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
 Debt Problems revisited   [ Page: 1  2  3  ]
 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69
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

Debt Problems revisited

 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 08-09-2011 02:28 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Yep, he took a sick economy and made it worse. He took two wars and turned them into three.  It was like the polish pope's first miracle, making a blind man lame. When one's only reasoning to fall back on is "well, it could have been worse", that's not good:
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


51 posted 08-09-2011 06:32 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Yep, he took a sick economy and made it worse.

OR, he took an economy poised to collapse into utter ruin and breathed some semblance of life into it. With our biggest manufacturers ready to close their doors, Mike, with our banks and other financial institutions going under almost weekly, it's a little hard to characterize the economy of 2009 as merely "sick." I don't think people realize just how close we were (and potentially still are) to absolute catastrophe.

Personally, I don't think the government CAN fix the economy. I'm not even sure it should try. The most it can do, I suspect, and what I think Bush's parting shot and Obama's subsequent volleys did, is stave off the inevitable.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


52 posted 08-09-2011 07:40 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Well, I don't see the semblance of life, personally. Unemployment rate is up, debt is up, credit rating is down, economic growth is abysmal. It's been three years since Obama said "Yes, we can". No one asked him exactly what he meant by that. Perhaps they should have.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


53 posted 08-09-2011 10:50 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Well, I don't see the semblance of life, personally.

My neighbors could probably explain it to you better than I can, Mike. Most either work directly for GM or work in factories that manufacture parts for them. Life is tough in Michigan and has been for several years, but the people here haven't forgotten that it could have been a lot worse.

A whole lot worse.


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


54 posted 08-09-2011 11:20 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


If government had not urged or insisted
on lesser mortgage loan requirments
would we be where we are now?


.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


55 posted 08-10-2011 02:24 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Probably not, John. Then again, at the other end of that same spectrum, if no one could get a mortgage loan we probably wouldn't be where we are right now either. Somewhere between no one can get a loan and everyone can get a loan lies a sweet spot that strikes a fair balance between the American Dream and what has clearly become the American Nightmare.

Should we let Free Enterprise determine that sweet spot? That's the direction I usually favor, but I also know full well business will set the spot for maximum profit with the least amount of risk. That's going to exclude people who perhaps shouldn't be excluded.

Should we let government set the sweet spot? Heaven knows that hasn't worked very well so far. If potentially could, though, if interest rates were determined by risk and the free market; i.e., more people could get loans, but at interest rates that reflect the risk they present to the lender.

What most seem to forget, however, it that the real fault lies with neither too-tough lenders nor too-lenient government regulation.

The borrowers were never forced to apply for a loan, never forced to borrow more than they could afford. That was a choice they made for themselves. I don't think we should absolve them of the responsibility for that choice by blaming everything on the government.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


56 posted 08-10-2011 05:25 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

NOW you are talking my language, Ron. Unfortunately, we are geared these days toward a non-responsible society. No one is responsible. Parents are not responsible for raising their children the right way, students are not responsible for studying, the unwed woman who keeps having kids is not responsible for not being able to raise them...people are being told it is not their fault. They are victims of circumstance, of conditions, of the  economy, of whatever. We have a society of excuse-makers....and a government that confirms that nothing is their fault and that they deserve the unearned as a birthright.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


57 posted 08-10-2011 09:45 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


quote:

Well, we can agree to disagree. I see bnlatant lies,  misinformation and propaganda at the democrats weapons of choices, more so because they have the press behind them.



     I think that you’re being somewhat coy about this press business, Mike.  You may not have noticed that The New York Times makes a point of hiring and publishing writers who hold a Conservative point of view.

     This particular think piece seemed to be fairly straightforward.  I didn’t think It was pro-Obama by any means, but it tried to be pretty objective and fair.  It seemed conservative from my point of view, but a lot of it made good if painful sense.  If The New York Times was the newspaper you take it to be, this editorial should never have appeared there; and yet it did.  The Times, like many liberal papers believes that the press should present many different points of view.

