeks is going to good use at the hands of the government.
And despite all this money you say you make you are completely incapable of not spontaneously bragging about yourself without being prompted and in the process looking like an egocentric and very silly person!
Go get some rest, buddy. The night shift is killing your poor 'gifted' brain.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, I actually thought his other post was a little more telling of his insecurities- he mocks me for using words like "trite" and "insubstantial?" The obvious implication being that I am using the words as a pretense toward asserting a higher social standing. Weird that he turns around in his next post to brag about his salary, after he's just implied to me that I'm masquerading as some upper class person, but that I probably don't have a job. It's funny how our own insecurities are the ones that come out when we insult other people (my being aware of the double-edged nature of that comment, of course). What hurts us seems like a natural weapon that would work on anyone.
Actually Mal, the brass tacks are that I *didn't* work my way through college (though I worked at different jobs during that time), that I'm glad I didn't have to, and that I am quite happy to continue taking money from my parents when I need it (though truth to tell, it's less and less often necessary), and that I'm quite at peace with and thankful for the luck I have in all of that. Your anger at your parents, or at the obvious injustice of your educational difficulties is a little strange coming from the mouth of someone who wishes nothing more than to allow that situation to continue- you're a bit like a bully who used to picked on, and now romanticizes the experience in order to escape the pain and guilt of your helplessness. We all know what that's like, I expect. One thing I'm not clear on is how you managed to get through college with that kind of attitude towards your fellow students. I met a lot of people like you in school, and a whole lot of them were bitter, angry, impatient, and generally got as little out of their educations as possible. By no means the rule, but it happened.
Come to think Samp, you use a lot of words I don't know... maybe *you* don't have a job! According to the Malanthrop sliding scale, according to your vocabulary and diction, you should be payed even less than I am, which would be hard to do and still eat.
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
Orinoco,
when you sit on your ass all day long and eat tons of twinkies, cakes and cheesy puffs, your body feels bad, making you feel bad, making you want to make others feel bad.
So how about you take passive aggressive pot shots at me then cry like a girl the first time she gets her period when I say you're a tubby mound of lame sauce.
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
I will re-enter the Barack Obama, Goldman Sachs/The Fed, and the Economy discussion in the very near future.
I am taking two classes this semester at two different colleges an hour apart. I had a test in Spanish II today and turned in my first project in Producing the Narrative film.
In the summer, one week is like a regular term month, so I haven't slept in 63 hours. Must sleep. Or drink more beer and stare at the stars.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I would like to add that Obama has acted in just about the way, good and bad, that I expected him to when I voted for him.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I'm not bragging about my income. Mid shift pays differential pay which is higher and I have two jobs, one full time and one part time. I didn't intend to suggest anyone was either rich or unemployed, but to get quick responses from the same few people 24x7 suggests something about their free time.
What the voting suckers out there fail to realize is that income taxes do not apply to the truly wealthy in our society, the one's in control. The Pelosi's, Heinz-Kerry's and Kennedy's inherited vast wealth and do not rely on working/personal annual income and non-profit foundations cover their living expenses. $250k per year is nothing to the powerhouses who sell the class warfare to the suckers out there. They are vastly wealthy, not on income but assets that have already passed through the barrier of taxation. As always, the middle class pays. The dollar has dropped 25% in three months. Anyone suggest adding 25% to the "rich" ceiling of $250k? Since you bought the $250k line during the campaign, adjusted for the tanking dollar shouldn't it now be $315k???
These thresholds are set by the truly wealthy and prevent the middle and upper middle from achieving wealth. When you hit a point where >50% of your annual income is taken from you, it is extremely difficult if not impossible to get past that point. Pelosi, Kerry and Keneddy are well beyond that point. $250k a year to them is a ceiling for little people.
I work very hard and came from very meager means. My lack of sympathy for others is directly tied to my belief in this dream. You drop out and don't work for something better, you get what you deserve. Anyone can achieve in this society....at least for now. How many people do you think are reconsidering majoring in Medicine right now????? When the government decides to limit the pay of doctors to that of plumbers, we'll have fewer doctors and the one's left will have the intelligence of a plumber.
[ July 21, 2009, 08:50 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:The dollar has dropped 25% in three months. Anyone suggest adding 25% to the "rich" ceiling of $250k? Since you bought that line during the campaign, adjusted for the tanking dollar shouldn't it now be $315k???
We haven't had 25% inflation.
quote:My lack of sympathy for others is directly tied to my belief in this dream. You drop out and don't work for something better, you get what you deserve. Anyone can achieve in this society....at least for now.
Achievement is how much you actually achieve, how much good you do. It is not measured by the percentage of the net gain produced by your achievement that you keep in your own paycheck. A person could give their entire paycheck to the government, yet that wouldn't necessarily mean he had achieved any less.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'm not bragging about my income. Mid shift pays differential pay which is higher and I have two jobs, one full time and one part time. I didn't intend to suggest anyone was either rich or unemployed, but to get quick responses from the same few people 24x7 suggests something about their free time.
Malanthrop, when you make unprompted unqualified statements about your salary, and it's a six-figure salary, many people are generally going to be mistrustful online in my experience. And when you make unprompted unqualified statements about it and use it as some sort of argument, as you did, it certainly comes off as bragging, regardless of your intent.
As for what responses suggest, first of all I very much doubt you've actually studied that little bit of interaction in a scientific and objective way, and second, if you're constantly busting ass and making hoards of cash the good old fashioned way at your six-figure night job...how exactly are you posting 24/7 to get these responses you speak of?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Mid shift pays differential pay which is higher and I have two jobs, one full time and one part time.
And you have kids? Seriously, you aren't scoring any points with me for that one, then.
Neglecting your children to earn a six-figure income just suggests to me that you're irresponsible. You'd pay a lot less in taxes if you saw your kids more often.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I'm not bragging about my income.
Yes you are.
quote: Do you even have a job?
quote: I didn't intend to suggest anyone was either rich or unemployed
Yes you did.
quote: but to get quick responses from the same few people 24x7 suggests something about their free time.
I'm on vacation, for 3 weeks. I can't afford to go on a trip, so I took a bus to Paris to stay at the house of a family friend- would also explain why I post "24/7" IE, what appears to be early in the morning to you. It's a big world- you should have considered that.
quote: I work very hard and came from very meager means. My lack of sympathy for others is directly tied to my belief in this dream. You drop out and don't work for something better, you get what you deserve. Anyone can achieve in this society....at least for now.
In the past thirtry years, the prosperity experienced in the United States has had a couple of odd effects on "the American Dream." Firstly, though recorded poverty rates are lower, because they are tied to cost of food (which has gone down). Actual poverty, and especially homelessness or lack of appropriate housing has risen sharply in the past two decades, do in part to the lifting of many government controls on rents, as well as the ending of many social housing programs that helped working people to find affordable shelter. That in combination with a hugely inflated housing market, that could afford to cater to the richest 20%, and ignore the rest of the market completely. Thus, the sizes of houses increase for the rich, while the poor have less and less prospect of finding homes. Today, the majority of wage workers continue to work under what is considered by the government to be a livable wage. Since 1973, there has been a consistent fall off in the affordability of homes when compared to the average wage of the bottom two deciles of our working classes. The subprime mortgages didn't change that fact, but only continued to make it worse, as the prices of all housing shot up disproportionately, with the incomes of the top two deciles. Rents are not inflation proof- that is why they must be controlled. Because rents will always rise in this system, while wages and the cost of food (our standard markers for determining livability) are relatively inflation proof.
Today in America, it is more expensive to be poor than to be rich. While homeowners receive thousands of dollars a year in tax credits, dropping the percentages of their incomes spent on housing to well below a third (and subsequently increasing the prices of homes and the affordability of lower income housing), renters and people without the capital to invest in a home face rents at over a third, to half or more of their incomes, with absolutely no government assistance. Same thing that's happened with government subsidies for cars, rather than money spent on public transportation- it all happens because the wealthy are in control of the purse strings, not because "we're all free to make our way." The government started doing it this way, because a tax credit is a hell of a lot easier to take away when it is needed than a social program, even if the tax credit will put more money back into the hands of the wealthy, and do nothing for the poor. You ignore this, and I wonder why- why is it so terrible to ensure the health of working people? Because I can assure you, we're not talking about lazy people- we're talking about people who are being squeezed from every side, and being blamed for it too.
Your dismissal of this problem, along with the hand waving "bootstraps" argument, is an arrogant, (and patently fallacious) stance, encouraged by the wealthy, and inculcated among members of every class of our society by our willing blindness to poverty. It is based, quite simply, on the fallacy of anecdote. The fact is that as long as the labor market is unwilling in the short term to paying a living wage, and as long as the government is unwilling to ensure the health of our working class by helping to provide housing, medical services, and other social assistance, the majority of the poor, regardless of individual successes, will remain poor. That is an ineluctable fact, not affected by the prosperity of society, not improved over time, or by any individual good luck story- as long as the bottom decile of our society works for a substandard wage, and as long as this is not acted upon by us as voters and by our government, we will continue to see poverty spread. Your own personal bonus points for not being poor today are meaningless in this equation- the fact remains, undeniably, that you cannot erase poverty without widespread systemic change. Now, you can hem and haw and wheedle on about your upbringing or your race and heritage or question mine or anybody else's, but you can't change the brass tacks of this problem. Hell, before I explained it just now, I'm sure you'd never even thought of it.
I have a book to recommend to you- it's about low wage work in America, and the political and social blindness we have developed towards poverty, how poverty has "disappeared" as the trappings of wealth become available cheeply to the poor, even as essentials, such as health care and housing, are denied to them. It's called "Nickel and Dimed-" it's a very widely read book by Barbara Ehrenreich, I read it years ago as part of a writing class, I believe.
[ July 21, 2009, 09:20 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
The drop in the dollar isn't directly proportional to immediate inflation, just as unemployment is a lagging indicator. Here you can look at the graph for the exchange rate since the new year: http://www.x-rates.com/d/USD/EUR/hist2009.html
I absolutely agree that achievement has little to do with wealth. I came from a poor family with exceptional parents. Watching my children grow up as good individuals is my greatest achievement. What gives me a sense of accomplishment in life is providing for my family and teaching my children values and work ethic. Unfortunately, there's a segment of our society that believes that someone who works 60+ hours a week and has made great sacrifice owes them something. Just as in the minds of some, the ends justifies the means, they look at another person's end result and ignore the means it took them to get there.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Oro,
Not surprised you are online. I asked if you even had a job after you stated I was "insubstantial". My response was to suggest that it is quite possible I make a much more substantial contribution for my fellow man in the form of taxes due to my hard work for many decades.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Unfortunately, there's a segment of our society that believes that someone who works 60+ hours a week and has made great sacrifice owes them something.
Personally, I believe that someone who works 60+ hours a week isn't watching his children grow up.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Godamn it, you DON'T LISTEN. How the hell did a hard working person like yourself become so horrible selfish?
quote: they look at another person's end result and ignore the means it took them to get there.
Mal, listen to yourself. You want people to look at your situation and ignore the fact that it is not achievable by others. You want to maintain your privilege while claiming it is not a privilege, but a right, and you want to do so by convincing others that you are special- that you "worked harder" or were "taught right." You are blind.
