How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Chicago Politics   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ]
 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Chicago Politics

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


50 posted 07-17-2011 06:17 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Ah, Bob, I'm not going to keep beating that dead horse. Ive given you ample examples of why "Chicago politics" is known nationwide as a term for sleazy and illegal politicians. Either you don't read them or you just ignore them and keep saying I haven't explained it. Fine. I explained it well enough for any average person to understand and relate to it. If you were to go out on the street and stop people with the question, "What  does the term 'Chicago politics' mean to you, I feel confident that the answers would be derrogatory. You don't want to acknowledge it....fine by me. I've explained it well enough.
Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


51 posted 07-17-2011 06:18 PM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas


quote:
Not sorry enough, I see


I was just answering Denise Mike.

quote:
ok, let's move along.


OK.

quote:
Some suggest "tax the rich to make up the deficit".


You can't close the deficit completely by raising taxes, anyone who says that you can is an idiot, similarly you can't realistically close the deficit by just cutting spending, you can't grow your way out of trouble either.

We've had this conversation before.

I thought we agreed that the answer is a mixture of spending cuts, taxes and economic growth. Which, as far as I understand it, is what Obama is proposing.

Thanks for the link to the treasury report Mike though it doesn't seem to work. Here's the link I've been using:
http://www.fms.treas.gov/dts/index.html

The reports look bleak don't they? If you look at the operating cash balance the treasury is haemorrhaging  money from its reserve accounts at a rate of 4 - 6 billion a day over and above the revenue it takes in - at that rate the coffers will be empty before Aug 2nd.

quote:
13 July 2011: U. S. Treasury Department reports "Coffers Full Enough to Cover Entitlement Programs, Veterans, Federal Salaries, Interest - Without Borrowing a Dime"


Err.. no - the report shows what the reserve balance was on July 13th, by Aug all that will have gone as the report clearly shows.

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


52 posted 07-17-2011 06:42 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Strange....the link works fine for me, Uncas. No, what Obama seems to be doing with his time these days is touting taxing the rich and corporate jets. He's doing his best to make sure his class warfare tactics continue. In spite of Rebublicans repeating "Give us your plan", he continues not to do so.


Hey, Bob, with Rahm now heading Chicago, their reputation is assured to continue along the same lines.


Emanuel’s Involvement in Two Chicago Scandals Costs Taxpayers $172 Million
Will Rahm Emanuel Testify About his Rigged Congressional Election?

It’s one thing for Rahm Emanuel to remain silent about his political past, but it is quite another when taxpayers continue to pay for Emanuel’s sins. Chicago’s job and election rigging schemes have already cost taxpayers at least $172 million, and the amount of money Chicago residents are paying for these scandals is increasing every day. The city spent the bulk of the $172 million on personnel contracts that were intended to correct the city’s hiring abuses, including the abusive personnel practices that benefited Emanuel’s political career.

The Daley administration purposely violated a Federal Court Order when it awarded job applicants and city employees with jobs, promotions, and overtime pay to campaign for Daley favored candidates, such as Rahm Emanuel. About 150 to 250 city workers unlawfully campaigned for Emanual when Emanuel ran for Congress. The money to pay for Emanuel’s campaign workers came from unsuspecting Chicago taxpayers, not Emanual’s campaign contributors. What makes taxpayers footing the bill for Emanuel’s campaign workers worse, Emanuel earned $16.2 million in the 16 months prior to him running for Congress.

Emanuel Named in Federal Court Corruption Trial

During Donald Tomczak’s June, 2006 Federal Court testimony, Tomczak described the Daley administration’s job and election rigging schemes. Tomczak used his Water Department office to coordinate numerous campaigns, including that of Rahm Emanuel’s successful bid for Congress. Tomczak managed 150 to 250 city workers whose livelihood depended more on their campaign performance than it did on their job performance.

Tomczak received orders to campaign for specific candidates from Intergovernmental Affairs commissioners Victor Reyes and John Doerrer. Once the elections were over, Tomczak gave the Intergovernmental Affairs commissioners his list of city workers who campaigned for the Daley backed candidates. Employees at the Intergovernmental Affairs office rewarded the people on Tomczak’s campaign worker list with jobs, promotions, and other perks.
http://stoneformayor.com/politrix/will-rahm-emanuel-testify-about-his-rigg ed-congressional-election/
Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


53 posted 07-17-2011 06:46 PM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas


quote:
Strange....the link works fine for me, Uncas.