     There are newspapers and publications that are interested in representing primarily a single point of view, on the left or on the right.

     Some do this with substantive care for the facts, some are more interested in  representing the politics and put less effort into the facts.  The best publications tend to get the facts nailed down over a period of time after making errors along the way.  The New York Times is such a paper in the United States.  It makes errors, but it tends to correct the errors over time.    The Times of London seems to be another; at least I hope that remains the case.  One is run by a somewhat liberal organization, the other by a very right-wing organization that has tried to keep its politics out of this particular paper.

     This kind of stuff can be done.

     It is very difficult to do.

     The author of this particular piece is a psychologist who has published a fascinating and to the point  psychological study of political reasoning.  I urge the Wiki blurb to your attention, below:
Political bias study
In January 2006 a group of scientists led by Westen announced at the annual Society for Personality and Social Psychology conference in Palm Springs, California the results of a study in which functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) showed that self-described Democrats and Republicans responded to negative remarks about their political candidate of choice in systematically biased ways.
Specifically, when Republican test subjects were shown self-contradictory quotes by George W. Bush and when Democratic test subjects were shown self-contradictory quotes by John Kerry, both groups tended to explain away the apparent contradictions in a manner biased to favor their candidate of choice. Similarly, areas of the brain responsible for reasoning (presumably the prefrontal cortex) did not respond during these conclusions while areas of the brain controlling emotions (presumably the amygdala and/or cingulate gyrus) showed increased activity as compared to the subject's responses to politically neutral statements associated with politically neutral people (such as Tom Hanks).[2]
Subjects were then presented with information that exonerated their candidate of choice. When this occurred, areas of the brain involved in reward processing (presumably the orbitofrontal cortex and/or striatum / nucleus accumbens) showed increased activity.
Dr. Westen said,
None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged... Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want... Everyone... may reason to emotionally biased judgments when they have a vested interest in how to interpret 'the facts.'[3]
The study was published in the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 18:11, pp. 1947–58, a peer-reviewed scientific journal.[1]
Even before being peer-reviewed and published, Michael Shermer used the presentation by Dr. Westen as the basis for his July 2006 Skeptic column[4] in the magazine Scientific American.


     I believe this blurb has a lot to offer on a frequent issue of contention in these pages, and is worth some thought.

[/quote]

    

quote:

Those of us who were bewitched by his eloquence on the campaign trail chose to ignore some disquieting aspects of his biography: that he had accomplished very little before he ran for president, having never run a business or a state; that he had a singularly unremarkable career as a law professor, publishing nothing in 12 years at the University of Chicago other than an autobiography; and that, before joining the United States Senate, he had voted "present" (instead of "yea" or "nay") 130 times, sometimes dodging difficult issues.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/opinion/sunday/what-happened-to-obamas-passion.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all




     Yes.

      The man was not my ideal candidate, it’s true.  I was fairly fond of Senator Clinton, though I believe she might well have been further to the right than Senator Obama, and I had reservations about that.  She would perhaps have been a better choice.  Certainly she demonstrated more backbone.

     But the choice I was offered was between President Obama and President McCain, and I would still go with the choice I made between the choices I was offered.  Some Republicans I know said that they’d rather sit the election out than vote for Senator McCain at one time or another.  I respected his time as a  captive in North Vietnam and at least his first stance on torture; the stance he had on torture before it became inconvenient.

     The choice that the editorial presents is between Senator Obama and some Generic decent Republican.  Nobody wasn’t on the ballot, and neither was a decent generic Republican.  In fact, I haven’t seen a decent generic Republican in a very long time.

     The author was correct.  He was simply not complete in his description of the alternatives.