Talk about the people thinking you owe them something. YOU DO OWE SOMETHING. We as a society owe it to ourselves, to establish an amenable and fair system of government, which distributes resources where they are needed- this depends on our contributions. You like roads right? You pay for those. You like cops and firemen? You owe it to your neighbors to pay for those too. Would you like for 20% of the working class to not be involved in the criminal justice system, or hobbled by treatable medical conditions, or living in squalor, because we have chosen as a society to focus on achieving their basic needs?
It's funny how selective we are about these things, but they all affect you. The poor affect you, and you owe it to your society and to yourself to pay your damned taxes, and have a little compassion. But no, no, I'm sure you'd like to see the gross national product spent on some weapon for killing brown people. Good idea. Very constructive.
I'm not talking about the drop in the dollar by the way, I'm talking about the disconnect between housing costs and wages.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Unfortunately, there's a segment of our society that believes that someone who works 60+ hours a week and has made great sacrifice owes them something.
Personally, I believe that someone who works 60+ hours a week isn't watching his children grow up.
If didn't have to give half my income for people who work 0 hours a week I could work 40. Or I could choose to work 0, as some do, and spend plenty of quality time with them in the projects.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Oro,
Not surprised you are online. I asked if you even had a job after you stated I was "insubstantial". My response was to suggest that it is quite possible I make a much more substantial contribution for my fellow man in the form of taxes due to my hard work for many decades.
What, read my post. I'm on vacation, and I'm in a different time zone. I work 40 hours a week like everybody else, so stop being an asshole, please.
"surprised your online???" you're online smart guy, and I'm the one on his vacation.
You were obviously lying when you claimed not to be suggesting I didn't work, or bragging about your income- you were doing both.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If didn't have to give half my income for people who work 0 hours a week I could work 40.
Or you could simply make less money, and trade material things for time with your children. You'd also pay fewer taxes, which would probably make you a lot happier.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Funny,
I work nights. Whether I post in the middle of the night on my day off, early in the morning after coming home from work, or late in the evening prior to going to work, there's Oro with a quick response.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I dunno Tom, suggesting he change anything about himself seems a bit like getting blood from a stone. It's hard to see how he spends any time with his kids if he works 60 hours a week and posts here- I only work 40, and just posting takes time out from other stuff like reading, and I don't even have kids.
I'm sure he's going to respond that he somehow spends more time with his kids than any parents ever- probably something like: "I spend 40 hours a week with my kids, and 20 hours of my week with other people's kids because they won't spend time with their own children, because they're poor and dirty and probably foreigners."
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Funny,
I work nights. Whether I post in the middle of the night on my day off, early in the morning after coming home from work, or late in the evening prior to going to work, there's Oro with a quick response.
Uh. Dude, did it EVER occur to you that I might have the same waking schedule as you? I LIVE IN EUROPE. NOT THE UNITED STATES. IT'S A DIFFERENT TIME ZONE- there is a difference of 6-9 HOURS.
And since I am ON VACATION, I STAY UP LATE IN THE EVENINGS, and SLEEP IN, in the mornings, for THREE WEEKS. GET IT THROUGH YOUR SKULL.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:If didn't have to give half my income for people who work 0 hours a week I could work 40.
Or you could simply make less money, and trade material things for time with your children. You'd also pay fewer taxes, which would probably make you a lot happier.
You're right...I think the gang bangers have it all figured out. Sell under the counter narcotics, not marry they baby momma. She can deny who the father is while collecting medicaid, foodstamps and section 8 housing and I can be a good father to my children at the taxpayers expense. Wait, don't see too many dad's around the projects in my area.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Yeah, we're done.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
There are projects in your area? With your income?
Man, you must live in California.
--------
But, no, seriously, you can work fewer hours without working no hours. That is, for example, exactly the decision I've made. And so I wind up paying less than 20% of my income in taxes after various deductions, even including sales taxes (although I buy a lot of things online to deliberately avoid 'em), and yet manage to keep my kids relatively well-provided-for.
That's not to say that this would be the right decision for you. Maybe you need to make at least 30% more than our current household salary to provide for your family. But I suspect that's not the case.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Yeah, we're done.
Oh, sorry. Didn't realize you lived in Europe. Hope you don't need dental work or are a 22 year old in need of a liver transplant.
He would've lived in the Capitalist American health care system.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
You know, these conversations could run at like 25% power or less, and there'd still be plenty of illumination without burning out. Hatrack needs CFLs.
Not gonna point fingers, because there's people overboard in many directions. Please lighten up, folks, and quit the personal attacks, (and again I say) whether you think they're deserved or not.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Um, Mal....Assuming that the supply of good livers is smaller than the demand for those livers, how would you prefer to decide who gets those livers? Because, y'know, capitalism won't suddenly make more livers magically appear -- which means that if this guy didn't die, someone else would have. His death meant that somebody else actually got a liver.
I'm not sure how that would work differently in America.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Livers are a wonderous organs. Unlike a heart, you can split them. I could give half of mine to my brother.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: You're right...I think the gang bangers have it all figured out. Sell under the counter narcotics, not marry they baby momma. She can deny who the father is while collecting medicaid, foodstamps and section 8 housing and I can be a good father to my children at the taxpayers expense. Wait, don't see too many dad's around the projects in my area.
I never realized it until now, but Malanthrop appears to be a collective being forged of mass conservative social hallucinations.
I mean, seriously.
Just look at this post.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Papa Janitor: Not gonna point fingers, because there's people overboard in many directions. Please lighten up, folks, and quit the personal attacks, (and again I say) whether you think they're deserved or not.
I think you should point fingers. I'm asking you to point fingers. In fact, I'm quite surprised you're not pointing fingers given what has been said.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Livers are a wonderous organs. Unlike a heart, you can split them. I could give half of mine to my brother.
Hah. He'd probably think he deserved it.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
That was a response suggesting I work fewer hours to spend more time with my my children. Problem is someone needs to support the illegitimate children. I worked very, very hard and paid off extensive student loans so that I could be a good father and provider. Problem is someone else has to pay for the child of a promiscuous high school dropout and another useless sperm donor. I'm a responsible parent who works two weeks a month for my family and two weeks a month for the government. Don't accuse me of being a bad parent for working too much. My money supports more than one family. Even without taxes, I would work 100 hours to support mine alone. If the current tax situation requires me to work 60 to pay for mine and a welfare family, I have no choice. I'll always support my family, even if it requires I support another.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Yeah, he doesn't get it. Well, whatever. I wasn't expecting him to understand what you were saying Tom.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
The first totally out of line post was yours, Orincoro. I think you were by far the biggest cause of the downfall of this thread. Malanthrop undoubtedly believes he responded in kind, and has pretty much been on the defensive from you ever since. Thor may have been publicly reacting to your attitude rather than a perceived attack on him (though from your point of view I would certainly see you calling someone the same person as malanthrop an insult, and perhaps he reacted to that) -- either way it wasn't a good way to respond.
I don't think it helps to point this out publicly, but I'm willing to admit I might not be right. Let's see.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I just want to point out that police and fire are paid, predominantly by local taxes, not federal ones. These taxes are paid above and beyond the bottom line of your 1040.
Roads are built and maintained by the gas tax, not the income tax. This is a just tax.
Federal income taxes primarily pay for defense and massive social programs. (and these days, useless bailouts and "stimulus" packages.)
I also pay over 50% of my income in state and federal taxes. Most of it goes to support people who would spit on me for being different.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Yeah, he doesn't get it. Well, whatever. I wasn't expecting him to understand what you were saying Tom.
I wasn't replying to Tom's statement about who should get the liver. The fact is, they denied his need for a new liver outright when they could have split one. People fail to see the path this is leading to. What about a morbidly obese diabetic? Why waste the govt expense for someone who can't stop eating? How about the smoker who needs chemo medicine? Why waste tax payer money on a smoker with cancer? Obviously the decision wasn't base on life expectancy, it was based upon the patients behavior. A 22 year old drinker being flat out denied a liver transplant???? What's next, no chemotherapy for a 30 year smoker. No insulin for a 28 year old fat man who likes to eat? My grandmother had a hip replacement when she was 73 and now she's doing fantastic. I imagine that is much less likely in the UK. Here you need it, you get it, no other considerations. Let a govt beuroctat decide based upon a metric and you get 22 year olds denied a liver due to their behavior. You control medicine, you control the person. Behave, eat and consume what the govt says or you will die.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Papa Janitor: The first totally out of line post was yours, Orincoro. I think you were by far the biggest cause of the downfall of this thread.
I'm willing to own up to being the first, or even to being the cause. I'm surprised that you're letting what was said to me fly by without comment, when it's far beyond anything I've every said to anyone here. I think if it were someone else who was spoken to that way, you would have done something about it.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Oh, sorry. Didn't realize you lived in Europe. Hope you don't need dental work or are a 22 year old in need of a liver transplant.
He would've lived in the Capitalist American health care system.
*mildly
Alcoholism without a documented period of rehabilitation under normal living circumstances (usually 6 months or more) is a reason why persons are denied liver transplantation in the US as well.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Or you could, you know, stop drinking and smoking so much, and get on a better diet because that costs a hell of a lot less than liver transplants, chemotherapy, and diabetes medication.
And because it's healthy.
I don't know the details of the 22 year old in the UK. To be declared an alcoholic at 22 indicates that he had made attempts before and failed, or actively resisted attempts to stop drinking. Was he on a waiting list? I know waiting lists have requirements, and I'm sure one of them is to stop drinking. Maybe they couldn't find a willing match for his liver? I think it's a much more complicated issue than what you have boiled it down into.
ETA: Or what CT said, who knows a lot more about me about these things.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
WW, at least with UNOS, we would have had to undergo treatment for alcoholism, been documented clean and in treatment for a long period of time, before he could be bumped up the list to receive a transplant- and every more legitimate recipient would still go first.
That may seem cruel, but giving a liver to an alcoholic who is not in recovery is wasting a liver, virtually guaranteed.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Because, y'know, capitalism won't suddenly make more livers magically appear -- which means that if this guy didn't die, someone else would have. His death meant that somebody else actually got a liver.
I'm not sure how that would work differently in America.
What Tom said.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The fact is, they denied his need for a new liver outright when they could have split one.
It's not just a matter of obtaining sufficient tissue; i.e., "splitting one." Blood and tissue matching is a major limiting factor. As Tom noted, the supply is insufficient to the demand, and that is in good part because the process is more complicated and intensive than it may appear to the superficial gaze.
quote:Liver Transplant Overview Currently, more than 17,000 people in the United States are waiting for liver transplants. According to the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS), about 5,300 liver transplantations were performed in the United States in 2002.
The liver is the second most commonly transplanted major organ, after the kidney...
Who may not be given a liver: A person who needs a liver transplant may not qualify for one because of the following reasons:
Active alcohol or substance abuse: Persons with active alcohol or substance abuse problems may continue living the unhealthy lifestyle that contributed to their liver damage. Transplantation would only result in failure of the newly transplanted liver.
[etc]
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
And CT acts as an enlightening beacon once again.
Thanks CT!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I would work 100 hours to support (my family) alone.
Just to be clear, I would, too, if I could not support my family by working 40 hours. Or ten hours. Or some other quantity of hours.
Obviously, supporting your family should be your first priority.
