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  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
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


0 posted 07-13-2011 05:10 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Threaten, itimidate, go after the most vunerable with blackmail and billy clubs. Welcome to the new Oval office, Chicago style.

Democrats should be very proud of such an honorable leader....not.
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Caelestus
since 06-25-99
Posts 67715
Listening to every heart


1 posted 07-13-2011 09:50 PM       View Profile for Sunshine   Email Sunshine   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Sunshine's Home Page   View IP for Sunshine

Kansas trys to question the government's politics....

See here:

Social Security Actuary Confirms: Withholding Checks Would be a Political Decision - July 13, 2011

However, as I've heard as late as this afternoon, some feel that Huelskamp should have kept "their feet to the fire." But at least he was speaking up. I would be interested in seeing if there is reaction from our other states' congress people. And I don't ask that with any disparage; this is stuff from his office sent to my email, and frankly, I haven't had the time to go out and watch...but I would love any others to respond from their states...

I need the diversion.

Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


2 posted 07-14-2011 03:38 PM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas


Sunshine,

The question Huelskamp asked is easy to answer. In fact if you look closely at the graph supplied by Goldman Sachs the answer is blatantly obvious.

The guy on the receiving end however seems to be trying to answer a completely different and more complex question regarding the relationship between revenue and mandatory spending. My guess is that he couldn't believe that Huelskamp would actually ask such a dumb question so presumed he was referring to the more complicated subject.

Either that or both of them are just plain old dimwits.

Sunshine
Administrator
Member Caelestus
since 06-25-99
Posts 67715
Listening to every heart


3 posted 07-14-2011 03:47 PM       View Profile for Sunshine   Email Sunshine   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Sunshine's Home Page   View IP for Sunshine

And that kinda works for me, too, Uncas.

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


4 posted 07-14-2011 11:06 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Is anybody suggesting that the Republicans are in favor of continuing social security the way it is now?  Or that a very large number of the Republicans aren't in favor of torpedoing the program in one way or another?  The Republicans are attacking entitlement programs, and they have many times characterized social security as such.  Our last Republican president campaigned on privatizing and thus destroying the program, which is designed as a safety net not a craps game.

     Not having heard the president's statement, I cannot comment on whether or not the politics were useful or not, but it sounds that that it was hardball politics, certainly, and that it addressed a fundamental truth about the Republican position.  They have attacked unions, they have attacked voter registration drives, and now they are attacking entitlement programs.  Sugar coating guanno doesn't make guanno anything but guanno that rots your teeth and gives the momentary illusion of good taste.  

     The Republican position voiced at the beginning of the thread doesn't even do that.  It doesn't even define "Chicago politics," does it?  How is "Chicago Politics" different than "insider Washington Politics," or "Beltway Politics," or "Republican Dirty Tricks," or any of a host of generalized and pretty much meaningless smears that get tossed around by both parties.  They're all semantically meaningless, and pretty much functionally identical.

     It makes as much sense to call this stuff Republican Dirty Tricks, as far as I can tell.  Hate language that means nothing!
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


5 posted 07-14-2011 11:23 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Bob, I see nothing in your comment that has anything to do with Obama falsely threatening senior citizens with non-payment of their monthly checks, knowing that they are the most vulnerable area of society. It is a despicable tactic on his part which is far below the decency a president, or anyone should be held to.

I have always been against his policies and actions as president but respected him a a person. Now  even  that is gone.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


6 posted 07-14-2011 11:46 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

They have attacked unions, they have attacked voter registration drives, and now they are attacking entitlement programs.