     Perhaps this is simply my way of shutting off my thinking on the subject.  The author of the article might say so.  Perhaps it is not.  Not having my head stuck in a PET scanner while considering the question, there doesn’t seem a good way to tell.


quote:

quote:  Mike

Forget the "there are no jobs out there" defense. There ARE jobs,


Uncas:
I think if you look at the available data Mike the "there are no jobs out there" defence seems to be perfectly reasonable.
http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/charts/view/21



     Having seen this exchange, I was curious for a response from Mike that takes into account the data that Uncas offers.  It seems to me that the response is based on factual data, and it confronts what appears to be a firmly held belief on Mike’s part that he should be able to support with data as solid as that supplied by Uncas if we are to take his assertions seriously.  I have heard this sort of thing from the right wing before, certainly from The occasional talk show host such as Rush Limbaugh, but I don’t recall any hard data to back it up.


quote:
   Bob:
Countries aren't in business. The purpose of countries is not to turn a profit and to pay money to investors and to minimize the liability of those investors.


Mike:
I contend that companies are in a business to remain solvent.   When countries go bankrupt, they  realize they should have used more business sense. You do not want a president that does not realize that of have that as a top priority. Unfortunately we have one now. Obama is running the country with the same philosophy he used at teaching ACORN workers. Get the mob together, picket the banker's house, threaten his family, storm the banks with signs, sit-ins and intimidation, cause as much chaos as possible until you force them to give out unsecured housing loans that they will not be able to repay, ultimately losing their houses in the long run. He's doing the same thing now....go after the rich, villify them, send their money to the poor and downtrodden, the 54% that pay no taxes at all, extend their unemployment welfare checks and foodstamps and then complain that the rich still aren't doing enough and companies aren't hiring.

Countries ARE in business, Bob. Their business is to keep the country going. They handle billions of dollars. They set up retirement programs. They run Wall Street. They collect money and redistribute it. That's all business. There is nothing that is not business, Bob, with the exception of death. Your family is business...the income you bring in, the budget you live by, the paying of the necessities you need to survive....that's all business. The family cannot survive without it. Neither can the country.




     Mike, I contend this is fuzzy thinking.  I don’t say that it isn’t a good try at making sense, because it is; but it is an attempt at making sense by joining two different sorts of thinking and theory into one, creating an artificial Siamese Twin.

     Economic theory is classically divided into two branches.  It is divided into two branches because the two domains which they regulate don’t apparently function in the same way.  Being an expert in one does not make you an expert in the other.  These two branches are called macroeconomics and microeconomics.  Microeconomics is the economics that govern businesses and individuals.  Macroeconomics is the economics that govern countries and international markets and that involve things like tariffs and taxes and trade.

     Here is a reference to a brief definition:
http://www.beechmontcrest.com/microeconomics_vs_macroeconomics.htm


     Parties, both left and right, have been known to try and fuddle the differences between the two.  Being a businessman and meeting a payroll is indeed a heavy responsibility, as is having to run the economics of a family.  It is, however, not the sort of thing that transfers; because you can run a company doesn’t make you any good at all at running a state or a country.  The rules are different.

     You and I, Mike, know enough about economics to make us seriously dangerous in any attempt to transfer our knowledge from individual finance to government finance.  We would be juggling jugs of nitro; and the idiots who would be urging us on would most likely make a profit from the ashes that were left over.

     Micro, macro — these are not the same thing.
quote:

I believe that President Obama's time in the Senate was very much affected by the likelihood of his running in the 2008 election. Had he spent time before that in the senate, I don't know what his record would have looked like.

Bull....not even a worthy attempt at justification of  a mediocre record.



     Asserting animal by-product does not a sack of fertilizer make.  I do appreciate you trying to say so and hoping that the statement would go by unchallenged.  Alas!  Calling something unworthy and explaining why it is unworthy are two different things.  Either explain yourself reasonably, or consider your assertion successfully challenged.  No ad hominem munchy crunchy snack attacks need apply.

quote:

for the suggestion that President Obama didn't do essentially anything before his election to the Presidency, I think we can dismiss that.

No, what you are saying is that YOU can dismiss it. I don't, millions of Americans who see Obama for what he is don't, and the writer of that article, who seems to be a very fair-minded, unbiased, present both sides, qualified professor doesn't, either. That should tell you something.

I'll admit that you put out a wonderful effort trying to defend the indefensible, Bob. It just ain't gonna fly. The American public bought a lemon, and regardless of how hard you try to paint is as a Ferrari, it still is what it is and, like the president himself, it only picks up speed when going downhill.