But the obvious question here is: what constitutes "support?" At some point, the money you're earning by working longer hours is only going to pay for a lifestyle that does not compensate for your daily absence.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I completely understand the considerations for a liver transplant. It is possible he died due to the failure to match...but...the report is he was denied. A person of his age would certainly be at the top of the list in America. If he was at or near the top of the list and no match was found that would be tragic. If, as the report suggests, he was denied to his behavior, it's horrific. We may as well go back to Hitler killing the mentally retarded.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:A person of his age would certainly be at the top of the list in America.
I refer you to the posts by ClaudiaTherese, an actual medical doctor, which point out that this is absolutely untrue.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Yeah, we're done.
Oh, sorry. Didn't realize you lived in Europe.
I'm not sure. I don't think Orincoro mentioned it explicitly. But I think he subtly implied that he was on a "vacation" rather than living in Europe.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: We may as well go back to Hitler killing the mentally retarded.
Is it that you're horribly misinformed and ADD, or that you just think everyone else in the world is really dumb, misinformed, and even more ADD?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Orincoro, seriously, chill.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Ok.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Yeah, we're done.
Oh, sorry. Didn't realize you lived in Europe.
I'm not sure. I don't think Orincoro mentioned it explicitly. But I think he subtly implied that he was on a "vacation" rather than living in Europe.
I both live and vacation in Europe. Case closed.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: ... If, as the report suggests, he was denied to his behavior, it's horrific. We may as well go back to Hitler killing the mentally retarded.
It is interesting to note that according to that reference, we may as well have gone back to Hitler at any time during the last seven years.
I don't know whether to feel worse that the United States has been living under the equivalent of Hitler for seven years or that no one apparently noticed.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
If I remember correctly, your country has universal healthcare and a flat tax. I would go for that. I enjoy our exchanges. The US is on a path to the left of former communist counties. I guess mankind is not capable of learning from its mistakes.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am so confused...
We are supposed to be outraged at not providing a liver for someone whose behaviour indicates that it would be wasted yet we balk at providing (via tax dollars) food for children?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: ... If, as the report suggests, he was denied to his behavior, it's horrific. We may as well go back to Hitler killing the mentally retarded.
It is interesting to note that according to that reference, we may as well have gone back to Hitler at any time during the last seven years.
I don't know whether to feel worse that the United States has been living under the equivalent of Hitler for seven years or that no one apparently noticed.
When I think of Hitler, I think of a politician that gained power by demonizing other people, ie the Jews and consolidating a supreme power base, ie the arians.
I fail to see this pattern in the past administration. If you do, please enlighten me.
Current administration: class warfare is full steam ahead. Instead of Jews it's Wall Street and instead of Arians it's main street" The same path with different markers. Divide the masses. With Hitler it was race. With Obama it's income. Hitler was freely elected, and so was Hamas. You only need to get 51% on your side. If you can pit 51% against the top 10%, you are assured power.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am so confused...
We are supposed to be outraged at not providing a liver for someone whose behaviour indicates that it would be wasted yet we balk at providing (via tax dollars) food for children?
How many starving children are there in the UK? I'll wager that a 22 year old on his deathbed would change his ways and take care of the new liver. My brother was a serious drug addict. He had a serious drug induced heart attack and now he won't even drink coffee.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: If I remember correctly, your country has universal healthcare and a flat tax. I would go for that. I enjoy our exchanges. The US is on a path to the left of former communist counties. I guess mankind is not capable of learning from its mistakes.
In fact, income tax is even more progressive than in the States so you probably wouldn't be too happy with that. We do have a regressive federal sales tax though which you might like.
Comparing the two countries, a big cultural difference is that while Canadians prefer to nationalize things like health-care, Americans like to nationalize banks and auto-manufacturers.
I like to call it socialism with American characteristics.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think of a politician that gained power by demonizing other people, ie the Jews and consolidating a supreme power base, ie the arians.
I fail to see this pattern in the past administration.
*chokes in astonished outrage* Dude, you will never hear me compare Bush to Hitler; I think the comparisons are ridiculous. But if you were to ask me all the ways in which Bush was not like Hitler, saying that Bush didn't demonize people for political gain would not be anywhere on my list.
---------
quote:I'll wager that a 22 year old on his deathbed would change his ways and take care of the new liver.
Bear in mind that you'd be wagering with someone else's life. Those people in charge of distributing livers -- both here and in countries with universal health care -- are not willing to take that bet, and prefer instead to give the liver to someone more likely to benefit from it. Do you trust them to make that determination? If not, how would you prefer to decide who gets a liver?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I seriously doubt Americans like nationalized banks and auto manufacturers, but that is what the ignorant people who voted for "change" got. Maybe next election they'll consider what the change is. Like wheel of fortune, they chose the mystery item behind the curtain over the known prize.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So are you conceding all the other points, or are you going to keep changing the subject every time someone proves you wrong?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
He's taling about CZR, I think, which is where I live. We do have a flat tax and subsidized health care, although it is not completely free anymore.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: ... If, as the report suggests, he was denied to his behavior, it's horrific. We may as well go back to Hitler killing the mentally retarded.
It is interesting to note that according to that reference, we may as well have gone back to Hitler at any time during the last seven years.
... I fail to see this pattern in the past administration. If you do, please enlighten me.
I'm simply addressing your "if." What the report suggests is true. Indeed, it has been true for at least 7 years in the States. Thus, it would seem that you are in fact asserting that the US "may as well go back to Hitler" for the last 7 years.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am so confused...
We are supposed to be outraged at not providing a liver for someone whose behaviour indicates that it would be wasted yet we balk at providing (via tax dollars) food for children?
How many starving children are there in the UK? I'll wager that a 22 year old on his deathbed would change his ways and take care of the new liver. My brother was a serious drug addict. He had a serious drug induced heart attack and now he won't even drink coffee.
I thought you were complaining about all those food stamps your tax dollars were providing so we are talking about US children.
I'm glad your brother is doing better.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: ... If, as the report suggests, he was denied to his behavior, it's horrific. We may as well go back to Hitler killing the mentally retarded.
It is interesting to note that according to that reference, we may as well have gone back to Hitler at any time during the last seven years.
I don't know whether to feel worse that the United States has been living under the equivalent of Hitler for seven years or that no one apparently noticed.
When I think of Hitler, I think of a politician that gained power by demonizing other people, ie the Jews and consolidating a supreme power base, ie the arians.
I fail to see this pattern in the past administration. If you do, please enlighten me.
Current administration: class warfare is full steam ahead. Instead of Jews it's Wall Street and instead of Arians it's main street" The same path with different markers. Divide the masses. With Hitler it was race. With Obama it's income. Hitler was freely elected, and so was Hamas. You only need to get 51% on your side. If you can pit 51% against the top 10%, you are assured power.
I dislike the concept of comparing a politician you do not agree with with Hitler, it's an insult to people who actually suffered under his regime, but, Bush did often demonize people who didn't agree with him with his whole you're either with us or against us policies. I also hate when conservative types act as if only middle Americans are true Americans or conservative Americans, when what about people in other parts of America? Division like that makes me cross. And dang I WISH I made 6 figures. I don't even make 5! If I was making 200,000 bucks a year, I wouldn't be complaining. I'd be dancing in the street. Unemployed people get taxed on their unemployment! And for me that's barely enough to get by on. If I was making 6 figures I'd be too happy about making real money to complain about taxes, that's way less of a burden than getting 158 a week and having to pay taxes next year on that. Sheesh.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: So are you conceding all the other points, or are you going to keep changing the subject every time someone proves you wrong?
What do you think? His MO is hit and run, and has always been. It's along the lines of "I know you are, but what am I?"
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: So are you conceding all the other points, or are you going to keep changing the subject every time someone proves you wrong?
Not changing the subject or conceding. As usual, it's one against many. Forgive me if I failed to respond to whatever point you are referring to. My response may have been directed at someone else. Please, reiterate the concession point you are suggesting.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I seriously doubt Americans like nationalized banks and auto manufacturers, but that is what the ignorant people who voted for "change" got.
Um... Bush was the one who initiated bailouts for both sectors.
And the "change" Obama campaigned on had little to do with the financial crisis which came onto the scene rather late in the election cycle.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
This is an article by Singer who, I'm sure, rubs many the wrong way. This is basically an argument for rationing healthcare. I think I agree with his arguments, but would be interested in hearing counters to his arguments (as against counters to Singer).
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:If I was making 6 figures I'd be too happy about making real money to complain about taxes, that's way less of a burden than getting 158 a week and having to pay taxes next year on that. Sheesh.
If you're only getting $158 a week then I think it's unlikely that you'll owe any taxes.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: My response may have been directed at someone else.
It was 10 minutes ago- who did you direct this at:
quote: I seriously doubt Americans like nationalized banks and auto manufacturers, but that is what the ignorant people who voted for "change" got. Maybe next election they'll consider what the change is. Like wheel of fortune, they chose the mystery item behind the curtain over the known prize.
Because apart from being related to the general topic of electing leaders, it doesn't have anything to do with any post I can see in the thread. Inasmuch as it's an oblique statement directed into nowhere space, how does it qualify as a response to something that's been said? If not, why do you claim it to be?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
He's taling about CZR, I think, which is where I live. We do have a flat tax and subsidized health care, although it is not completely free anymore.
Yes,
I was responding to you and the CZR. You once told me what your tax rate was and I was quite impressed for what you got. Sorry to hear that it is "progessing" to not quite free anymore. That is the nature of government. The toll to pay for a bridge never expires and only increases. A minor "administrative" fee on retired US military healthcare is increased by a factor of 10 after a few years. This is where the lines are drawn. I'm not greedy. In fact I gave more to charity than the great savior Barack Obama. Problem is with government, you can always afford a small increase in taxes. They justify it by, "Who won't pay a dollar a week more". Problem is, next week it's another dollar. Hopefully your country doesn't have a "living and breathing" constitution so you can truly live free.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: And the "change" Obama campaigned on had little to do with the financial crisis which came onto the scene rather late in the election cycle.
Came to the public's attention late in the election cycle- crisis was imminent for quite some time, but that's an arguable point.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Hopefully your country doesn't have a "living and breathing" constitution so you can truly live free.
Indeed; no doubt the framers of the constitution foresaw computers, nuclear weapons etc. etc. with complete clarity and drew up the constitution accordingly.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Came to the public's attention late in the election cycle- crisis was imminent for quite some time, but that's an arguable point.
Well sure, but for purposes of a campaign the public's perception is what's relevant.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I'm not greedy. In fact I gave more to charity than the great savior Barack Obama. Problem is with government, you can always afford a small increase in taxes. They justify it by, "Who won't pay a dollar a week more". Problem is, next week it's another dollar. Hopefully your country doesn't have a "living and breathing" constitution so you can truly live free.
No, you're boastful and self-centered, and seem to suffer from a great deal of envy and distrust.
I'm an American citizen, by the way.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Forgive me if I failed to respond to whatever point you are referring to.
1) Your decision to work more than sixty hours a week and pay high income taxes to provide a wealthier lifestyle to your children instead of seeing them more often is your own, and not a choice I myself would make.
2) The decision to not provide a liver to an alcoholic is not somehow a consequence of socialized medicine, as it's the same decision the American healthcare system makes. Moreover, it's the correct decision, as long as there are other people out there who also need the same liver and are more likely to benefit.