So you turn Obama threatening to cut off social security payments as an atack by republicans on entitlement programs? Know what that sounds like? It sounds like Obama claimimg the republicans are sabotaging Medicare when HE was the one taking 500 millions away from them. It sounds like Obama  mentioning the lunacy of giving tax breaks to corporate jets (6 times in one speech) while HE was the one who put the corporate jet tax breaks in the stimulus package!! LOL! That's SNL material! Dems try something, when it goes wrong, they look for a way to blame republicans for it, as you have demonstrated here. Guess what? People are wising up to it, I believe.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


7 posted 07-15-2011 03:22 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Beg pardon, here, Mike, but the payments have to be funded.  The Republicans are refusing to Replace the money they concealed in separate appropriations bills to fund wars all during the last administration, and the amount of money they borrowed to fund the tax breaks for the very very very very rich.  Rather than  repair that by repealing the tax cuts, and by — at least! — apologizing for concealing the expenditures from the public by keeping them off the budgets during the Republican administrations, they are trying to blame the democrats for them.

     The Democrats have enough problems.

     Trying to get legislation passed with a two-thirds majority rather than a fifty-one percent majority is probably the largest of them.  I wonder what happens when the tactics get played out when and if the Republicans gain a majority in the senate?    I have a sick sense of shadenfreude threatening to overwhelm me in that case.  I hope it never happens.

     If payments aren't funded for social security by whatever the regular process happens to be, the Republicans will have gained the thing that they have been trying to achieve since the social security act was passed.  They will have succeeded in destroying the program.

     Republican comments about the poor are rancid to say the least, since they have pushed to sink the program from the beginning.  It is hypocritical to suggest otherwise.  It's been one of the great problems that the Republicans have faced over the years, that they are fundamentally opposed to the most popular program in the history of the country.

     Some of the more liberal Republicans over the years have come to an accommodation with it, I believe, or have learned not to mess with it; but that section of the party has been systematically excluded over the last thirty or more years, and the party has often chosen to run more right wing candidates against more centrist Republicans.  
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


8 posted 07-15-2011 04:14 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     If "Chicago Politics" is to be an accusation, or some sort of crime, then it would be appropriate to define it to make it distinguishable from "Republican Dirty Tricks" or "Communist Pinko Plots" or "Red Baiting" or "racism" or other generally ill-defined memes.  Otherwise, the accusation is interchangeable with the other ill-defined accusations, such as "fascist stooge" or "running dog of Capitalism."  The last is one I have never understood, by the way.  "Revanchist" is another that puzzles me.  

     Is "Chicago Politics" the same as "Wisconsin Politics" or, these days, "Michigan Politics" or "Mississippi Politics?"  Or is there some clear moral distinction that needs to be made here that escapes me between "Chicago Politics" and politics that openly longs for the days of pro-segregation policies and the Confederacy?

     Exactly what is "Chicago Politics," how do you define it, exactly, so I can know if I'm for it or against it, and so I might know if I agree with your assessment of whether President Obama is a good example of "Chicago politics?"  

     So in a Thread called "Chicago Politics," maybe the originator of the thread could distinguish that concept from other similar concepts in such a way as to make it singularly identifiable.  Otherwise, it simply seems a way of calling somebody semantically null names, or defending somebody against generic smears that have value only to partisans.  

     It would be more useful for me personally if the discussion was about something I could learn from and be lured out of my entrenched thinking by, a novel insight, a point of view that catches my by surprise.  About this material, I'm afraid I already have a good idea what each of us will probably say, and I want to get the discussion onto new ground, where I'm surprised not only by the thinking of others, but by my own thinking.

     Of course, if this discussion seems novel to you, and seems like it covers ground that you haven't been over before, I'll give it a shot.  Other people may find it novel or fascinating, and I might be able to find something in it anyway.  I simply find people too complex to simplify this way on the whole.  You must know by now that President Obama is not my favorite person, for example; and you have some sense, I think, of what I think his flaws are.