     Once again, you’re attempting to put words in my mouth.

     I do wish you’d understand that I will mention it every time I see you do so.  If I wanted to try to paint President Obama as a Ferrari, I’d do so.  By now you ought to remember that I think him a slightly to the right of center guy who has trouble standing up when I think he needs to.  He’s made some errors that I find quite upsetting.

     Seriously, how many times have I said that to you?

     Seriously, how many times have I said that to you?

     Seriously, how many times have I said that to you?

     According to much computer language and Lewis Carroll, “What I tell you three times is true.”  You should at least make some sort of attempt to remember it.

     I’ve said that I agreed with most of the article in a previous posting.  It is only after you specifically asked me where I disagreed that I reluctantly got into those issues.  I mentioned above in this posting where I disagreed with the article and why, and did so more specifically than in the previous posting.  Perhaps you would care to show me at what point I tried to paint the President like a Ferrari?

     Would you please get your teeth out of my ankle and talk about the issues you’re trying to raise.

     You may have missed why I said that we should dismiss the notion that President did nothing before his election.  At the risk of repeating myself, it is roughly this :

     The Republicans are now and have been as long as President Obama was running or was in any way involved in politics furious and enormously critical about his civil rights activities and about his activities in community organizing.  The Republicans feel this was not only something, but something that was and remains a very big honking deal indeed.  You yourself have difficulty not talking about it; and how evil, terrible and nasty it is.  Many of us do not characterize it that way.

     Even those of you who do acknowledge by the very tenacity of your rancor, rage and revulsion that it is something very large indeed.

     QED, Mike.  You may not like it, but there it is.  The evidence is from your own utterances.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


58 posted 08-10-2011 10:43 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


"Should we let Free Enterprise determine that sweet spot? That's the direction I usually favor, but I also know full well business will set the spot for maximum profit with the least amount of risk. That's going to exclude people who perhaps shouldn't be excluded."


In which case others feeling so could have
set up their own bank with their own money
to alleviate the danger; instead the
government coerced banks to use/risk other
people's money instead.

I see Greenspan said the country can inflate
its way out of its debt problem.  So now
we're to take lessons from the Weimar Republic . . .

http://www.cnbc.com/id/44051683
.

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


59 posted 08-11-2011 05:17 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I must say, Bob, I cannot disagree on the President Obama versus President McCain scenario. I had no desire to see McCain elected, either. It almost came to the old question of "Which is worse, the devil you know or the devil you don't know?" America went with the devil they didn't know and we are paying for it. McCain was a weak candidate and I was furious with the Republicans for nominating him. That's what scares me about the next election. I see no strong Republican candidates yet, either. We have a man who I feel will go down as the worst president we have had, edging out the peanut farmer, running for re-election and no strong candidate opposing him. There are polls indicating that Obama would lose to a generic Republican and I hope they are right. We literally cannot afford another Obama term.

Having seen this exchange, I was curious for a response from Mike that takes into account the data that Uncas offers.

I don't engage in discussions with Uncas any longer, a personal decision on my part. I will say what I said before....if I had to have a job to feed my family, I could find one. So could you. If the charts presented WERE true, then the next question would have to be.....why? Why are companies not hiring? Why are companies not expanding? There was a report today that the top 500 companies are sitting on over 1.2 trillions of dollars. Why? The CEO of Verison says that they have no confidence in the economy and no confidence in the current administration. They day the debt situation is resolved, Obama comes out with a vow to raise taxes. Companies are not going to do anything, spend anything or expand until the administration and Obama make it clear exactly what they are going to do. Obama wants more jobs but makes enemies of those doing t he hiring....not smart.

Calling something unworthy and explaining why it is unworthy are two different things.  Either explain yourself reasonably, or consider your assertion successfully challenged.  No ad hominem munchy crunchy snack attacks need apply.

Ok, I'll be happy to.