Maybe it's just my browser Mike.

What did you make of the report?

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


54 posted 07-17-2011 06:49 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Which report are you referring to? There seems to be a few floating around...
Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


55 posted 07-17-2011 07:01 PM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas


The daily treasury report from July 13th Mike, the report you were linking to, the one that shows that the coffers will be empty by August.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


56 posted 07-17-2011 08:10 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I'll confess there are several sections there that I don't understand but why would a report showing the results you claim be preceded by "13 July 2011: U. S. Treasury Department reports "Coffers Full Enough to Cover Entitlement Programs, Veterans, Federal Salaries, Interest - Without Borrowing a Dime"...something doesn't jive.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


57 posted 07-17-2011 11:04 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Political scandals in Chicago come and go.  Political Scandals in Wisconsin, the same.  Ditto in London, Ontario and England.    The fact that the average man on the street agrees with you or doesn't agree with you couldn't concern me less.  We are talking about nominalization here.  You are trying to turn a process into a thing; and furthermore, not simply a thing, but a thing that is politically specific by party.

     The process is corruption and graft.

     That process is particular to neither place nor party nor nation.  Attempts to make it so are, to put the best face on it that I can construct, fundamentally mistaken because a basic mistake has been made in category.

     Saying that people agree with me suggests that reality is open to a vote.  Other than in specialized cases, this is probably not the way things work.  There is such a thing as consensual Reality.  You might want to check out Peter Berger's work if you're interested; it's worth a few days consideration for the intellectual stimulation.  I'm not clear enough about the uncertainty principle to suggest it applies here; but I believe it's generally spoken of applying at the quantum level only, where it's occasionally possible to have things both ways.

   You still haven't defined "Chicago Politics."  The folly of this latest attempt, appealing to your belief that everybody agrees with you, should have been unmasked by your parents when they asked you, "You want you get an X because all your friends have one?  And if all your friends decided they were going to jump off a cliff, would you jump, too?"

     Doesn't make any more sense now, does it?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


58 posted 07-18-2011 06:45 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

No, Bob, you don't.

Whatever....
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


59 posted 07-18-2011 01:07 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_Construction_of_Reality
Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


60 posted 07-18-2011 02:21 PM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas


quote:
I'll confess there are several sections there that I don't understand but why would a report showing the results you claim be preceded by "13 July 2011: U. S. Treasury Department reports "Coffers Full Enough to Cover Entitlement Programs, Veterans, Federal Salaries, Interest - Without Borrowing a Dime"...something doesn't jive.


Financial reports can be confusing Mike, the author of that title was relying on that fact. The reports the author is talking about are balance sheets, not a million miles away from bank statements showing the daily transactions of the US treasury. Fortunately, just like a bank statement the most interesting figures are what you had at the start and what you're left with at the end. They're right at the top of the report Mike, the other stuff is just the inputs and outputs that get you from one figure to the other.

In this case the report says that the US started July 13th with 53.8 billion in the bank, it took in revenue and paid all the bills and ended up with 46.4 billion - a net loss in one day of 7.4 billion dollars. At that rate the 46.4 that's left will last about 6 days - after that, unless the US borrows some more money by issuing bonds, the coffers will be empty.

At that point the spending power of the US is reliant solely on the revenue received each day - on August 3rd, if you make it that far, total revenue is projected to be 12 billion with expected bills of 32 billion - 23 billion of that are  those checks Obama talked about.

With 12 billion in revenue and 23 billion of checks to issue it'd be downright immoral if Obama didn't at least mention the possibility that the checks may not be in the post.

Bob,

If you imagine that Mike said that Obama acted sleazy it's easier to get away from semantics and concentrate on the fact that it doesn't matter what the terminology is, the important thing is that Obama wasn't exhibiting 'it'. If you don't mind me saying there's a real danger that you'll end up sounding like you're trying to defend the act of murder rather than denying a murder ever took place.