     You must know that if I see something wrong with the man, I'm not averse to saying so.  I'm not even that adverse about saying stuff that's wrong with me, when I agree with it; and when I don't, I'm generally willing to listen and learn.  The notion of "Chicago Politics" as far as I'm concerned, means nothing without a definition that most people can agree on, and one that successfully differentiates it from everything else, like the definition of "clay" or "iron."  If you're going to make the phrase an insult, it should be distinct from other insults.  Only then do we know what we're talking about.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


9 posted 07-15-2011 08:16 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Bob, "Chicago poltiics" has been a catch phrase ever since Capone's day and the mayor claiming that Chicago had "the best police money could buy". If you have never heard it or understand it's signifigance, that is fairly incredible. Here's a little reading material....


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28141995/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/illinois-has-long-legacy-public-corruption/

In fact, public corruption has for years been so pervasive that the state’s largest newspaper recently published an editorial declaring a campaign against the Illinois “culture of political sleaze.” The piece lists several examples of public corruption and accuses all Illinoisans of not asking enough integrity from public officials, laws and the people paid to enforce them.

Disgraced Chicago Alderman Arenda Troutman is the latest of many politicians in the notoriously corrupt state to go to jail for abusing her public office.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2009/feb/jail-another-illinois-politician


If that's not enough you can toss these in the mix, also......andwe haven't even gotten to Blago yet!

    Illinois state representative James DeLeo (D-IL) caught in the "Operation Greylord" investigation of corruption in Cook County. He was indicted by a federal grand jury for taking bribes and negotiated guilty plea on a misdemeanor tax offense, and was placed on probation (1992)

    Illinois state representative Joe Kotlarz (D-IL) convicted and sentenced to jail for theft and conspiracy for pocketing in about $200,000 for a sale of state land to a company he once served as legal counsel (1997)

    Illinois state senator Bruce A. Farley (D-IL) sentenced to 18 months in prison for mail fraud (1999)

    Illinois state senator John A. D’Arco Jr. (D-IL) served about 3 years in prison for bribery and extortion (1995)

    Illinois Chicago alderman Lawrence S. Bloom (D) sentenced to 6 months in 1999 for filing a false tax return.

    Illinois Chicago alderman Jesse J. Evans (D) sentenced to 41 months in prison in 1997 for racketeering, extortion, conspiracy, attempted extortion, mail fraud, influence peddling, filing false tax returns, and obstruction of justice.

    Illinois Chicago alderman Virgil E. Jones Jr. (D) in 1999 was sentenced to 2 and a half years in prison for extortion.

    Illinois Chicago alderman Joseph A. MartĂ­nez (D) in 1998 pleaded guilty to ghost payrolling and was sentenced to 5 months in prison.

    Illinois Chicago alderman Ambrosio Medrano (D) pleaded guilty to extortion in 1996 and was sentenced to 30 months in prison.

    Illinois Chicago alderman Allan J. Streeter (D) pleaded guilty to extortion and filing false income tax returns and was sentenced to prison in 1998.

    Illinois Chicago alderman Fred B. Roti (D) was sentenced to 48 months in 1993 for racketeering, conspiracy, bribery, among other things.

    Illinois Chicago judge Thomas J. Maloney Jr. (D) sentenced to almost 16 years in prison for taking bribes, extortion and obstruction of justice in 1994.

    Illinois Chicago treasurer Edward Rosewell (D) pleaded guilty to mail fraud but was not sentenced due to an illness that he died from soon after. His conviction was vacated in 1999.

    Illinois State Treasurer Jerry Cosentino (D-IL) was convicted on federal check kiting charges (1992).

    Illinois Chicago alderman Percy Giles (D) sentenced to 3 years in prison for racketeering, extortion, among other things in 2000.

    Illinois Chicago alderman Arenda Troutman (D-IL) was arrested and charged with bribery in 2007.

    Illinois Chicago City clerk Jim Laski (D) pleaded guilty to pocketing bribes for steering city business to trucking companies (2006).

    Illinois Governor George H. Ryan (R-IL) involved in sale of government licenses and contracts while he was Secretary of State

    Illinois Chicago City Treasurer Miriam Santos (D) originally sentenced to 40 months for extortion and mail fraud but the sentence was overturned on appeal. She subsequently pleaded guilty to mail fraud and sentenced to 3 months, only served 17 days in prison.

    Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White (D-IL) introduced secretary and friend Donna Lumpkins Floyd to numerous legislators, and encouraged them to give $175,000 of the taxpayers' money to her charity. However, there was no charity, and Floyd said that White destroyed all transaction records. After an investigation, the Illinois State Board of Elections fined White $800,000.


There is plenty more in that place called Google, Bob.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


10 posted 07-15-2011 10:05 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

So, basically, what I am saying, Bob, is that the term "Chicago politics" refers to graft, corruption, intimidation, etc, in a way unequaled by any other city or state. Obama is using those same tactics in his threats now against ss payments to the elderly, knowing full well there is more than enough money coming in monthly to fund it. It is not his first usage of Chicago politics. I'm sure it won't be his last.
Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


11 posted 07-15-2011 02:20 PM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas


“I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on Aug. 3 if we haven't resolved this issue,”

Is this the statement you're referring to Mike? If so what exactly do you believe is wrong with it? Is it that he selected social security payments out of a whole slew of payments he can't guarantee if the debt ceiling isn't raised? Would you have preferred it if he'd have said that he couldn't guarantee that the FBI or CIA would get paid, or the armed forces or postal workers?

Or are you suggesting that his statement is actually untrue? That he can in fact guarantee that the checks will go out.

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


12 posted 07-15-2011 04:57 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Is it that he selected social security payments out of a whole slew of payments he can't guarantee if the debt ceiling isn't raised?

Basically, yes. He spoke not only of social security but medicare and  VA disability payments. Government monthly income is roughly 175-200 million per month. The cost of those three combines is near 104 million. There is certainly enough money to pay them.

Does that mean there will be other areas in which there WON'T be enough money to pay them? Yes, that's right. Which ones would I choose? That's hard to say...ones that have a lot pf pork attached for sure - and I have little doubt there are many. Perhaps some of the government workers benefits or maybe some of the billions sent all over the world under the name of foreign aid, with a kind note, saying, "Sorry, gentlemen, until we get our own house in order, you are on your own".

That's basically not my point, though. My point is that Obama decided to choose the weakest, the most vulnerable, and the most defenseless groups  to threaten. Senior citizens who rely on their monthly checks to live can't just run out and get a part-time job (even if there were any) to supplement their incomes. They are at the mercy of a government who promised that, if they paid in their money every month during their working lives, the money would be there for their retirement years. THESE are the people he has decided to throw the fear of Obama into. It's all politics to him, nothing more. He wants to scare the elderly into grabbing their phones and calling their congressmen out of fear.

If you were to see a list of all monthly expenses of the government, would you say you could not find any more deserving of having delayed payments than social security? Scare tactics, nothing more....and despicable ones at that.
Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


13 posted 07-15-2011 05:40 PM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas


quote:
Government monthly income is roughly 175-200 million per month. The cost of those three combines is near 104 million. There is certainly enough money to pay them.


That sounds perfectly reasonable, unfortunately it totally ignores how plundering the social security revenues creates inter-governmental debt and actually acts to raise the total national debt above the debt ceiling, but it certainly sounds reasonable.

quote:
Does that mean there will be other areas in which there WON'T be enough money to pay them? Yes, that's right. Which ones would I choose? That's hard to say...


With respect Mike it can't be that hard, you already did it by putting VA disability payments above paying the US forces serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, you also put paying social security checks above paying for homeland security and anti-terrorist operatives - the list goes on. At this point no payment can be guaranteed, for instance would you lay off the people responsible for processing the revenue or the IRS administrators who send out tax refunds?

quote:
He wants to scare the elderly into grabbing their phones and calling their congressmen out of fear.