3) Saying that Bush is not like Hitler because he didn't demonize people for his own political purposes is like saying that Teddy Roosevelt is nothing like Franz Kafka because Roosevelt wasn't a woman.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I'm not greedy. In fact I gave more to charity than the great savior Barack Obama. Problem is with government, you can always afford a small increase in taxes. They justify it by, "Who won't pay a dollar a week more". Problem is, next week it's another dollar. Hopefully your country doesn't have a "living and breathing" constitution so you can truly live free.
No, you're boastful and self-centered, and seem to suffer from a great deal of envy and distrust.
I'm an American citizen, by the way.
Not being boastful about my tithe to the church. The community organizer gave less than I did until he began running for president. I wish we had a president who had a real job at least once in his life. A president who went to college to be something other than a politician. Maybe you should see how successful the once state senator was for south side Chicago. Type this in google: "chicago murders". How may of those victims voted him into state political power? He moved on. What about his promises to them? I can't convince you but please watch him. His promises do not pan out. He'll promise Eden on Earth to get what he wants. Didn't he warn about 8% unemployemnt unless we passed his bill ---- now we're at 10%. I must admire him, he is the perfect politician and gives great speeches (as long as his teleprompter is functional). As I've said before..Lucy, Charly Brown and the football.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Yes, that was a boast. It was couched rather transparently in an attack on Obama, but it served its purpose as a boast. IE: "I don't understand why it takes you so long to read a book, I can read an entire 50,000 word book in an hour." That's a boast- you comparing yourself to someone else, and you coming out favorably. No one buys that you're meek and unassuming about it. Everyone sees this mal, everyone knows what you're doing. It doesn't fool anyone.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm a little confused. Do you actually know anything about Obama's community activism?
Because here's the story: Obama was perfectly content to be an activist until about 1987, when he decided -- after finding out what happened to his father in Kenya, and after running into roadblock after roadblock working at Altgeld -- that activism alone wasn't enough, and that to effect real change you had to become a politician. He resolved at that point to refocus on local and state politics, went back to school mainly for networking purposes, and returned to Chicago in 1991 precisely so that he could do some civic good. It's worth noting that every year Obama was a senator for Chicago, the murder rate declined -- not, mind you, that I think he had anything to do with that.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:If I was making 6 figures I'd be too happy about making real money to complain about taxes, that's way less of a burden than getting 158 a week and having to pay taxes next year on that. Sheesh.
If you're only getting $158 a week then I think it's unlikely that you'll owe any taxes.
In unemployment. I will owe taxes, except for that bit of money they said I won't owe taxes for. I can't afford to get it taken out too, because I need that money. It's frustrating. I hope i get more when I renew my unemployment.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I seriously doubt Americans like nationalized banks and auto manufacturers, but that is what the ignorant people who voted for "change" got. Maybe next election they'll consider what the change is. Like wheel of fortune, they chose the mystery item behind the curtain over the known prize.
Bank nationalization, if you want to call it that, was started under Bush.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I hope i get more when I renew my unemployment.
You know, Syne, McDonald's actually pays more than $158 a week, after taxes.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It's not actually that easy to get a job at McDonald's as people think. I've applied there... I've applied for Tesechi's, Target, Stop and Shop, so many places and for some reason not only will they not hire me, but they keep having Now Hiring signs up after I've applied several times. It's ridiculous. They'd rather hire teenagers than a 30 year old college graduate. So I'm just about tired of folks saying, "You could apply for McDonald's" when despite having a good job ethic even for jobs I don't like, they still will not hire me at all.
But I do have a week long 15 dollar per hour job coming next month, so that's good.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Tom Davidson:
quote:2) The decision to not provide a liver to an alcoholic is not somehow a consequence of socialized medicine, as it's the same decision the American healthcare system makes. Moreover, it's the correct decision, as long as there are other people out there who also need the same liver and are more likely to benefit.
I hate it when people (in general) make arguments regarding the validity of the decision made without understanding of the logic that led to the decision being made.
Malanthrop, you clearly have shown you do not understand the medical science behind transplantation nor the statistics relevant to that discussion. If you have an interest in the topic besides a straw man, please look up some reviews or studies regarding transplantation for your own benefit.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:...he is the perfect politician and gives great speeches (as long as his teleprompter is functional)...
I still don't understand this persistent nutjob talking point. Obama uses a teleprompter during his speeches. So do many other politicians. How the hell did this become something to mock him for? Is he somehow reduced to the level of a stuttering 4-year-old without his magic toy? Because I haven't noticed that happening during his many interviews, off the cuff comments, press conferences or debates.
Point out his shortcomings, we need that. But don't make up any, it just makes you look foolish and reduces the effectiveness of your valid points.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
One most wonder if he's ever watched an episode of house. At least one where they say, no, she can't have this heart, she has an eating disorder. So House lies about that so she can get one.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Obama uses a teleprompter during his speeches. So do many other politicians.
And the ones who don't have written notes. Why would using high tech tools to do THE EXACT SAME THING be a *bad* thing or indicate inferiority?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Because to attack him otherwise requires too much thinking on the part of the audience? Because Obama doesn't have any easily mockable attributes so they have to invent some?
In my pen cup at work I have one of the Obama's Energy Plan" tire gauges the RNC was handing out to mock his energy conservation speech where he suggested ways to improve gas mileage, including checking the air in your tires. How silly, they said, ignoring the fact that McCain said the exact same thing in an earlier speech.
When you can't refute your opponent, you belittle him.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Because obviously the Left has been making Obama out to be the God-King of America, Jesus Reborn, the Return of the freakin' Jedi. That's the only reason he was elected. Such a prodigiously talented individual would logically be expected to have the greatest extemporaneous skills in history. For the Great Liberal Messiah, anything less than ad-libbing an "I Have a Dream"-quality speech in response to a question shouted by a reporter while he's walking to his car is an utter failure of communication and leadership.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Not being boastful about my tithe to the church.
Here's what (among many, many other things) you're willfully misunderstand, malanthrop: "Hey! Lookit this! I am bragging about this cool thing!" is not actually the only way to boast about something. A comment can be made that is quite a bit more subtle than that, and yet still be bragging.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
What about for those of us who are not "the Left" and voted for him only after researching the positions and history of both Obama and his opponents? Or the large percentage of Independents that also voted for him?
I didn't vote for him because he was black. I didn't vote for him because he talked pretty. I didn't even vote for him because he wasn't Bush.
I spent a great deal of time deciding where to cast my votes in the primary and general election. I spend a good deal of time keeping up one what's happening now, from many sources. I have no tolerance for people who seek to sway my opinion with hysterical hyperbole, trumped up conspiracy theories, or outright inaccuracies taken out of context and presented as fact.
Pasting the title of Great Liberal Messiah on him and then condemning him for not sustaining goals he never set for himself strikes me as being remarkably stupid. Some of his supporters have treated him like the greatest thing to hit politics, ever, that's true. (Personally I don't think the Left elevated him to Messiahhood as much as the 24/7 media did.) But not all of them have, and lumping all of them together as fools is sloppy reasoning at best and intentional bias at worst.
I don't agree with everything he's done or said, and I'm happy to discuss any of those things, backed up with references. You may think I chose poorly, but please respect my decision as one that was made eyes open.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: Because obviously the Left has been making Obama out to be the God-King of America, Jesus Reborn, the Return of the freakin' Jedi. That's the only reason he was elected. Such a prodigiously talented individual would logically be expected to have the greatest extemporaneous skills in history. For the Great Liberal Messiah, anything less than ad-libbing an "I Have a Dream"-quality speech in response to a question shouted by a reporter while he's walking to his car is an utter failure of communication and leadership.
Didn't they do the same thing with Bush? Only he was a conservative messiah and all of these folks were going on and on about what a good Christian he was and how nice it was to have such a good Christian man in office. Only he wasn't as good at making speeches. Geez. Some folks idealize politicians. But realistically, they are just human beings trying to do a difficult frustrating job.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: I still don't understand this persistent nutjob talking point. Obama uses a teleprompter during his speeches. So do many other politicians. How the hell did this become something to mock him for? Is he somehow reduced to the level of a stuttering 4-year-old without his magic toy? Because I haven't noticed that happening during his many interviews, off the cuff comments, press conferences or debates.
Chris, Syn: I was being sarcastic. Admittedly, what I wrote above isn't much of an exaggeration compared to some of the stuff Rush et al. routinely say.
My point is the same as yours: inventing Obama's supposed "messiah-hood" among liberals has become a standard debating tactic for the far right. It allows conservatives to claim that anything Obama does that falls below "miraculous" is a complete and utter failure.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: Chris, Syn: I was being sarcastic. Admittedly, what I wrote above isn't much of an exaggeration compared to some of the stuff Rush et al. routinely say.
My point is the same as yours: inventing Obama's supposed "messiah-hood" among liberals has become a standard debating tactic for the far right. It allows conservatives to claim that anything Obama does that falls below "miraculous" is a complete and utter failure.
Ok ^^ I have trouble with sarcasm on the net. Unless it's me, then folks don't get I'm being sarcastic...
But they should come up with better arguments. The mess of this economy could take forever to clean up... I doubt anyone could go POOF and fix the whole thing in just a few months.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
quote:...he is the perfect politician and gives great speeches (as long as his teleprompter is functional)...
I still don't understand this persistent nutjob talking point. Obama uses a teleprompter during his speeches. So do many other politicians. How the hell did this become something to mock him for?
Well, in all seriousness, it seems to have been picked by a loose consortium of conservative commentators as one of those oblique statements or accusations, that aren't really damning, but are meant to imply through repetition that they are unusual, and therefore aberrant. It's one of those bastions of conservative talk that seems to be fostered by the spoken medium more than anything. If you think of it, it would be unacceptable, and would appear even more childish, for a conservative writer to make constant allusion to a point of fact without ever explaining or making clear its real significance (and more importantly, the context of the fact), but for a radio personality, who is expected to talk informally and off the cuff, constant allusions and shaded references to non-existent controversy are more accepted. This little jab is no different from the annoying repetition by some liberals of little meaningless anti-conservative or pro-environment sayings and sentiments that are not really references to facts, but more to a sort of system of belief that assumes righteousness- so we can simply say: "haliburton" and "blackwater" and "Enron," and those ciphers serve in the place of substantive thoughts or actual understanding.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Obama uses a teleprompter during his speeches. So do many other politicians.
And the ones who don't have written notes. Why would using high tech tools to do THE EXACT SAME THING be a *bad* thing or indicate inferiority?
Lincoln read the Gettysburg address off of a notebook page or a postcard, unless I am misremembering my history. He wrote it on the train on the way to give the speech, according to lore. What a lazy bastard- he only had to memorize a 5 minute speech.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: This little jab is no different from the annoying repetition by some liberals of little meaningless anti-conservative or pro-environment sayings and sentiments that are not really references to facts, but more to a sort of system of belief that assumes righteousness- so we can simply say: "haliburton" and "blackwater" and "Enron," and those ciphers serve in the place of substantive thoughts or actual understanding.