A bad analogy perhaps, but my guess is you know what I'm getting at.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


61 posted 07-18-2011 04:16 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Thank you, Uncas. You are certainly familiar with the jargon as much as I am not. Here's something I don't understand...

The net change for that date is -7,357. The net change for the fiscal YTD is -263,383. Since the fiscal year begins on October 1, obviously there is little connection between those two figures. If there were a loss of 7,357 per day then the loss for the fiscal YTD would be in the area of 1,839,250. Obviously then, one can't take the daily negative loss and project it as a standard daily loss, can one? Also, if the MTD is at 90,000 on the 13th, then the projected monthy loss would be close to 200,000. Obviously the MTD would have little to do with the YTD figures, either.

There are gray areas in the daily withdrawals, too,  for example 792 billion, almost 1/2 of all of the expenses in the "other withdrawals" put together,  in the "unclassified" category. What's that mean?
Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


62 posted 07-18-2011 06:35 PM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas

quote:
The net change for that date is -7,357. The net change for the fiscal YTD is -263,383. Since the fiscal year begins on October 1, obviously there is little connection between those two figures.


You'll tie yourself in knots looking at the details Mike.



For instance, in the above example you're looking at the withdrawals section, and the net change totals for MTD and YTD. Those net changes are the difference between deposits and withdrawals (the section above). The deposits section however includes any money that was borrowed and deposited so the figures won't necessarily match. That's the whole point - without the ability to borrow and top up the operating cash balance the coffers will soon be empty.


That's why the operating cash balance is the bottom line so to speak when it comes to working out how much money is in the coffers. Whereas the daily cash flow tells you the rate at which you'll deplete your balance.


You are however absolutely correct about the fluctuation in daily profit/loss, the average losses per day over the fiscal year are around 6 billion but they can go as high as twice that and, on the odd few days, the figure is actually in the black.


The 'other withdrawals' and 'unclassified' items are any cost below a predetermined set limit, they're all lumped together to keep the report brief. The treasury produce a fully itemised version but that's even more, confusing, boring and depressing than the short version.


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


63 posted 07-19-2011 02:14 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


And what if the Chinese and others
decide not to lend more money?

I must have missed the answer
to my rollback to 2008 spending levels question...


.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


64 posted 07-19-2011 02:16 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K




     Actually, Uncas, I don't.  Nor do I think Obama acted badly in this instance.  When I've felt he has, I've said so and been clear about it.  For example, I don't like his actions in Lybia.  I want him to close Gitmo.  I want him to get THE PATRIOT ACT repealed.  There are many other examples.

     The money situation has been serious for quite a while.  I said in 2007 that we were spending money to pay for tax breaks and that we were charging that money and paying interest on it.  I said that we couldn't afford the unnecessary wars, and that the government was playing fast and loose with the country about that by keeping those expenditures off the budget.  Mike saw no problems until a Democratic administration got into office.

     President Obama should have been shouting from the day he walked into the White House.  Not doing so was a serious mistake.  He should have been holding up a mirror for the country to see the developing catastrophe emerging.  Instead, he tried to heal and be statesmanlike.

     That I think showed lack of courage.

     Telling people the truth about the current economic situation is not sleazy, though.  If he continues to allow his policies to be dictated by the Republicans, we will be pushed into a depression.  Raising the debt ceiling has become a game of chicken.  If we raise it, then we may be able to get out of the recession.  Maybe.  We will still need to repeal the Bush tax cuts and close tax loopholes and perhaps enforce some tariffs.

     What all this has to do with calling the President's politics "Chicago Politics" is exactly nothing.  Use of that term is a shorthand way of avoiding the discussion by smearing the opposition and pretending there are no actual issues to deal with.

     I am pleased that you have found common ground to discuss some of the economics with Mike, and I'm watching the discussion with interest and trying to pick up some information along the way.  Tax cuts at this point are not the answer, in my opinion, and may be counterproductive.  When tax rates were in the 90% range, as they were during the Kennedy administration, a tax cut put money into the treasury and it did make sense.  Now it tends to be a losing proposition and takes money out of the treasury, and it seems that it doesn't have any stimulus effect on the economy at all.  Quite the reverse, I believe.  Money paid to the very wealthy does not go back into the economy, and while business seems to be doing okay, the businesses themselves seem to continue contracting in size.  If Conservative logic were true, they'd be hiring to beat the band.  As The Economist pointed out a few years back, we're on the wrong part of the leifer curve for that particular conservative logic to work; and The Economist tends to be a conservative bunch of guys.