Of course he does, for two very good reasons:

The first is that putting pressure on the Republicans by highlighting the possible impact of not raising the debt ceiling might just work. I mean it worked when the republicans started the false rumour about death panels and that wasn't even a real possibility, scare tactics? Sure, fear tends to create focus.

The second is that if he has to decides to pay the elderly rather than FBI agents he wants public opinion on his side - after all he's obviously won you over in that regard. You don't even like the bloke but I'm guessing that you'll be right behind him when he throws national security under the bus in favour of paying the elderly.

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


14 posted 07-15-2011 06:37 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Uncas seems to have distilled the situation to its essence.  As for "Chicago Politics," you certainly haven't distinguished it from politics in any large, heavily urbanized state; and certainly not from "Washington Politics,"  "Beltway Politics," or even "Republican Politics" during the last administration or most any Republican administration.  Or most any Democratic Administration, either.  You yourself have been tireless in pointing out flaws in other Democratic administrations.  All I need do is point out to you your scathing comments about the Administration in New Orleans and what terrible people they were, known far and wide to be so; the worst of the worst.

     It's not that I think you don't believe what you're saying; I'm convinced that every time this sort of thing comes up, you really believe these people are the all time worst, and nobody could every question it.  You are sincere and honest, simply inconsistent about the facts;  and here you seem unable to define how any one instance stands out from any other instance of Democratic perfidy.

     A litany of Democratic misdemeanors and felonies does not a definition make, though it does make of discouraging reading for anybody concerned for the Democratic Party, myself included.  This is, at least in part, the nature of Democracies.  You might try reading some of the history of Rome during the Republic, which our founders were familiar with.

     And you are pretty much blind to Republican problems that fall under the same category.

     Furthermore, it's unclear whether a google search would be helpful to me if your interesting article has much behind it — the one that suggests that Google supplies information that the questioner is probably most interested in hearing.  Goodness knows how different our Google searches actually are.

     I owe you big time for coming up with that one, by the way; very illuminating, very basic, yet it hadn't really occurred to me.  It's really an extension of how the brain operates, you know; it tends to identify information within the frame of the system it already uses to make sense of the world.  There's so very much information coming in all the time, that it screens out almost all of the information that doesn't fit in.  Google probably thinks it's doing everybody a favor.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


15 posted 07-15-2011 06:38 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


If spending was brought back to 2008 levels
as was earlier proposed, how is it that
social security recipients and the FBI
would then risk starving as a consequnce?


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


16 posted 07-15-2011 07:16 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

So I haven't distinguished it, Bob?? Well, MSNBC has in the first link I supplied with the headline of "Illinois has long legacy of public corruption
At least 79 elected officials have been convicted of wrongdoing since 1972."

Judicial Watch did in the second link by referring to Chicago as "the notoriously corrupt state." You don't want to acknowledge it? Fine by me. I didn't expect you to.

Yes, it is possible ancient Rome was more corrupt than Chicago....maybe.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


17 posted 07-15-2011 07:33 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Clever, Uncas. "Throwing national security under the bus", "not paying soldiers fighting overseas". It's easy to take the extremes and use them to prove some kind of point. I think there is little doubt that national security and our armed services are a vital element and I am equally sure there are many expenses in our monthly bills that aren't. You want to make some kind of point by going to the extremes, go ahead....that dog doesn't hunt for me.

Yes, it CAN be that hard without knowing what all of our expenses refer to....unless, of course, you want to jump from social security to non-payment of soldiers, which you have.

In all fairness, Obama is not the only one who does this. It's common in states and cities. When budget problems come up, the first thing the powers that be say is, "Well, we have to cut back police and fire". Do they? Nope, but they know that is what will draw the public's attention the best. We had bus drivers here in Broward country making over 100,000 per year while the city commission was talking about cutting back on the police force due to budget cuts.

On a local and state level, it's distasteful. On a national level, it's abominable.
Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


18 posted 07-15-2011 08:00 PM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas


quote:
On a local and state level, it's distasteful. On a national level, it's abominable.