I don't disagree that, say, "haliburton" has become a cipher. However, there is a substantive issue underlying it (assuming you're talking about the Iraq reconstruction contracts), unlike the teleprompter talking point. Perhaps the teleprompter references find their analogue in the belittling of 'bushisms'.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Perhaps bushisms are the more appropriate analogue. To be completely candid, I'm fairly sure that this particular sophistry is largely if not totally the territory of conservatives at the moment. It's deeply entwined with what conservative talk radio is pretty much all about. Correct me if you think me wrong, but liberal leaning radio sources, I'm thinking specifically of NPR, concern themselves to a much greater degree in contextualizing and analyzing events according to different viewpoints, with an eye for presenting those viewpoints as intertwining threads. Conservative radio of the moment is very much about eliminating dissonance and creating a kind of monocular vision of events- even if key facts and contexts need to be ignored in order to do so.
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
STANDING USA DEBT 202 Trillion. GLOBAL DERIVATIVES MARKET 700 Trillion.
The FED Owns U Who owns the feD?
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
Actually, we're around the $13 trillion mark. And if you take the take as a percentage of our GDP, we're about in the same amount of debt as in the 1950's.
If we get into the same levels as the 1940's, we may have to worry.
Ben Bernanke runs the Fed, but it's owned by the people.
Chill out.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Danlo the Wild:
The FED Owns U Who owns the feD?
This does happen to hatrack, not yahoo.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Also, the derivatives market value is based on notional value. That's the amount used to calculate payments, not the amount that actually changes hands. The maximal amount that could change hands in a worst case scenario is considerably lower than that, and even in very bad scenarios, what has been the case is that institutions will have positions that cancel each other out, lowering the actual amount changing hands even further.
In other words, the derivatives market isn't nearly so big as $700 trillion sounds. There are not people out there with the power over trillions of dollars (with the possible exception of a small number of elected and appointed government officials).
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
We're at $13 trillion in Debt?
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Ok, so if you throw in State debt, Fed Balance sheet (unknown), Treasury Balance sheet, Freddie and Fannie, state pension funds and social security, the REAL debt is somewhere between $13 trillion and 202 trillion.
How fast can you repay a $100 trillion dollar debt at $10 dollars an hour?
I recognize that the Derivatives market is based on notional value, but the estimates I've seen, when low-balling it, still call it at $70 trillion in a best case scenario.
If we've got the Wall Street geniuses playing the derivatives like they played Credit Default Swaps on Lehman Brothers and AIG, there shall come another day when the US TAXPAYER has to foot the bill for a very rigged system.
Barack Obama is no Bill Clinton. He's a Goldman Sachs frat boy to the core.
"The People" Do NOT own the Fed. Look it up.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Yes they do, since it was created via Congress.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:I recognize that the Derivatives market is based on notional value, but the estimates I've seen, when low-balling it, still call it at $70 trillion in a best case scenario.
That's absurd. One tenth is way, way too high, when many of those derivatives are interest rate swaps (and are not based on ten percent interest).
This slate article ( http://www.slate.com/id/2202263 ) references a calculation that the total market value of derivatives in 2007, when the derivative market was notionally valued at about $600 trillion, was just under $15 trillion. That's less than one fortieth. What's more, that's before taking into account offsetting positions, that bring the total down to around $3.3 trillion.
In other words, anyone making an estimate of $70 trillion is either an idiot, a liar, or being misunderstood.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Yes they do, since it was created via Congress.
Not only that, but the Fed is entirely controlled by a board fully appointed by elected officials, that the Congress has the power to dissolve at will.
In other words, it is firmly a part of the Federal bureaucracy, and not a private organization at all. It directs the actions of private banks.
You're the one who should have looked it up, Thor.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
We get "change" every election. He promised "change"....it shows how stupid the average American is. Bush was not on the ballot and Obama ran for "change" against Bush. McCain would've been change against Bush.
Obama still blames Bush. His polls fall with this tired argument...eventually, the "change" needs to produce from fruit.
It's like buying a car from the guy on the tv screaming......"I've got a car for you". Idiots believe it, they want a different car. They hate the car they have and there's someone promising them their dream car. Forget the fact there are 310 million different opinions of what that dream car is. Unfortunately, we elected a socialist who wants a one size fits all solution to everything. You get a Yugo.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Obama still blames Bush. His polls fall with this tired argument...eventually, the "change" needs to produce from fruit.
So you deny that he got left a raw deal?
There's nothing to be gained by ignoring the fact that Obama took office with a half dozen major problems staring him right in the face that he had no role in creating and that demanded his immediate attention. It's also true that some of the solutions now vilified were put into place by Bush and not Obama.
We have to ask ourselves a couple of different questions regarding Obama. How much time do we allot him to fix which problems? He's been in office for less than two years. It took eight or more to create these problems. Well if you think of 2001 or 2002 as the real beginning, then let's say it took 6 or 7 years. Has it been your experience in life that problems that long in the making are usually solved in one third the time it took to create them?
The other question we have to ask is one of trajectory. Does it appear that the things Obama is doing to ameliorate our problems are headed in the right direction?
I think I know your answer to the second question, but an answer to the first might be interesting.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
It took a lot more than 8 years to create these problems. Everyone wants to ignore the fact that Fannie and Freddie started the economic domino effect. Decades of Progressive policies lead to this downturn. The housing crisis started it all. Progressives forced banks to lend and when it went sour, the banks were called "predatory lenders".
Obama did inherit a shit sandwich but it's a sewer now.
When the Bush tax cuts expire this year, will it create jobs?
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Obama uses a teleprompter during his speeches. So do many other politicians.
And the ones who don't have written notes. Why would using high tech tools to do THE EXACT SAME THING be a *bad* thing or indicate inferiority?
Lincoln read the Gettysburg address off of a notebook page or a postcard, unless I am misremembering my history. He wrote it on the train on the way to give the speech, according to lore. What a lazy bastard- he only had to memorize a 5 minute speech.
Well the audience was pretty upset afterwards a I remember the story.
I went to his inauguration. It was something I will remember for the rest of my life. I wasn't old enough to vote at the time, but standing out there in 10 degree weather with literally hundreds of other people made me feel like a part of something really important. Now that the magic of that moment has faded, I am rather ambivalent towards him.
Maybe this is how every presidential election works out, but it seems to me like the people who didn't vote for Obama have been more vocal than ever. The Tea Party is pretty much a direct retaliation to Obama's election and you can't drive a mile without seeing a One-Big-Ass-Mistake-America bumper sticker. He deserves more time if you ask me. Heck, we voted Bush in for a second term didn't we?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Of course he deserves more time....he has four years to prove himself. In the two he's had....? Just because you failed the mid-term, doesn't mean you'll fail the course.....you can still eek out a C, if you're lucky.
He's a failure due to his let down. He can't live up to the hype. The Nobel committee is certainly regretting their decision and every Obama supporter I know has apologized to me since.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i need to make a drinking game based on squirreling out instances of 'he's a failure because he is in no way as awesome as I expect liberals were supposed to find him'
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
wait a minute
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: My point is the same as yours: inventing Obama's supposed "messiah-hood" among liberals has become a standard debating tactic for the far right. It allows conservatives to claim that anything Obama does that falls below "miraculous" is a complete and utter failure.
gurramit tarrsk, way to steal the glory
FEH
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Nobel Peace Prize Winner....don't blame conservatives for the expectations.....they didn't vote for him.
He was awarded this prize for what he "promised". The conservatives are standing around saying, "I told you so." He's a new media version of a baby hugging politician. Propaganda is only obvious in retrospect.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Nobel Peace Prize Winner....don't blame conservatives for the expectations.....they didn't vote for him.
What does a five person committee of Norwegians have to do with Obama-supporter expectations? None of us voted for him for the Peace Prize either.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Nobel Peace Prize Winner....don't blame conservatives for the expectations.....they didn't vote for him.
What does a five person committee of Norwegians have to do with Obama-supporter expectations? None of us voted for him for the Peace Prize either.
Sure, sure, deny responsibility now that he's crashing and burning. We all know you voted to give him the Peace Prize, just own up to it already.
I'll bet King of Men voted for it too. He is Norwegian, after all.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Obama uses a teleprompter during his speeches. So do many other politicians.
And the ones who don't have written notes. Why would using high tech tools to do THE EXACT SAME THING be a *bad* thing or indicate inferiority?
Lincoln read the Gettysburg address off of a notebook page or a postcard, unless I am misremembering my history. He wrote it on the train on the way to give the speech, according to lore. What a lazy bastard- he only had to memorize a 5 minute speech.
Well the audience was pretty upset afterwards a I remember the story.
I went to his inauguration. It was something I will remember for the rest of my life. I wasn't old enough to vote at the time, but standing out there in 10 degree weather with literally hundreds of other people made me feel like a part of something really important. Now that the magic of that moment has faded, I am rather ambivalent towards him.
You are much older than I expected!
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
The Banks raped the citizens of the globe.
The standard of living is dropping everywhere.
Barack has done everything for the evil ones.
Bush was dumb and horrible.
Obama is deceitful and horrible.
America is sinking fast.
OMG! DID YOU HEAR THEIR BUILDING A MOSQUE RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF GROUND ZERO? Forget Policy and they economy! Lets ALL SCREAM OUR OPINIONS!
Meh. If the Catholics can build churches within 4 blocks of a school or daycare, who are we to say that Muslims can't build a Mosque 4 blocks from Twin Tower Ash?
wtfbbqpwnt
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Nobel Peace Prize Winner....don't blame conservatives for the expectations.....they didn't vote for him.
What does a five person committee of Norwegians have to do with Obama-supporter expectations? None of us voted for him for the Peace Prize either.
Sure, sure, deny responsibility now that he's crashing and burning. We all know you voted to give him the Peace Prize, just own up to it already.
I'll bet King of Men voted for it too. He is Norwegian, after all.
As critical as everyone seems to be, can you give me one good example of Obama "crashing and burning"?
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:every Obama supporter I know has apologized to me since.
I voted for Obama and I'm not sorry. The right has viciously hated him since before he took office so I'm not concerned about their current dislike of him. I know many of the left are disappointed because they had expectations of him that had nothing to do with what he said he was going to do. Obama was a moderate candidate who's largely attempted to fulfill his campaign promises. We've gotten credit card reform. We have health care reform. We have financial regulatory reform. We no longer have combat troops in Iraq. And he still has two years to go! If the economy was doing better (which really, how much control does a president truly have over that), I think his poll numbers would be quite high.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Lincoln read the Gettysburg address off of a notebook page or a postcard, unless I am misremembering my history. He wrote it on the train on the way to give the speech, according to lore. What a lazy bastard- he only had to memorize a 5 minute speech.
I know, right? And such a well known speech, too.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: I know many of the left are disappointed because they had expectations of him that had nothing to do with what he said he was going to do.
Well.
quote: One of the exemptions allowed to deny Freedom of Information requests has been used by the Obama administration 70,779 times in its first year; the same exemption was used 47,395 times in Bush's final budget year.
An Associated Press examination of 17 major agencies' handling of FOIA requests found denials 466,872 times, an increase of nearly 50% from the 2008 fiscal year under Bush. ... On March 16 to mark annual Sunshine Week, designed to promote openness in government, Obama applauded himself by issuing a statement:
"As Sunshine Week begins, I want to applaud everyone who has worked to increase transparency in government and recommit my administration to be the most open and transparent ever."
quote:In Warrantless Wiretapping Case, Obama DOJ's New Arguments Are Worse Than Bush's ... It's an especially disappointing argument to hear from the Obama Administration. As a candidate, Senator Obama lamented that the Bush Administration "invoked a legal tool known as the 'state secrets' privilege more than any other previous administration to get cases thrown out of civil court." He was right then, and we're dismayed that he and his team seem to have forgotten.