     I wish I could find the article now, but I quoted it in these pages a couple of years back.

     Anyway, I appreciate your comments, but a dismissal of my comments as "semantics" suggests that you dismiss the notion of semantics as having any relevance, as in the phrase "mere semantics."  This is like talking about education as they sometimes do in this country as "Eastern elitism."  Semantics, like logic, is a tool for looking at what is said and what is meant and what the relation, if any, may be between the two.  It can be used badly.

     If I have done so, show me where, please.  I'd like to learn from my mistakes.

     I have not said that the President hasn't made mistakes.  I have accused him of several, myself.  I have said that I think that he's pretty much telling the truth about the need for extending the credit limit.  This is a process that the country goes through regularly, and on a semi-regular basis one or the other party makes a fuss.  This fuss may however precipitate a depression, and is not smart.  Pointing out the consequences of this is not sleazy.  Perhaps pointing them out a year ago or more would have been better, but it was not clear before the 2010 elections that we would be forced into this corner.

     Many Republicans actually look forward to shutting things down.  They don't like social security and have been trying to undermine it since the program was passed.  Their sudden reversal in rhetoric is disingenuous.  That, Uncas, is sleazy.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


65 posted 07-19-2011 04:58 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

"while business seems to be doing okay, the businesses themselves seem to continue contracting in size.  If Conservative logic were true, they'd be hiring to beat the band."

No, Bob, they are not hiring because they have no idea what Obama will do next. Business leader after business leader has stated that publicly. Trump  made a very good and detailed speech over that very thing. You may or may not care about Trump but you can't deny that he is a businessman and was no Republican. He has supported many democrats in the past and was right there with Oprah cheering on Obama when he was elected. Now he claims that business are too uneasy about what Obama wants to do. They feel that Obama has made it fairly clear that, when you strip away the rhetoric, he is actually anti-business....and I happen to agree with them. His class warfare tactics, his wealth redistribution tactics, his "us against them" attitude does not warrant confidence in businesses enough to make them want to "hire to beat the band". They are waiting to hear what song the band will play next before they get on the dance floor.


Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


66 posted 07-19-2011 08:32 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Interesting thought, Mike.  The stock market is may respond as you describe, being more of a gamble.  The profits on the businesses don't work the same way.  If conservative predictions were accurate, then the money that businesses have been making over the course of the Obama administration, should have been put into capital investments and into hiring new labor to expand production.  This is the whole point of the Conservative claim that the rich shouldn't be taxed, isn't it?  

     They are instead paying out much of the money in bonuses and cutting back on labor.

     This suggests that the conservative claims are incorrect.  The conservatives have been getting pretty much the economic policy they've wanted  for a very long time.  This is where it's taken us.  I don't think that President Obama is the most liberal guy in the world, but he's hardly followed a liberal set of economic policies.

     Sorry, I don't believe you've got this one right, Mike, though I wish were weren't involved in Libya and I don't see how our other foreign adventures are helping us.  President Obama can't do very much when he's got to muster a two-thirds majority to get anything through the senate and the Republicans are in control of the house.  I don't see that this is the situation the founders envisioned when they laid out the constitution.  We haven't done very well with some of the problems they left for us to tackle, have we?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


67 posted 07-19-2011 10:38 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

This is the whole point of the Conservative claim that the rich shouldn't be taxed, isn't it?

Actually, no. Bob, if you owned a business and you weren't sure what was coming down the pike, not knowing how much higher taxes were going to be, how  many more restrictions were going to be placed on you, how much Obama's health care plan was going to cost you, whether or not cap and trade would throttle you, how much new environmental restrictions would limit you, how much extra benefits that the unions would receive that Obama is championing......how many new people would you hire? Obama is a loose cannon. Who knows what he will try to muscle through? The congress has him throttled? Please... there were two years of a democratic congress. Whenever Obama wanted to get something through congress, he got it through. If congress didn't give it to him, he did an  end run, like he did with health care. I don't blame businesses at all for waiting for the other shoe to drop.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/22/the-case-for-impeachment-142967590/

Mr. Obama’s multicultural socialism seeks to eradicate traditional America. He has created a command-and-control health care system. He has essentially nationalized the big banks, the financial sector, the automakers and the student loan industry. He next wants to pass “cap-and-trade,” which would bring industry and manufacturing under the heel of big government. The state is intervening in every aspect of American life - beyond its constitutionally delegated bounds. Under Mr. Obama, the Constitution has become a meaningless scrap of paper.