Would false claims of death panels fall into that category Mike?

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


19 posted 07-15-2011 08:35 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I'm not aware that death panels have anything to do with the budget. If you want to head down that road, start a death panel thread.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


20 posted 07-16-2011 02:13 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Uncas merely mentioned some Republican lies and distortions, also terrible.  Cutting collective bargaining rights and attacking education in Wisconsin for many of us also fit into the same category.  Suggesting that this sort of thing is Democratic, or that it is even clearly enough defined to be other than a smear doesn't make sense.

     Does Chicago have a reputation for this sort of thing?

     Mike Royko would say, "Yes," and would be able to back it up.  So would Molly Ivans about Texas politics, which at this point is Republican, but was once Democratic.  When the Southern states were governed by Republicans after the civil war, during reconstruction, do you think that they were widely hailed as wise and just?  And when the Democrats took over, after Reconstruction, do you really believe that the various laws designed to keep blacks from voting were anything but highly corrupt?

     When the Democrats developed a conscience after the 1964 voting rights bill, most of the southern States went Republican.  Do you think that was because of coincidence, or because of other, less savory reasons?

     Both parties have had significant difficulties and have made brutal and sad decisions that I, for one, think they should not have made.  You still have not defined "Chicago Politics" as different from any of these politics as usual merde-fests that have run through the history of our country and other democracies as well.  I can't say that I blame you for wishing to point the finger and saying, "It's the other guy!"  But the facts don't really bear you out.  The facts seem to bear out Walt Kelly when he had Pogo say, if I can remember correctly, "We have met the enemy and he is us."

     You may believe that that's bad news.  Heck, you may not believe it at all.

     I say that as far as I can tell, it's reasonably good news.  We have a limited amount of control over what other folks do, so controlling them is a very iffy project.  We have a much better chance of exerting some control over ourselves — not as much as we like to think we have, mind you, but a fair amount.  So if we can keep our eyes on what we're doing wrong, if we can figure that out at all, then we have at least some chance of correcting it.

     But as long as we're in a situation where we blame somebody else, we have passed a large measure of control off to them.  
Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


21 posted 07-16-2011 06:52 AM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas

quote:
I'm not aware that death panels have anything to do with the budget. If you want to head down that road, start a death panel thread.


Sorry - It's just that I wasn't aware that this thread had anything to do with the budget either Mike. The title is 'Chicago Politics' and your first post seems to be a lament regarding how fear mongering, lies and deceit have spread to other areas of the US government, particularly the leadership.

quote:
Threaten, itimidate, go after the most vunerable with blackmail and billy clubs.


I don't think Obama's statement regarding not being able to guarantee checks fits the above description - claiming that new health care legislation would introduce death panels definitely does.

If you want to talk about the budget though, specifically the debt ceiling, that's ok, I can stay on topic.

Earlier you mentioned that revenue was higher than the required spending in four key areas and you further suggested that, somehow, that meant that the debt ceiling wouldn't be exceeded in August. Could you explain how that's possible given the fact that the government is going into August with an accrued deficit? Perhaps you could explain how borrowing the portion of revenue that's supposed to go to the Social Security Trust Fund isn't going to be classed as inter-governmental debt or how when that debt is added to the existing debt it isn't going to push the figure past the debt ceiling?

.

[This message has been edited by Uncas (07-16-2011 07:25 AM).]

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


22 posted 07-16-2011 07:28 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Yes, you are right, Uncas, that I wasn't clear enough about the topic. The topic is about Obama threatening the most vunerable of society with non-payment with regards to the budget, about his threatening them instead of regarding other areas of our spending which could be altered instead of our seniors and sick, who depend on the government to keep it's word and provide the means to live month to month. It is a sleazy tactic which smacks of the same flavor Chicago politicians have employed for decades and has national recognition everywhere except in California, I must assume, since Bob had no awareness of it. How does Chicago or Illinois politics relate to Obama? That answer is obvious enough. How does bullying and intimidating relate to Obama? That's what he taught in his days as a training instructor for Acorn.