I believe that President Obama's time in the Senate was very much affected by the likelihood of his running in the 2008 election. Had he spent time before that in the senate, I don't know what his record would have looked like.


Obama assumed his senatorial seat in early 2005. Obama announced on November 13, 2008, that he would resign his Senate seat on November 16, 2008, before the start of the lame-duck session, to focus on his transition period for the presidency. Obama did not have presidential aspiration in 2005, 2006, or 2007. During that time, however, according to this article which you believe to be fair and unbiased, he had done almost nothing notable or worthwhile. I don't know how the democratic mindset runs but mine runs in a way that dictates that when you are hired, or elected to do a job, you do your best to do  it. For three years he did very little and nothing noteworthy enough to satisfy the writer of the article. Your contention is that, with the likelihood of his running for president (which didn't even exist when he took office), his actions may have been compromised.  I called your argument mediocre. Actually even mediocre is not a strong enough word. The voters of his state did not hire him to be president. They hired him to represent them in the Senate. He did not, according to you, possibly because he had his eyes set on the presidency and, had he not run for president then possibly his senate record would have been better. That is more hogwash than I can handle on an empty stomach.     As the writer of the article stated, this simply coincided with his lack of doing much worthwhile in his duties before being elected to the senate.

The Republicans are now and have been as long as President Obama was running or was in any way involved in politics furious and enormously critical about his civil rights activities and about his activities in community organizing.

Bob, Bob, Bob...his activities in community organizing was training mobs of thugs to intimidate banks into giving unsecured loans. Is that something to be furious about? Absolutely.

Btw, I was in error in the Ferrari painting comment. I meant that "you" as a generic you, not a personal one, but I can see reading it through your eyes that it sounded personal. It was not intended to be that way.
Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


60 posted 08-11-2011 07:05 PM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas


quote:
I don't engage in discussions with Uncas any longer


Really Mike? I quite enjoyed our little discussions, I thought you did too but if I'm annoying you so much I'll stop posting - no big deal - you should have dropped me an email I'd have quit earlier.

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


61 posted 08-11-2011 08:14 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I mentioned it in comment #11. No reason for you to stop. There are more people here than me.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


62 posted 08-11-2011 09:12 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


     Yo, Mike, sometimes discussions here get a bit close to the bone.  If you and Uncas stop talking it will be a loss for everybody, for you included, since Uncas has insight into economics and some of the detail-driven stuff that you don't have at times (nor do I, truth be told); and he can sometimes put that information in language that seems more illuminating to you than any other sources I've seen.  To stop talking with somebody you learn from is a dreadful loss.  To pretend it isn't a loss appears sad from my own particular outside perspective, though that may simply reflect my own biases.

     And it seems pretty clear that Uncas enjoys his conversations with you as well.  If he didn't, he certainly spent a lot of time tormenting himself for no reason at all.

     I think the proverb says that it's cleanliness that's next to Godliness, not starchiness; especially since it's fairly clear that the two of you like the give and take for the most part; just not when it gets a bit too personal.  You can both keep an eye on that and say the things you want to say, simply a touch more diplomatically, can't you?  

     Anybody who can get away with the kind of things you say to Doc Moose can use a light touch when he thinks about it; and make the other person enjoy it pretty well, too.

     I'm not saying kiss and make up; I'm simply suggesting a little golden rule all around, as much of it as either of you can bear at any one time, and maybe a smidge less.  At least then you wouldn't end up suggesting that the conversation and the dialogue didn't matter, and that there wasn't something in it for those of us who listen and occasionally take part ourselves.  Not to mention that there might not be something in it ( ever so distant and difficult to see, way out there, so far away that it would take a particle physicist to even theorize that it might possibly be there) for the two of you.

     Forgive me for suggesting the unthinkable.

     I'll get back to the debt issues later today or tomorrow, if that's okay with you folks?
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


63 posted 08-13-2011 04:03 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



quote:

There are polls indicating that Obama would lose to a generic Republican and I hope they are right. We literally cannot afford another Obama term.