I don't think the framers had that in mind, either. Do you???

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


68 posted 07-20-2011 03:05 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



    Ive generally had great difficulty believing anything that any organization related to or owned by the Moonies said.  Is there some reason I should start reversing my policy now, Mike?

     While even a stopped clock might be right twice a day, I think that an editorial piece for The Washington Times is something that I would need to take with much more than a grain of salt.  I have nothing against specifically religious papers; The Christian Science Monitor is religious and yet feels an obligation to be balanced in its coverage.  Nor do I have anything against specifically conservative news, so long as it makes a point of being accurate, like Janes Defense Weekly and like The Economist.  

     The Washington Times has no particular reputation for accuracy or objectivity that I've seen touted by neutral sources.  Perhaps you know better than I do about their reputation and have neutral references that can vouch for The Washington Times and its impartiality?  Or maybe you feel that those papers I mentioned, conservative though most of them are, are unfairly biased in some fashion, and would like to call my attention to how unbairly biased these fine conservative papers actually are?  Please, I'd like to know?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


69 posted 07-20-2011 06:31 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Bob, I recall in one thread way back when you mentioned that articles or opinions should be judged on the message, not the messenger. I believe it was because I, or someone else, shot down something you presented based on where it came from. It would appear you have done exactly the same here. Your entire reference is to the paper and not the message. Is there some reason you should reverse your policy? Yes, unless you decide to never again present anything from Rachel, MSNBC, the Huffington Post or any liberal news source.

Your reference to the clock being right twice a day lends to the credence that perhaps this article is may be one of the two daily times they got something right. otherwise why woulf that reference be made?

I agree.....
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


70 posted 07-20-2011 05:48 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


           Y o u   a r e   c o r r e c t   t o   c a l l   m e   o n   t h i s ,   M i k e .

           T h e   e x c e r p t   a p p e a r s   t o   b e   f r o m   a n   e d i t o r i a l ,   n o t   a n   a r t i c l e .     D o   y o u   d i s a g r e e ?     T o   p r e s e n t   i t   a s   f a c t   o r   a n y t h i n g   o t h e r   t h a n   o p i n i o n   i s   p r o b a b l y   a   m i s t a k e .    

           Y o u r   s u g g e s t i o n   i s   t h a t   I   a v o i d   a l l   c o n s e r v a t i v e   n e w s   s o u r c e s   b e c a u s e   o f   t h e i r   p o l i t i c a l   c o n t e n t   a n d   t h a t   I   h a v e   r e j e c t e d   T h e   W a s h i n g t o n   T i m e s   f o r   t h a t   r e a s o n   a l o n e .     I   w e n t   t o   t h e   t r o u b l e   o f   l i s t i n g   s o m e   o f   t h e   C o n s e r v a t i v e   a n d   r e l i g i o u s   n e w s   s o u r c e s   t h a t   I   l o o k   a t   a n d   t r u s t .     I   w o u l d n ' t   c a r e   i f   t h e y   w e r e   M a r t i a n ,   f r a n k l y ,   s o   l o n g   a s   t h e y   g o t   t h e i r   f a c t s   s t r a i g h t   a n d   m a d e   a   p o i n t   o f   d o i n g   s o .     T h e y   m a y   c a s t   a   c o n s e r v a t i v e   o r   a   r e l i g i o u s   s p i n   o n   t h e   f a c t s ,   b u t   t h e   f a c t s   a r e   w e l l   r e s e a r c h e d ,   t h o u g h   t h e y ' r e   f i l t e r e d   t h r o u g h   a   p o i n t   o f   v i e w   I   d o n ' t   s h a r e .