Sad as that is, it's the Department Of Justice's second argument that is the most pernicious. The DOJ claims that the U.S. Government is completely immune from litigation for illegal spying — that the Government can never be sued for surveillance that violates federal privacy statutes.
This is a radical assertion that is utterly unprecedented. No one — not the White House, not the Justice Department, not any member of Congress, and not the Bush Administration — has ever interpreted the law this way.
quote:President Obama's endorsements of Bush-Cheney antiterror policies are by now routine: for example, opposing the release of prisoner abuse photographs and support for indefinite detention for some detainees, and that's just this week. More remarkable is White House creativity in portraying these U-turns as epic change. Witness yesterday's announcement endorsing military commissions. ... But the debate that has convulsed the political system since 9/11 isn't about procedural nuances. It has been over core principles, with Democrats decrying a "shadow justice system" and claiming that "Our Constitution and our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists."
The latter quote is from a speech by Senator Obama in 2007 denouncing "a legal framework that does not work." He also referred to the civilian criminal justice system and courts martial that Democrats then claimed, and many still claim, are the right venues for antiterror prosecutions. After the Supreme Court's Boumediene decision gave terrorists habeas rights, Mr. Obama again laid into the Bush Administration's "legal black hole" and "dangerously flawed legal approach," which "undermines the very values we are fighting to defend."
Of a sort. A sort that many people find very disappointing coming out of a process that was handled extremely poorly.
quote:We have financial regulatory reform.
We have something that is called financial regulatory reform. Does it represent actual meaningful reform? Barely. It has little teeth and does not address most of the major issues that people pushing for reform wanted it to address.
And, I should mention, it appears that we're still giving near interest free loans to investment banks who are then buying government investments with this money. Or to put it another way, we're giving them money for free that they are turning around and loaning to us at interest.
quote:We no longer have combat troops in Iraq.
That's not true. We've reduced our troops by a lot, but we still do have combat troops in Iraq, they're just called something different.
--
President Obama, as Mucus pointed out, is even worse that the Bush administration in the expansion of executive power and secrecy that candidate Obama heavily criticized. He has blatantly reneged on his promise of an open, transparent administration.
He also reneged on his promise to keep lobbyists out of his administration, and instead opened his doors wide to them. And how about BP's ability to strictly control press, citizen, and governmental access to the Deepwater Horizon spill site?
---
The War on Obama Republicans are ridiculous, highly irresponsible and, in some cases, I'd say bordering on treasonous, but that doesn't mean that aren't many serious reasons to be unhappy with President Obama's performance.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: As critical as everyone seems to be, can you give me one good example of Obama "crashing and burning"?
In the absence of the republicans getting him to fail in his verious 'waterloos,' which went on to become law, the crashing and burning is inferred from his midterm ratings slump.
Of course, if that's crashing and burning, then reagan and clinton, et. al., also 'crashed and burned.'
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Nobel Peace Prize Winner....don't blame conservatives for the expectations.....they didn't vote for him.
What does a five person committee of Norwegians have to do with Obama-supporter expectations? None of us voted for him for the Peace Prize either.
Sure, sure, deny responsibility now that he's crashing and burning. We all know you voted to give him the Peace Prize, just own up to it already.
I'll bet King of Men voted for it too. He is Norwegian, after all.
As critical as everyone seems to be, can you give me one good example of Obama "crashing and burning"?
Really? The whole... I'll bet KoM is involved too cause he's Norwegian and those shifty Norwegians are all in on it... that didn't make it obvious I was screwing around? I'm sorry. Let me clarify... that post was screwing around. I don't like much of what Obama has done in office, and I sincerely hope he does not get elected to a second term, but I don't particularly think he's "crashing and burning."
PS: I also don't actually think Soapinureye is old enough to have been present for Lincoln's inauguration. But his post sort of reads that way. I was screwing around there, too. I was in a silly, whimsical mood last night. Sorry if that didn't come across.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: PS: I also don't actually think Soapinureye is old enough to have been present for Lincoln's inauguration. But his post sort of reads that way. I was screwing around there, too. I was in a silly, whimsical mood last night. Sorry if that didn't come across.
I laughed. It read that way to me, too.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:MrSquicky: The War on Obama Republicans are ridiculous, highly irresponsible and, in some cases, I'd say bordering on treasonous, but that doesn't mean that aren't many serious reasons to be unhappy with President Obama's performance.
You know the thing that's pissed me off the most lately about Republicans is that they're hammering away at issues I either totally disagree with them about, hammering away at trumped up social issues that we shouldn't even be discussing, or just outright slandering Obama. But there are legitimate things that I think I'd really be distressed about that one has to dig to find, like the information Mucus posted above. The Obama Administration IS doing things that I don't like, but the Republicans, oddly, aren't talking about them.
Is it because these are hot-button issues for Democrats and not Republicans? Sounds like a perfect cross-party tactic to swipe away at some independent voters, but they're sticking to character assassination instead of substantive policy issues. I don't usually say this, but that's pretty dumb political tactics from the Republicans (and I say this next part all the time), as well as being harmful to the country as a whole in neglecting their duties as the keeping-him-honest opposition.
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
""" We have financial regulatory reform."""
Written by Barney Frank, who dated a senior executive at Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac for six years, and by Chris Dodd, who put a single line into the Bailout Bill that allowed all Bank Execs to keep their bonuses.
It's not reform at all. It creates a bunch of committees and more regulatory groups.
It allows you to sue banks if the economy crashes. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
The Financial Reform Bill is a tragic joke.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Obama uses a teleprompter during his speeches. So do many other politicians.
And the ones who don't have written notes. Why would using high tech tools to do THE EXACT SAME THING be a *bad* thing or indicate inferiority?
Lincoln read the Gettysburg address off of a notebook page or a postcard, unless I am misremembering my history. He wrote it on the train on the way to give the speech, according to lore. What a lazy bastard- he only had to memorize a 5 minute speech.
Well the audience was pretty upset afterwards a I remember the story.
I went to his inauguration. It was something I will remember for the rest of my life. I wasn't old enough to vote at the time, but standing out there in 10 degree weather with literally hundreds of other people made me feel like a part of something really important. Now that the magic of that moment has faded, I am rather ambivalent towards him.
You are much older than I expected!
Only 19 lol.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Must be a case of reincarnation.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Lincoln read the Gettysburg address off of a notebook page or a postcard, unless I am misremembering my history. He wrote it on the train on the way to give the speech, according to lore. What a lazy bastard- he only had to memorize a 5 minute speech.
I know, right? And such a well known speech, too.
Lisa: Please message me at your soonest convenience.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Must be a case of reincarnation.
My parents are Buddhist and, to the extent that I was brought up with a religion, that religion was Buddhism. When I was a kid, I always wanted to remember a past life, but I never did.
I guess what I'm saying is: I'm a little jealous, Soap. I wish I could remember Lincoln's inauguration.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Nobel Peace Prize Winner....don't blame conservatives for the expectations.....they didn't vote for him.
What does a five person committee of Norwegians have to do with Obama-supporter expectations? None of us voted for him for the Peace Prize either.
Norwegians are the prime example of socialist success in the world. They have a common race, a common work ethic, a homogeneous society. Obama's ideas work in places like Switzerland. They're suckers for his words. Those of us that don't live a lily white, socialist eutopia have other issues to deal with. Just don't try to put put up a minaret in Sweden.....the best socialist country in the world. It works there and it would've worked for Hitler too, had he succeeded in eliminating the non productive and "greedy" members of his society. Socialism can work in an intolerant society where everyone works the same, is satisfied with the same standard of living and has a common culture.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
The American Progressive is a different breed than the examples they hold up in the world. Japanese and Swedish people aren't the "melting pot" of America. In those countries, they have a common interest. Hitler wanted to make a "common" interest as well. The National Socialist Party needed to eliminate the different to have a chance to achieve the current examples of successful socialism.
American Progressives are coming at it from a completely different angle. Look at their own words, their own titles. Our president wants "social justice" and spent half his life in "liberation theology". The terms "justice" and "liberation" should spell out the difference. Their own titles identify they come from a grievance position. This brand of socialism isn't the same as Sweden or Japan. This brand identifies an oppressor and applies blame for a perceived injustice, it doesn't look to a common goal. Our brand is closer to Hitler than the Swedes and Japanese. They are homogeneous...Hitler's dream. For Hitler to achieve "social justice" and "liberation"....he needed to eliminate the Jews who held wealth during their depression. He needed to eliminate the non-productive Down's Syndrome kids and the mongrel races who had a different culture.
American Progressives' own organizational titles identify the fact that we are not homogeneous and united. They have a target and want pay back. Socialism cannot succeed in America. It might in Japan, Sweden or Hitlers anticipated utopia.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Nobel Peace Prize Winner....don't blame conservatives for the expectations.....they didn't vote for him.
What does a five person committee of Norwegians have to do with Obama-supporter expectations? None of us voted for him for the Peace Prize either.
Norwegians are the prime example of socialist success in the world. They have a common race, a common work ethic, a homogeneous society. Obama's ideas work in places like Switzerland. They're suckers for his words. Those of us that don't live a lily white, socialist eutopia have other issues to deal with. Just don't try to put put up a minaret in Sweden.....the best socialist country in the world. It works there and it would've worked for Hitler too, had he succeeded in eliminating the non productive and "greedy" members of his society. Socialism can work in an intolerant society where everyone works the same, is satisfied with the same standard of living and has a common culture.
So in other words, nothing.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
In other words,
Socialism works in societies of common culture and common living standards. "Social Justice" means everyone is the same...of course in practice...government connected get better food and better living. The elite shift from the smart and hard working to the politically connected.
I prefer a system where the lazy people with broken families attend "liberation theology" churches and protest for "social justice" while the hard working stable families have a chance to succeed without political connections.
[ August 28, 2010, 01:25 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Must be a case of reincarnation.
My parents are Buddhist and, to the extent that I was brought up with a religion, that religion was Buddhism. When I was a kid, I always wanted to remember a past life, but I never did.
I guess what I'm saying is: I'm a little jealous, Soap. I wish I could remember Lincoln's inauguration.
Oh Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:
Socialism works in societies of common culture and common living standards. "Social Justice" means everyone is the same...of course in practice...government connected get better food and better living. The elite shift from the smart and hard working to the politically connected.
Yes, because of course in a capitalist society, hard work and brains are the only virtues that lend one to advancement. Connections matter not one whit. Isn't there some Glenn Beck you could be listening to, malanthrop?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Connections matter a lot. Those connections are what has corrupted capitalism....Fannie and Freddie. Pure capitalism has no connections. In a purely capitalistic society, there are no businesses "too big to fail". In a purely capitalistic society, there are no "bail outs". Congress is considering bailing out union pension funds with tax payer money. Currently, unions workers are less than 15% of the American workforce. Why should the other 85% bail out their pension funds? Maybe because the unions are "politically connected" and support the current administration.