     I have my issues with the President.  I can’t say that I think a McCain/Palin administration would have been anywhere near as responsible, and I think much worse.  I’ve been pretty clear about my issues with The President.  I don’t think listing my potential objections to a McCain/Palin administration would do much except ruffle feathers that I don’t see any need to ruffle.  I’ve mentioned as well some of the things about Senator McCain that I admired and probably still do in some ways.  I don’t agree with those partial to Governor Palin.  Sorry.  Some people who are perfectly fine people around here admire her greatly and unless I need to, I don’t want to pick a bone with them.  We simply differ widely here.

     As to whether we can afford another Obama term or not, I’d think that it would be premature to say we couldn’t, not knowing who the opposition is going to be.  

     The problem I have with the notion of a generic Republican candidate is that there really hasn’t been one for 20 or 30 years.  Even the notion of a Bush senior, who might fit the category at least loosely, is not the sort of guy who’d seem to find acceptance in today’s GOP.  He’s simply too moderate and too reasonable for the ideologues of today.  Since he saw the need to raise taxes at a time when taxes actually needed to be raised, and since he actually understood that taking out Saddam Hussein would have been a huge mistake and was willing to put himself on the line to back up those decisions, I don’t imagine that there’s much of an upswell of Republican sentiment that would go for him.  I thought he was too conservative at the time, mind you, and I still do; but I imagine that the notion of a Generic Republican would have to be built around some of that sort of ability to think and make independent decisions.

     The problem, to put it briefly, is that the closest thing we’ve got now to an actual generic Republican candidate is already in the White House, and the folks that the party is talking about running are much further right than that.

     Now I mean to include the Independents who will vote for whichever party seems best at the time in that voting block necessary to win that Generic Republican election.  One of the regular Republican party faithful could probably gather the basic Republican vote; but that wouldn’t — I think — be enough to swing the election.

     At any rate, that’s how I read it at this point.

quote:

Having seen this exchange, I was curious for a response from Mike that takes into account the data that Uncas offers.

I don't engage in discussions with Uncas any longer, a personal decision on my part.



     A direct response to Uncas isn’t really necessary; but a response to a well chosen response to what you’ve been talking about probably is.  It doesn’t matter that the point was raised by somebody you’re on the outs with right now — and that is a sad situation from my perspective — because if the point is apt, it still suggests that there’s something that you’ve overlooked.

     The next question may well be “why.”  It’s good of you to provide an answer to that question; but that’s all it is — an answer, and not necessarily “the” answer.  I compliment you on your ability to put together a plausible narrative.  Whether it is an adequate narrative or not is another question.  I don’t think it is.  I pitched my reasoning around a discussion of The Liffer Curve, which is a pretty central piece of Conservative economic theory.  Given the economic conditions over the last 30 or so years, which have been largely pitched toward tax cuts despite occasional tax raises, the conservative conclusion should be that everything is going beautifully.  We’ve made enormous cuts in taxes overall, we’ve dismantled a lot of the regulatory system and we’ve cut social spending dramatically.  Jack Kennedy cut the top tax bracket from 90% and we’re down around 35% now, for example.

     Attempts have been made to get some social services pushed through and into action.  They may make it through, they may not.

     It is not clear to me that saying that it’s all the President’s fault holds much if any water, though.  He hasn’t pushed through any actual serious programs that have shown any current effect other than the incentives passed early in his administration.  These were too small, and they were blocked from being expanded or built upon.  Keynesian economics would suggest that building on these incentives and raising taxes on appropriate groups would have been the appropriate solution.

     The President didn’t push and the congress wouldn’t permit such programs.  I would suggest orthopedic problem on both sides.  Everybody lacked the spine to do what was needed for the country.

     If I had to work more to feed my family, Mike, I’m not sure I could.  I may be the only one of the people you know who’s in that situation, or who feels like they’re in it.  If that’s the case, you’re a fortunate guy.  I can honestly say that I’m very happy for you.  If you can do it now, the odds are that you won’t always be able to do it, and if that’s the case, I hope that you’ve done well for yourself, and that doing well for yourself will be enough.  Sometimes it is, you know.


quote:


I believe that President Obama's time in the Senate was very much affected by the likelihood of his running in the 2008 election. Had he spent time before that in the senate, I don't know what his record would have looked like.