           M y   c o m m e n t   a b o u t   t h e   s t o p p e d   c l o c k   [ i ] d i d [ / i ]   i n d i c a t e   t h e   p o s s i b i l i t y   t h a t   T h e   W a s h i n g t o n   T i m e s   m i g h t   b e   c o r r e c t ,   a s   y o u   n o t i c e d .     I t   a l s o   w a s   a   r e p o r t   o f   m y   h a v i n g   r e a d   a n d   t h o u g h t   a b o u t   w h a t   t h e   e d i t o r i a l   f r a g m e n t   y o u   p r e s e n t e d   h a d   a c t u a l l y   s a i d .     I   d i d   n o t   d i s p o s e   o f   i t   w i t h   o n e   o r   t w o   r e a d i n g s ,   M i k e ;   I   t h o u g h t   a b o u t   i t .

           I   d o n ' t   b e l i e v e   i t   f i t s   t h e   f a c t s ,   t h o u g h   i t   t r i e s   t o   r e - a r r a n g e   t h e m   a n d   m a k e   b l a n k e t   s t a t e m e n t s   a b o u t   t h e m .  

[ q u o t e ]
H e   h a s   c r e a t e d   a   c o m m a n d - a n d - c o n t r o l   h e a l t h   c a r e   s y s t e m .
[ / q u o t e ]

           T h e   h e a l t h   c a r e   p r o g r a m   i s   e s s e n t i a l l y   t h e   o n e   t h a t   S e n a t o r   D o l e   o f f e r e d   w i t h   t h e   r e s p o n s e   o f   t h e   r e s t   o f   t h e   R e p u b l i c a n s   i n   r e s p o n s e   t o   t h e   C l i n t o n   H e a l t h   c a r e   p l a n .     I t   i s   n o t   f a r   f r o m   t h e   R e p u b l i c a n   c r e a t e d   h e a l t h   c a r e   p l a n   n o w   i n   p l a c e   i n   M a s s a c h u s e t t s .     T o d a y ' s   n e e - c o n s e r v a t i v e s   m a y   n o t   l i k e   i t ,   b u t   t h e y   a r e   a   l o n g   w a y   f r o m   t h e   t r a d i t i o n a l   R e p u b l i c a n   p a r t y ,   a n d   f a r   f a r   t o   t h e   r i g h t   o f   i t .     T o   c a l l   f o r   t h e   i m p e a c h m e n t   o f   P r e s i d e n t   O b a m a   b e c a u s e   h e   s u p p o r t e d   R e p u b l i c a n   m a i n s t r e a m   p r o g r a m s   o f   n o t   s o   v e r y   l o n g   a g o   s h o w s   e x a c t l y   h o w   f a r   t h e   c u r r e n t   p a r t y   h a s   g o n e   i n   t u r n i n g   a g a i n s t   i t s   r o o t s .     I t   d o e s n ' t   s h o w   h o w   c r a z y   P r e s i d e n t   O b a m a   i s .

[ q u o t e ]
   H e   h a s   e s s e n t i a l l y   n a t i o n a l i z e d   t h e   b i g   b a n k s ,   t h e   f i n a n c i a l   s e c t o r ,   t h e   a u t o m a k e r s   a n d   t h e   s t u d e n t   l o a n   i n d u s t r y .
[ / q u o t e ]