The connections are a corruption of capitalism.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You keep saying, "In a purely capitalistic society..." Maybe you could give an example, malanthrop? Realizing that facts and honest, straightforward arguments aren't really your 'thing', I suspect it will take awhile.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
America was a purely capitalistic society. There aren't any "purely capitalistic" societies left. If there was a media market crash, who would be "too big to fail", Fox News or NBC?
Everyone forgets that Fannie and Freddie were the first dominoes to fall. They were government created and backed lending organizations. They are banks with unlimited access to tax payers dollars. The loans they made were for "social justice" reasons. Of course, it's called "predatory lending" when it turns sour.
Purely capitalistic countries??? none left.
Capitalism is self correcting....government interference is the problem.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
When was America a purely capitalistic society?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:America was a purely capitalistic society
This is either a foolish statement or a lie. The United States was never a 'purely capitalistic society'. How about we make a wager, malanthrop? If you can point to a period in time when the United States was purely capitalistic, I will stay away from Hatrack for one month. If you can't, you will.
It's a nice thought, though of course you've got ample weasel room in the subjective term 'pure capitalism'.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Pure capitalism has no connections.
wat
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:America was a purely capitalistic society
This is either a foolish statement or a lie. The United States was never a 'purely capitalistic society'. How about we make a wager, malanthrop? If you can point to a period in time when the United States was purely capitalistic, I will stay away from Hatrack for one month. If you can't, you will.
It's a nice thought, though of course you've got ample weasel room in the subjective term 'pure capitalism'.
I think the "weasel room" is on your side. It was awfully capitalistic when our government was trading beads for land with people who didn't comprehend the concept of land ownership.
It was certainly,... capitalistic prior to the formation of beurocratic institutions that created "regulations" dictating what people can or can't sell. It was most definitely purely capitalistic before it was illegal for me to cut down a tree without a permit and the EPA was formed and considering banning lead bullets.
Of course, we had laws. You leapt on the "purely" part as an absolute....very good. Absolutes can always be disproved...you must've been on the high school debate team. In a "purely capitalistic" society you could sell anything, including your wife's eyes. If this is your intention.....I'll deviate.
We were purely capitalistic the moment after the signing of the constitution. Ever since, politicians have undermined that pure freedom to enhance their election chances with promises and/or financial contributions.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I think the "weasel room" is on your side. It was awfully capitalistic when our government was trading beads for land with people who didn't comprehend the concept of land ownership.
We weren't the United States then. Pretty basic history there.
quote: It was certainly,... capitalistic prior to the formation of beurocratic institutions that created "regulations" dictating what people can or can't sell. It was most definitely purely capitalistic before it was illegal for me to cut down a tree without a permit and the EPA was formed and considering banning lead bullets.
Ahh, so your answer is 'never' then. Because those institutions have always existed, in some degree and shape, in the United States. You have a pretty simple job to prove your point: find one time when they didn't.
quote: Of course, we had laws. You leapt on the "purely" part as an absolute....very good. Absolutes can always be disproved...you must've been on the high school debate team. In a "purely capitalistic" society you could sell anything, including your wife's eyes. If this is your intention.....I'll deviate.
Not so much high school debate as an expectation that you'll stand by the words you actually use. Well, not you specifically, malanthrop, since you've long since burned through any such expectation, but an expectation of people in general. What, am I supposed to apologize for seizing on an egregiously silly statement you made, pointing out - along with others - just how foolish it was?
quote:We were purely capitalistic the moment after the signing of the constitution. Ever since, politicians have undermined that pure freedom to enhance their election chances with promises and/or financial contributions.
No, this is either a foolish statement or a lie as well. Would you care to make the same wager you of course refused before, malanthrop?
ETA: Just to lay it completely on the line the depths of your wrongness, malanthrop:
quote: Excise: A tax on the manufacture, sale, or consumption of goods within a country
Now, are you going to man up and say, "Yeah, I was wrong," or will you typically slink out of this conversation and pretend nothing happened, or change the subject completely?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Malanthrop, you can say things without making absurd, extreme statements.
Like, you could say that America had a much less regulated economy (more capitalistic, to borrow your terminology) the further back in our history you go. That's still general, but it's got the added perk of being factual.
You could argue that things were better when we were more capitalistic. That the addition of lots of government oversight agencies and regs has just added a lot of costly bureaucracy and accomplished very little. This isn't a fact, precisely, but it's a valid stance to take (in many cases, it's one I agree with) and when people disagreed you could then argue it from there.
But these bizarre blanket statements don't successfully get your point across. Just in case that matters to you...
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Nobel Peace Prize Winner....don't blame conservatives for the expectations.....they didn't vote for him.
What does a five person committee of Norwegians have to do with Obama-supporter expectations? None of us voted for him for the Peace Prize either.
Norwegians are the prime example of socialist success in the world. They have a common race, a common work ethic, a homogeneous society. Obama's ideas work in places like Switzerland. They're suckers for his words. Those of us that don't live a lily white, socialist eutopia have other issues to deal with. Just don't try to put put up a minaret in Sweden.....the best socialist country in the world. It works there and it would've worked for Hitler too, had he succeeded in eliminating the non productive and "greedy" members of his society. Socialism can work in an intolerant society where everyone works the same, is satisfied with the same standard of living and has a common culture.
So in other words, nothing.
I love it. Just a perfect snapshot of mal's dogged determination to be irrelevant.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Like, you could say that America had a much less regulated economy (more capitalistic, to borrow your terminology) the further back in our history you go. That's still general, but it's got the added perk of being factual.
No, no, not factual. The economy has always had ups and downs in regulations -- there is no clear narrative of generally increasing regulation. Prior to the gilded age, economic regulation (especially of trade) was extremely commonplace. Even the gilded age itself was characterized by economic muddling we would not countenance today -- the federal government using the military to force private citizens to keep working for a particular company, price ceilings on transporting and storing grain, you get the idea. The narrative of steadily increasing economic regulation is fantasy at best. It doesn't even apply very well to the bogeyman that most people who worship that idol conjure up: the income tax.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Really? That's incredibly interesting to me! I'm aware of certain instances of exceptions, but I had always thought that aside from those the general trend as time went on was always more regulation.
I don't exactly expect you to give me a timeline or anything, but I am very curious about this. Any suggestions of where I could start? Online sources would be great, of course, but if the best ones are paper I can seek them out instead.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think the problem with the narrative is that the only government intervention that counts is intervention that RESTRAINS business from acting. But for the period between 1850 and say, 1910 (I can't remember the exact dates of the labor reform laws of the early 1900s, but the 30s were a big decade for labor), government was heavily involved in the economy, only as a force to restrain LABOR from having a voice in the system. The government brutally put down labor protests, and I mean brutally, and like fugu said, used the army to force laborers back to work after the mess was cleaned up. The government was a national strike breaking force for decades. You know what the first major uses of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act were? They weren't to bust the trusts, they were to attack unions for restricting trade between businesses, effectively union busting.
Besides, during the 19th century, probably the single biggest issue at any given time was the tariff. Especially in the early 19th century, people were so up in arms over tariffs that there was a secession scare during Jackson's term over the Tariff of Abominations that led to the Nullification Crisis. And the tariff was inherently the government fiddling with trade and the economic system, often for purely local reasons. A senator from the south might want to make it harder for foreign cotton, so he'd suggest a tariff, but the good senator from Massachusetts wants that cotton for the local textile manufacturers so they can send out finished goods overseas, lest there be a trade war that hurts his state's manufactures. Lots of state versus state imbroglios, but tariffs were always changing, always a hot button issue, and always there.
Anyone who says that government interference didn't start until regulations after the Gilded Age is either woefully ignorant, or lying to advance a narrative. However, given the narrative pushed by many about the history of government interference, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was just ignorance.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
(edit: and note that the first book includes numerous examples of the government restraining business from acting, frequently through very destructive price controls -- which are one of the very worst kinds of regulation, and thankfully one we've mostly moved away from)
Looking at recent history, there's been massive deregulation since the middle of the 20th century (note: the timeline is very different depending on the area being looked at; that's one thing that makes the story more complex).
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... Is it because these are hot-button issues for Democrats and not Republicans? Sounds like a perfect cross-party tactic to swipe away at some independent voters, but they're sticking to character assassination instead of substantive policy issues.
It's interesting. The way I see it, there are the following changes coming up:
quote:Today, non-Hispanic whites make up about 68% of the population. This is expected to fall to 46% in 2050. The report foresees the Hispanic population rising from 15% today to 30% by 2050. Today African Americans make up 12% of the population, in 2050 they are projected to comprise 15% of the population. Asian Americans make up 5% of the population today and they are expected to make up 9% in 2050. The U.S. has nearly 305 million people today.
So you gotta figure, a strategy that relies upon playing to a xenophobic religious white base is going to ride down hard demographically. Maybe not in the short term, but long term it seems like a doomed strategy.
It would be natural for the Republicans to reach out to blacks and Hispanics who are statistically more religious than non-hispanic whites. Based on things like the exit polls for Prop 8, they could build a pretty grand coalition among Hispanics, Blacks, and religious whites to bolster that section of their agenda. (Asians are probably a lost cause) At least that way, they could make some headway into groups that are actually growing.
But the longer they go with the Tea Party thing (to scare off blacks), Arizona immigration (to scare off Hispanics), ground zero mosques and the like, the more they'll find themselves shut out of the growing groups. (And thats not even factoring in the long-term trend towards less religion by percentage)
In Canada, our conservatives have whipped their MPs hard to avoid saying too overtly anti-immigrant or religious, although there are the occasional slips. By repressing that and playing up other issues like fiscal policy, they've managed to build surprising inroads into immigrant and non-white demographics.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Tea party has nothing to do with race. The only blacks that are being "scared off" are the ones listening to liberal media.
Only Dems can get away with calling people a traitor to their race for being conservative. Allen West is an Uncle Tom, along with Clarence Thomas, Bill Cosby and MLK's niece.
[ August 28, 2010, 08:54 PM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Tea party has nothing to do with race.
It's amazing how many white people I hear saying that.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Go ahead,
stick with the senate majority leader of a party that calls people a traitor to their race, for having a different opinion.
How dare a minority be a conservative. When they are, even MLK's niece, they sold out.....right?
Forget which party freed the slaves? Of course, the racist dems were all about government benefits.......the projects are just a different form of segregation.
What political party made up the bulk of the KKK? Who opposed the civil rights act? Which party had a speaker of the house that was a "Grand Wizard" of the KKK?
The Dems love minorities, so long as they tow the line and stay in their place. SEIU will beat down a hard working conservative and democrat senators will attack any conservative supreme court nominee....if they happen to be black.
Stay in your place....good little negro....don't deviate. Ask Harry Reid what he thinks about conservative hispanics.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Tea party has nothing to do with race. The only blacks that are being "scared off" are the ones listening to liberal media.
And, look, completely sidestepping the whole purely capitalist society discussion. It's moments like these that make me think malanthrop must be a straight-up troll, because it's very difficult for me to imagine someone being so steadfastly afraid of admitting being wrong as malanthrop.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
There's a $100k reward for video proof of the racist remarks and spitting claimed, when the health care bill passed. Funny,...media cameras were in the procession but the same media outlets called the protesters racist.
This one's for you: “The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody had decided not to see.” Ayn Rand
Stop stereotyping,....minority conservatives do exist. Blacks do have the ability to hold different opinions. Check out the columnists at WND.com
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hey, malanthrop, want to wrap up that 'America was a purely capitalist society' discussion we were having? Or are you too spineless to man up even on the Internet?