Obama assumed his senatorial seat in early 2005. Obama announced on November 13, 2008, that he would resign his Senate seat on November 16, 2008, before the start of the lame-duck session, to focus on his transition period for the presidency. Obama did not have presidential aspiration in 2005, 2006, or 2007. During that time, however, according to this article which you believe to be fair and unbiased, he had done almost nothing notable or worthwhile. I don't know how the democratic mindset runs but mine runs in a way that dictates that when you are hired, or elected to do a job, you do your best to do  it. For three years he did very little and nothing noteworthy enough to satisfy the writer of the article. Your contention is that, with the likelihood of his running for president (which didn't even exist when he took office), his actions may have been compromised.  I called your argument mediocre.  Actually even mediocre is not a strong enough word. The voters of his state did not hire him to be president. They hired him to represent them in the Senate. He did not, according to you, possibly because he had his eyes set on the presidency and, had he not run for president then possibly his senate record would have been better. That is more hogwash than I can handle on an empty stomach.     As the writer of the article stated, this simply coincided with his lack of doing much worthwhile in his duties before being elected to the senate.



     I don’t know that you’re quoting The Times Article correctly here, Mike.

     But I think you are pretending to understand less than you do.  You suggest that the only person that a politician works for are the voters who send her to office.  If that’s true, then I’m the only one who thinks that politicians work for the party officials that helped select them and those folks who can help put up the dough to pay for the campaign as well.  I may be unhappy about some of that, but that’s the way things are.  Remember how Senator McCain suddenly had an attack of confusion when it came time for the 2008 election and he was supposed to talk about The McCain/Feingold Campaign Financing  Bill?

     The WHAT?

     I can see that you are SHOCKED,  I say SHOCKED, that a candidate would ever consider running for president would effect the way he voted for things in the Senate.

     I will repeat this again.  I don’t mean to upset your sense of propriety, but cross my heart, there is no Santa Claus, and things like this happen with a fair amount of regularity, and that is one of the very large reasons why guys with dough have so much invested in saying that money is speech, and that they should be able to pour any amount of money into any race they want to pour it into.

     They think it will make a real difference.  And if there’s enough power and money behind a strategy not to alienate any strategic block of voters, the odds are that a candidate can be found who will understand the wisdom of the strategy and will understand how it is a deep expression of the voters’ will, and will understand that this is exactly the reason the voters sent him or her to office.  He or she would be a fool not to, because the strategy sometimes works.

     Why, for example, do you think a governor would study a full term’s worth of petitions for clemency from the death penalty, knowing that the penalty is at least on occasion imposed arbitrarily, and not find a single one worth granting?  Because it’s statistically such a likelihood?

     Or can you understand how to spell “politics” as well as I can?

      To quote a certain notorious balladeer of my acquaintance, “That is more hogwash than I can handle on an empty stomach.” 

quote:

The Republicans are now and have been as long as President Obama was running or was in any way involved in politics furious and enormously critical about his civil rights activities and about his activities in community organizing.

Bob, Bob, Bob...his activities in community organizing was training mobs of thugs to intimidate banks into giving unsecured loans. Is that something to be furious about? Absolutely.




     Mike, Mike, Mike,

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070826/3obama.htm


http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/225564/what-did-obama-do-community-organizer/byron-york#


http://www.thenation.com/article/obamas-community-roots
     Three articles on The President’s time as a Community Organizer in Chicago, above, offer three different perspectives:  Centrist, right wing and left wing.  Not even The National Review comes close to the perspective you’re offering.  Perhaps you might try to offer some references that could give some times and dates of the incidents you’re talking about.  The ones in the three articles I offer show a picture of an Obama who is pretty familiar to the public at large for being a guy who doesn’t enjoy confrontation, who likes to build consensus, tends be generate loyalty among the people he’s working with, and doesn’t come up with earth shattering results.  The kind of guy you seem to be talking about is not somebody that I recognize.  Words like “mobs,” “thugs,” and “intimidate,” as far as I’m concerned, would fit with people who are much more effective.

     I think that even the limited effectiveness that The President had as a community organizer was enough to drive the Republicans who were then and are dealing with him today into a stuttering rage.  Even that amount of effectiveness is more than they can tolerate.  If it were not something, there would be no problem, there would only be more yawns and more so-whats!  Instead, there is the sort of fury that you’ve illustrated so well.  I repeat, QED.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


64 posted 08-14-2011 11:17 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


A liberal article in the New Yorker noted that there has been a change
in the “rich’ over the decades in that whereas before the rich
would be those primarily deriving their income from investments
now more likely they were people deriving their wealth from their
working salaries.   My sense tells me these are men and women who have
been at their labors for some time.   These are the rich the government
is now looking to for even more revenues.  


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


65 posted 08-15-2011 01:18 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     I think that would be an interesting shift.  What would you imagine explains something like that, John?
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


66 posted 08-15-2011 03:36 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


It's about 70 million Boomers now headed
for the rolls without another 70 million
to pay for it.


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


67 posted 08-15-2011 05:25 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     And this has exactly what to do with the concentration of wealth, John?  

     It's not that social security isn't an interesting topic as well, but what you brought up was the nature of wealth and the change in its distribution.  That's a topic that has to do with folks at the top of the heap and, presumably, why they should not be taxed.  Now it appears you've changed the subject to how well the social security system is doing overall.

     Do you really see this all as a single question?

     It's certainly possible that you do; but if that's the case, you'll have to fill in some of the lacunae for me so I can read the omitted chain of reasoning and give you the sort of response that would make sense to you.  Otherwise, you've sort of tied my hands behind my back, haven't you?

     So what's your thinking here, and I'll try to give you a decent response?
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


68 posted 08-15-2011 07:52 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

There's a few other things that Obama inherited from Bush other than a 'sick' economy:

A Triple A credit rating, $1.85 a gallon for gas and a 5.7% unemployment rate.

And just who played a major role in 'Bush's sick economy'?

This video clearly shows that George Bush warned Congress starting in 2001, that this economic crisis was coming, if something was not done. But Congress refused to listen, along with the arrogant Congressman, Barney Frank. This video says it all. The liberal media reportedly did not want this video on You Tube; it was taken off. This link is of the same video, but is routed through Canada . Everyone in America needs to see this before it is yanked off the Internet again!  
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1 ;

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


69 posted 08-15-2011 09:58 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


     And who, precisely, are those that are not "The Liberal Media," Denise?  How do you define those that are and distinguish them from those that are not?

     I can understand standards of journalistic behavior and practice.  I understand that some publications adhere to these and others do not, for the most part.  I understand that some of the publications that adhere to these practices are conservative and some are liberal and some defy any sort of quick classification.

     I tend to reject publications and journalists who don't adhere to these practices and accept ones that do, regardless of their politics.  My own preference is for left wing opinion, but I don't believe that simply because something comes from the left makes it correct.  Nor do I think that something coming from the right makes it wrong.

     For example, a few years ago I called attention to a right wing publication that spoke about the connection of the some of the insurgencies in the middle east with drug money and potential gang warfare and violence in this country.  I am not certain I was right, but I believed that the counterinsurgency folks that were writing about it made an interesting case about it at the time, and that it was worth discussing here.  The discussion went no place.  I'm not certain that it should have, but I thought that the sources were interesting and potentially creditable at the time.

     I think that talking about "Liberal media," however, is a floppy and flaccid classification that means nothing.  Every kind of media has a slant of some sort or another; so what?  The question is, is it straight about the slant it has,  and is it honest about its facts and reportage over the long run?  Media with pretense to being media of record will attempt to present a variety of well researched and well presented points of view from a variety of different sources.  It's what separates The Washington Post from The Washington Times, and The New York Times from The New York Post.

     At least that's how I tend to think about 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 >> Debt Problems revisited   [ Page: 1  2  3  ] 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