           N o n s e n s e .     H o w   h a s   h e   n a t i o n a l i z e d   t h e   b i g   b a n k s ?     T h e r e   h a s   b e e n   l e g i s l a t i o n   i n   t h i s   c o u n t r y   d e s i g n e d   t o   k e e p   b a n k s   f r o m   c o n s o l i d a t i o n   i n t o   t h e   s i z e   t h e y ' v e   g r o w n   t o   r e c e n t l y   f o r   a   h u n d r e d   y e a r s   b e c a u s e   b a n k s   o f   t h i s   s i z e   a r e   a n t i - c o m p e t i t i v e .     A f t e r   t h e   c r a s h ,   t h e   g o v e r n m e n t   r e a l i z e d   t h a t   i n s u r a n c e   a n d   b a n k i n g   h a d   t o   b e   k e p t   s e p a r a t e d   a n d   p a s s e d   l e g i s l a t i o n   t o   d o   s o .     A n d   i n t e r e s t   r a t e s   f o r   c r e d i t   c a r d s   w e r e   k e p t   w i t h i n   f a i r l y   t i g h t   l i m i t s ,   a s   w a s   t h e   g r a n t i n g   o f   c r e d i t .     L a w s   t h e   u n d i d   o r   d e r e g u l a t e d   m o s t   o f   t h a t   w e r e   p a s s e d   i n   t h e   l a s t   R e p u b l i c a n   a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ,   w i t h   f a i r l y   p r e d i c t a b l e   r e s u l t s .     I f   t h e   R e p u b l i c a n   c a u c u s   h a d   h a d   i t s   w a y ,   G M   w o u l d   h a v e   g o n e   u n d e r ,   a l o n g   w i t h   a n   e n o r m o u s   n u m b e r   o f   j o b s .     T h e   R e p u b l i c a n s   d e m a n d e d   t h a t   t h e   c o u n t r y   a l l o w   i t   t o   f a i l .     W i t h   h e l p ,   t h a t   c o m p a n y   h a s   r e t u r n e d   t o   p r o f i t a b i l i t y   l a s t   y e a r   a n d   i s   n o w   p e r f e c t l y   w e l l .   T h e   s t u d e n t   l o a n   i n d u s t r y   w a s   f u n d e d   b y   t h e   g o v e r n m e n t   i n   t h e   f i r s t   p l a c e ,   r e m e m b e r .     B a n k s   w e r e   h a p p y   t o   a d m i n i s t e r   t h e   m o n e y   i n   r e t u r n e d   f o r   g u a r a n t e e d   p r o f i t s   a n d   z e r o   r i s k .     C u t t i n g   o u t   t h e   b a n k s   s i m p l y   s a v e d   t h e   g o v e r n m e n t   m o n e y .     I f   t h e   b a n k s   w a n t e d   t o   c o m p e t e ,   t h e y   s h o u l d   h a v e   f e l t   f r e e   t o   d o   s o   r a t h e r   t h a n   f i n d i n g   a n   u n d e r w r i t t e n   m e t h o d   o f   t a p p i n g   t h e   t a x p a y e r s   p o c k e t s   a t   z e r o   r i s k   t o   t h e m s e l v e s .     T o   c a l l   s u c h   a   s c a m   a n   i n d u s t r y   i s   l o w   c o m e d y .

[ q u o t e ]
H e   n e x t   w a n t s   t o   p a s s   S c a p - a n d - t r a d e ,    w h i c h   w o u l d   b r i n g   i n d u s t r y   a n d   m a n u f a c t u r i n g   u n d e r   t h e   h e e l   o f   b i g   g o v e r n m e n t .
[ / q u o t e ]

           T h e   T i m e s   h a s   h e r e   f o r g o t t e n   t h e   o r i g i n   o f   t h e   c a p   a n d   t r a d e   s u g g e s t i o n .     I t   w a s   a   R e p u b l i c a n   p r o p o s a l   a s   a   f r e e   e n t e r p r i s e   s o l u t i o n   t o   a b s o l u t e   l i m i t s   o n   c a r b o n   e m i s s i o n s   s o   t h a t   t h e   r i g h t   t o   p o i s o n   p e o p l e   m i g h t   b e   b o u g h t   a n d   s o l d .     T h e   i d e a   w a s   t h a t   t h e   o v e r a l l   l e v e l   o f   p o l l u t a n t s   c o u l d   b e   c o n t r o l l e d   a n d   b e   b r o u g h t   i n t o   c o m p l i a n c e   w h i l e   s p e c i f i c   p o l l u t e r s   m i g h t   b e   a b l e   t o   b u y   t h e   r i g h t s   t o   c o n t i n u e   o n   t h e   p o l l u t i o n   m a r k e t .     I t   w a s   n e v e r   a   p a r t i c u l a r l y   s a v o r y   p r o s p e c t ,   a n d   I   c a n ' t   b l a m e   t h e   R e p u b l i c a n s   f o r   w a n t i n g   t o   g e t   r i d   o f   t h a t   p a r t i c u l a r   h o t   p o t a t o .     T o   w h a t e v e r   e x t e n t   t h e   D e m o c r a t s   p i c k e d   i t   u p ,   t h e y   w e r e   s t u p i d .