That's a rhetorical question, it's well known around here you are, in fact, a huge coward when it comes to substantiating your rhetoric, even among the folks who come close to agreeing with you, but it's fun highlighting it sometimes whenever you get on one of your kicks.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It's moments like these that make me think malanthrop must be a straight-up troll, because it's very difficult for me to imagine someone being so steadfastly afraid of admitting being wrong as malanthrop.
I mean, this forum alone has Ron Lambert. Some people are just indefatigably unresponsive to correction that way.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I'm not a troll. I understand the perception, I've been absent for a couple months. I spent the last two months in southern Afghanistan. The Obama supporters living in the projects near my house, live like kings compared to what I've seen. I'll gladly trade, one for one, the "social justice" and "liberation theology" followers for the millions who outnumber them in the world....wanting to be American citizens.
Our current situation is as disfunctional as a marriage with a cheating spouse, with the offended holding it over the offender's head. Slavery was wrong. We should've done the right thing and sent them all back to Africa after slavery was banned. We're in a marriage where the disgruntled spouse can't forgive.
Al Sharpton gave a rally today as well. He claimed justice hasn't been served since black unemployment rates are twice those of whites. Of course, he didn't mention their high school graduation rates are less than half those of whites. Slavery was the biggest mistake this nation ever made,...we're going to pay for it for a long, long time.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Our current situation is as disfunctional as a marriage with a cheating spouse, with the offended holding it over the offender's head. Slavery was wrong. We should've done the right thing and sent them all back to Africa after slavery was banned.
Wow. Shipping a bunch of blacks back off to a continent they have never been to making them refugees right after they have been freed. Because it is the "right thing to do".
Well to make sure that we don't have to deal with them in the future.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
If I was taken from my home land, I would consider the right thing to do....send me back. The other option is reconciliation. If a husband cheats on his wife, they can either work it out or split up. Of course, being sent back isn't an option, there's a 10 to 1 discrepancy of people there who want to trade places with the complainers here.
The grass is always greener on the other side.
(Post edited by Janitor Blade. That was too far Mal.)
[ September 01, 2010, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If I was taken from my home land, I would consider the right thing to do....send me back.
None of the slaves who were freed by the Civil War and the subsequent acts of law were taken from homelands in Africa.
quote:I don't have anything against minorities...edited by Janitor Blade
I would love to hear how you reconcile the desire to ship a population en masse out of the country with not having anything against that population. But only after you man up and answer Rakeesh.
[ September 01, 2010, 03:43 PM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Please, too many tangents going on...what is Rakeesh's question, so I can "man up".
I don't want to ship "en masse" anyone. I would trade the individual complainer for the dozens in the world who are waiting in line to take their place.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The question being about American pure capitalism. You know, the very matter you were discussing immediately before you switched the subject? That question.
As for not wanting to ship anyone, you just said the right thing to do would be to ship slaves 'back' to Africa. Tom pointed out they didn't come from Africa. That was within the past forty minutes. Are you posting drunk, high, or simply with an absence of integrity?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
The post about capitalism was yesterday for me...I'm a bit drunk though.
I didn't suggest it's the right thing to do now,...shipping blacks back to Africa. They might've appreciated it at the time. Slaves did come from Africa, along with the rest of us. Anyone who complains, should be given a free ticket, there are hundreds willing to take their place.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:They might've appreciated it at the time.
Again: none of the slaves freed by the Civil War had lived in Africa.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
They never lived in Africa but they never accepted the place they were born as a home land..... this is a problem.
Current African Americans are lottery winners. There are millions of real Africans willing to trade places with them. Africans, like my Jamaican neighbors, that hold nothing but disgust for the average "African American". Their ancestors, like most Americans, paid a high price for their current opportunity. Unfortunately, the majority of African Americans follow a party that tells them they don't have equal opportunity. When one succeeds and figures it out on his own, he's a traitor to his race.
Conservative minorities are a discredit to their race.....according to the Democratic party.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:They never lived in Africa but they never accepted the place they were born as a home land...
Perhaps this is because, y'know, they weren't actually allowed to own property or keep their own children? And we certainly didn't live up to any promises of land, either.
quote:Current African Americans are lottery winners.
This is a common meme. So would you say that you, by whining about them without suffering even their slight disadvantages, are even more ungrateful?
------------
Before you answer that, though, please do answer Rakeesh.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Mal, watch "Kill the Messenger" by Chris Rock, sure its standup comedy but on the other hand it does the job in explaining how pigheadedly wrong you are.
For example where Chris Rock lives in New Jearsy, he lives there next to Eddie Murphy and a few other famous black actors or comedians, all the black people on his street are famous and rich.
What does his white neighbour do for a living? He's a dentist! Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Before you answer that, though, please do answer Rakeesh.
"answer"
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The Jamaican neighbors are back again! I was wondering when they would make an appearance.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I do love my Jamaican neighbors. On the surface and to the dems,...they are black. To me and to themselves, they are Americans. The millions of Africans who can only dream about being a US citizen along with my Jamaican neighbors, realize that there is equal opportunity in America.
If anything, being a minority is a benefit. If I were a minority, with my ASVAB scores, I could've gone to Harvard....with a full ride. I'm just a relatively smart white guy. Two equal candidates for employment, the minority will be chosen.
We use racial politics for supreme court nominations. First and foremost,....are there enough women, blacks, hispanics, etc on the court. Actual qualifications are secondary.
In a true quota system, based upon population, minorities are over represented on the supreme court.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If anything, being a minority is a benefit.
Says the white guy working for the government.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
A white guy who works for the government for a company that won it's contract for being, "Minority female owned".
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
A percentage of contracts are reserved for small business, minority, female, etc. http://www.ezfts.com/aboutus.php Perhaps you think it's wrong for the minority owned business to hire a white guy?
[ August 29, 2010, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
No, not at all. I was merely pointing out the irony. But, of course, you don't actually detect any. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hey, lookit all the question-answering malanthrop still isn't doing! You realize how tediously transparent you're being, right malanthrop? Your tissue-thin lie that you forgot to answer my question before on the subject of purely capitalist America because it was a previous day's topic and you were drunk wasn't exactly ironclad, but now it's two days later and you still haven't responded.
You don't have Jamaican neighbors, you don't make lots of money, about the only you say about yourself I believe is true is that you post drunk. Can you blame me? You lack even the integrity to admit when you're proven wrong about a straightforward question of basic American history.
If you feel I'm being unfair, of course, there's an easy way to correct the matter. Here's a hint: it's not to talk about minorities or slavery or Jamaican neighbors or anything but purely capitalist America.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Anyone who complains, should be given a free ticket, there are hundreds willing to take their place.
You are the one currently complaining, why not give *YOU* a free ticket back to another continent?
As for your "it might have been a good idea to ship the slaves back to Africa" -- even with your "divorce" argument, it's the wronged party that gets most the property, and the one that wrongs them that gets evicted: The black former slaves should have perhaps been given the majority of the Southern states as their own nation, to be admitted in the United States anew if *they* freely chose to do so. And whatever *white* person didn't like it, they could be given a free ticket back to Europe.
Didn't that idea occur to you? That perhaps it should have been the white people that needed to be shipped elsewhere? How come?
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I've known many Africans who can't stand African Americans. Being an American citizen is the best opportunity afforded to anyone, in the world.
As a child of one married to the other, I'd love to hear you elaborate on this point. Mostly because I doubt you have any idea what you're talking about.
--j_k
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:We use racial politics for supreme court nominations. First and foremost,....are there enough women, blacks, hispanics, etc on the court. Actual qualifications are secondary.
Elaborate please.
It's not like there's a shortage of competent jurists to fill the bench. Also, why is it a bad thing that our Supreme Court attempts to reflect a cross section of the American population?
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: If I were a minority, with my ASVAB scores, I could've gone to Harvard....with a full ride. I'm just a relatively smart white guy.
That bothers me. Having taken the ASVAB myself, and having tied you as a worst case scenario, I can definitively say that even a perfect score on that test entitles you to nothing more than the ability to choose your military vocation without it being chosen for you.
There is no comparison between being able to do simple Algebra and knowing what "Thursday" means and being able to succeed academically at an even moderately challenging college. Those moderately challenging colleges know that better than I do, which is why they don't ask for ASVAB scores.
It's important to understand your limitations so you don't project biases within the framework of experience and intelligence you don't necessarily have. I've been there. I got better.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I thought there was a great comment on having multiple woman in a row being appointed though I don't remember who made it. People are in an uproar over the idea of 2 women in a row and maybe even 3 in the future. So, where is the uproar over the past 100 something of men without interruption. If we are going to be upset over, the 100 something white men in a row seems a lot more of a "streak" than 2 woman in a row.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: If I were a minority, with my ASVAB scores, I could've gone to Harvard....with a full ride. I'm just a relatively smart white guy.
That bothers me. Having taken the ASVAB myself, and having tied you as a worst case scenario, I can definitively say that even a perfect score on that test entitles you to nothing more than the ability to choose your military vocation without it being chosen for you.
There is no comparison between being able to do simple Algebra and knowing what "Thursday" means and being able to succeed academically at an even moderately challenging college. Those moderately challenging colleges know that better than I do, which is why they don't ask for ASVAB scores.
It's important to understand your limitations so you don't project biases within the framework of experience and intelligence you don't necessarily have. I've been there. I got better.
I don't understand how ASVAB scores could get you into Harvard either. I read that and scratched my head for a second... Perhaps he meant ACT scores?
I scored very well on my ASVABS and all it got me was a score of recruiters calling me every day. When they told me they had jobs for everyone I usually answered back with one of two answers:
"WOW really? Because I've always wanted to be a cockroach farmer! You have jobs for that right!?!?!?"
or
"Well hey you have a nice phone voice, maybe we could get some lunch sometime then go out to a movie. I bet you are cute!"
I found if I used one of those two statements the phone calls would stop for a few months.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
This thread is so lame. You should all be talking about Super Metroid.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Barack Obama is probably playing Super Metroid right now.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: Barack Obama is probably playing Super Metroid right now.
Surely you mean Metroid Other M
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
The black guy dies in that, though.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: This thread is so lame. You should all be talking about Super Metroid.
You know how they say that games have 'startling revelations?' Yeah, i don't hardly ever find them startling. rarely ever, like only four or five times in my life, do I get startled by a revelation, be they in film, books, games, tv shows, etc.
Super Metroid gave me the one single largest Startling Revelation I've ever experienced. I was like OH MY GOD WHAT IS THAT OH MY GOD I'M DYING WHAT THE FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF..... what .... OH. OH WOW.
r.i.p. squeaky
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: The black guy dies in that, though.
I want to say spoiler alert but it's like saying 'the gorilla dies' or 'the ship sinks'
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Ir's part of a cutscene they released and it's a really reall bad cutscene thatrs being raged over on a zillion message boards.
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
My biggest argument against Obama was that he didn't have enough experience for us to know how he'd go about doing all the spiffy things he said he would. I maintain people voted more for the idea of the man than the man himself. The idea was good, but devil and details and all.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Not the first time I've been accused of being someone else. No possible way more than one person in the world could have an opinion other than yours. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)