But you know that...and so does Bob. Since you must agree that it is a sleazy tactic in light of the fact you don't claim it isn't, it seems a good idea for the two of you to simply say things like "Hey, the other side does it, too" with you referring to death panels, which had nothing to do with anyone not getting the checks that enable them to live, to Bob referring to ancient Rome, Republican dirty tricks and a whole barrage of items designed to get  away from recognizing Obama's actions in this matter.

Obama made an interesting statement yesterday.. "This is not a matter of the American people knowing what the right thing to do is," Obama said. "It's a matter of Congress doing the right thing and reflecting the will of the American people."

The will of the American people has never been a concern of his up to this point if it conflicted what he wanted to do. Now it is?? Highly unlikely....
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


23 posted 07-16-2011 07:51 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Republican president candidate Herman Cain today called out President Obama on the debt ceiling fight, accusing the Democrat of using the situation to demand more taxes and more spending to meet his own desires.

During an appearance on the Steve Gill Show, Cain, the former chief of Godfather's Pizza, said Republican congressional leaders should ignore Obama's "scare tactics" about hurting "old people, children and puppy dogs."

WND Managing Editor David Kupelian has explained in a commentary Obama's comments that the government might not have enough "in the coffers" to mail Social Security checks on Aug. 3 amount to little more than extortion.

"Obama is threatening to withhold old people's Social Security checks if he doesn't get his way in the current extortion – I mean, negotiation," he wrote.

He cited the comments from Obama who, when asked if he could assure that Social Security checks due to be sent Aug. 3, still would be sent if the debt ceiling increase he wants isn't granted by Aug. 2, said, "I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it."

However, Kupelian quoted investment adviser Kurt Brouwer, who wrote in Marketwatch that that simply isn't reality.

Krouwer explained that the U.S. Treasury needs to pay about $15 billion to $20 billion in any given month in interest on debt. But the government takes in about $200 billion a month.

"Ask yourself, what government expenditures do Americans consider most important? To most people, paying our current Social Security recipients, just like paying our troops, would be pretty darn near the top of the list, right?" Kupelian wrote. "Well above, say, some of the 'economic stimulus' projects like the 'eco-passage' in Florida to protect turtles from being run over by cars, or the skylights in Montana's state-run liquor warehouse, or the removal of crickets in Utah, or the removal of tattoos from gang members in California, or the very important 'swine odor research' in Iowa.

"There is enough money," he wrote. "There's just not enough money to pay our rightful obligations and maintain an insanely large, cancerous government."

Read more: Cain calls out Obama on debt ceiling 'scare tactics' http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=322137#ixzz1SGgbSBFu

Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


24 posted 07-16-2011 08:14 AM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas


quote:
Since you must agree that it is a sleazy tactic in light of the fact you don't claim it isn't,


Perhaps I was unclear Mike, I don't think Obama's statement was sleazy, I think Obama was looking to focus attention on the potential impact of not raising the debt limit. To do that he selected one possible consequence among an almost overwhelming list of bad consequences that was sure to highlight the dire situation that the US might find itself in. His statement that he can't guarantee that the checks would go out is true, social security is just one item in amongst the hard choices of what to pay and what not to pay. He can no more guarantee sending the checks than he can guarantee paying the military or FBI or CIA or Postal Workers or the IRS or the interest on US bonds or State grants or the thousands of other payments due.

Now I've cleared that up I guess we should get back to the topic - the debt ceiling.

Can you explain what you meant when with regard to the revenues and spending? I've heard and read similar claims that not raising the debt limit is no big deal, that the revenue in August is sufficient to cover required spending without raising the debt ceiling. Personally I think the idea is seriously flawed but I might be wrong so I'm interested to hear an in depth explanation.

.
 
 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