           O n   t h e   o t h e r   h a n d ,   t h e   R e p u b l i c a n s   p r o p o r t   n o t   t o   b e l i e v e   i n   g l o b a l   c l i m a t e   c h a n g e .     G i v e n   s o m e   o f   t h e   r e c e n t   r h e t o r i c ,   m a n y   o f   t h e m   d o n ' t   k n o w   t h e   d i f f e r e n c e   b e t w e e n   a   c o m m u n i s t ,   a   f a s c i s t ,   a   s o c i a l i s t ,   a n d   a n   o l d - f a s h i o n e d     R e p u b l i c a n   d i s g u i s i n g   h i m s e l f   a s   a   c e n t r i s t   D e m o c r a t .  

[ q u o t e ]
T h e   s t a t e   i s   i n t e r v e n i n g   i n   e v e r y   a s p e c t   o f   A m e r i c a n   l i f e       b e y o n d   i t s   c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y   d e l e g a t e d   b o u n d s .   U n d e r   M r .   O b a m a ,   t h e   C o n s t i t u t i o n   h a s   b e c o m e   a   m e a n i n g l e s s   s c r a p   o f   p a p e r .
[ / q u o t e ]

           T h e s e   a r e   t h e   m o s t   m i s l e a d i n g   s e n t e n c e s   o f   t h e   w h o l e   e x c e r p t   b e c a u s e   t h e y   a r e   s o   c l o s e   t o   b e   t r u e .     U n d e r   P r e s i d e n t   O b a m a ' s   r u l e   m u c h   o f   t h i s   t e n d e n c y   c o n t i n u e s   u n a l t e r e d .     T h o s e   w h o   d i d n ' t   o b j e c t   t o   i t   u n d e r   R e p u b l i c a n   a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s   s e e   i t   a s   a   D e m o c r a t i c   p h e n o m e n o n ;   t h o s e   w h o   d o   o b j e c t   d u r i n g   R e p u b l i c a n   a d m i n i s t r a t i o n   r e f u s e   t o   s e e   h o w   i t   s e e m s   t o   c o n t i n u e   t o d a y .     I t ' s   a l w a y s   t h e   o t h e r   g u y ;   i t ' s   n e v e r   m e .


  
    
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


71 posted 07-20-2011 06:05 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Thank you, Bob. Ok, you are going to make me do some research,I see. I'm not familiar with Bob Dole's health care proposal nor am I familiar with Republicans introducing cap and trade....but I'll look for them.

I'mn wondring if you can tell me why so many companies and unions filed for waivers with regards to Obamacare and why Obama granted them, if his plan was so good. There have been over a thousand, you know....so why?

As far as Obama being anti-business, Steve Wynn, a billionaire and devout liberal, has stated that, under Obama, he sees the most anti-business administration in history. He is right. When you have an anti-business president, you are going to have nervous businesses. Nervous business don't go out and hire more workers.
Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


72 posted 07-20-2011 06:24 PM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas


quote:
you are going to make me do some research, I see.


These may get you started Mike.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Graphics/2010/022310-Bill-comparison.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Stewardship_Acts

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


73 posted 07-20-2011 07:49 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Thank you, Uncas. As far as the health care bill, the Chafee bill of 1993 could hardly be called a republican bill. It was more like a bill introduced by a republican. It had only 21 sponsors and was neither discussed or voted upon. There is almost NO comparison between Obamacare and the Boehner bill, especially in the cost from 871 billion for Obamacare against 8 billion under Boehmer. It would be a stretch to say that Obamacare was fashioned or even similar to a republican one.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


74 posted 07-20-2011 08:08 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

As far as cap and trade is concerned, the democrats have super-sized the original republican proposal to the nth degree and, even as milqetoast as the original republican was,    I t   w a s   n e v e r   a   p a r t i c u l a r l y   s a v o r y   p r o s p e c t ,   a n d   I   c a n ' t   b l a m e   t h e   R e p u b l i c a n s   f o r   w a n t i n g   t o   g e t   r i d   o f   t h a t   p a r t i c u l a r   h o t   p o t a t o .

The democrats and Obama, on the other hand, want to go full steam on it.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Chicago Politics   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors