»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
..And in the Eighth Year.....
| The Alley |
|
..And in the Eighth Year..... |
|
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA 
|
It seems to be the keyword these days to speak of the "past eight years of the Bush disasterous economic policies". All is being blamed on that right now. It is Obama's pet phrase that he works into every speech. We even have people here in the Alley who use the "past eight years....." as reasoning behind our current economic crisis so many times I want to hold my breath until I turn blue. Either these people have a faulty memory or they are counting on people being too stupid to remember that the economy was actually very good through much of the Bush administration, with unemployment at all-times lows and many other exceptional economic levels. When Obama began campaigning there was no talk of the economy. It was all about Iraq and immigration, since that was the news of the day on American minds. Now there is NO talk about any of that because what is on American minds is the economy, therefore Obama and democratic supporters are jumping on that bandwagon. What has affected the economy the most at this time? Certainly forclosures and failed banks has it's share of the situation. Is that due to Bush failed economic policies over the past eight years? Let me quote a learned gentleman who makes a very good argument...... Actually, a certain amount of our difficult economy is probably due to plain old fashioned business cycles, over which we have limited to zero control, to my mind. But there is a certain amount of responsibility to be apportioned here, at least in recent years. The Republicans have been systematically selling off pieces of the government, not funding them to the point of collapse, and deregulating them with fairly predictable results. There has been some Democratic complicity in this, I'm ashamed to say. The deregulation of Savings and Loans lead to one of the biggest fiscal crunches in the history of the country. The deregulation of the banking industry has lead us to the sub-prime mortgage crunch. The deregulation of the credit card companies and the bankruptcy laws is hanging over us now like a bad dream. (Bob K -4/25/2008) If this case, the impetus was, I believe from President Clinton, who sponsored the legislation that deregulated the mortgage industry. If anybody has better or more exact information, please let me know; this is the way that I remember it and the way some recent looking at old papers seems to push my memory. All corrections accepted, sometimes with small growls, but generally happily. This is actually one of those situations where I think you can actually say Clinton did it. I think he did. Heaven knows why; perhaps because he's a "new democrat," whatever those are. (bob K - 04/28/2008) Right you are, Bob, so could we perhaps cut down the amounts of "Due to the past eight years of....."? I will also quote from the wizard himself.. Personally, I don't think our dismal economy is the fault of either the Republicans or the Democrats. The fault, rather, lies squarely with the American people. Collectively, we tend to be short-sighted and greedy, and our elected leaders get elected because they play to that greed and lack of vision. Bread and circuses still play well, it seems. (Ron....4/25/2008) There are certainly enough things to lay on Bush's doorstep, including excessive spending, but the whole "past eight years.." chant is really getting old, not to mention inaccurate. |
||
| © Copyright 2008 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Mike, Ever heard the phrase “fur coat and no knickers”? It’s a well used term in Lancashire and refers to someone who looks like they’re doing well but who, in reality, can’t even afford the basics. Bush paid for the fur coat feel good factor on a credit card and now you, and every other American, has to either pay it off or watch the debt grow until your economy goes bang. Your government has to either raise tax revenue or drastically cut government spending or both, something Bush has avoided for the last 8 years. quote: I don’t think that’s quite right Ron, I think you’re spot on with where the solution lies, the people but I’m not sure they deserve all the blame. I believe that if the American people were told the depth of the problem and were given the option of fixing it or leaving it to fester they’d make the right choice however severe the consequences. When it comes to belt tightening and putting their backs to the wheel the American people have few peers. The problem is that the politicians are all saying that there isn’t a debt problem and proving it by buying another fur coat, you can’t blame the people for not accepting the responsibility for something they don’t even know about. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Ok. So he didn't mastermind the crisis/es. But a war isn't cheap. So he certainly put a strain on the gravy train. So when did things truly begin getting troublesome? Upon the birth of usury and avarice? Upon the creation of the Federal Reserve? goes so far back there are no records. not long ago, a hand shake and a man's word was good enough. I'm with Ron. No more "bread and circuses." Ron Carnell 2012. poetic even. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Not long ago, Regina?? You have a strange sense of time!  |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
I have a strange sense of everything  As long as my daddy is alive, I know there is at least one man that's true to his word. And my 86 year old grandmother still has fresh memories of her sharecropping days. There was never a formal contract or a lease agreement. When my grandfather died, leaving her a young widow, the whole community showed up to help her bring in the tobacco. As poor as they were, their name brought strangers to the field to help her have a record harvest that year. She turned laundry, canning and quilts out her door during crop rest, and she still works circles around me. And my 85 year old grandmother still remembers how the communities, not the gov, took care of the widows, the poor, and the sick. She educated as many as she could in math, history, and English, as well as etiquette and home economics, for free. She never earned a wage outside the homestead. She didn't have time to with 5 kids, a farm, and her civic and christian duties. My Grandfather, who left this world last Dec., was a Navy veteran and retired truck driver of 35 years. He was her toughest pupil, never learning to read past a 3rd grade level. Mostly because he loved her reading to him, though he memorized the map of the U.S. He paid cash and shook hands on every penny. If the dog didn't hunt or the mule didn't plow. He took it up with the man he shook hands with. The word "attorney" was never spoken. I know things aren't like that, now. But it's fresh on the minds and in the blood of many. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I couldn't agree with you more. Those were the people and those were the standards that made America great. Actually, in some small towns you can still find it, except that in these days it's the exception and not the rule. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, Are you trying to represent the quote from me as a representation of what I think about the economy as a whole and what I think about the policies of the Bush administration in general" over the past eight years?" If that's the case, please say so. If that's not the case, please, at least briefly, attempt to give a fair representation of the other side, as I believe I did in the section of text that you quoted out of context above. While I do disagree with you on many issues, I try to make an effort to quote you in context and will continue to do so. If you were able to find this quotation of mine, then you are also aware that I have been speaking about the danger of the Bush economic policy for as long as you have known me. You will no doubt remember that while I did and do believe the material I am quoted as saying above, I also believe that much of the excessive spending and support for his cronies — such as the drug companies being able to charge what they wanted for drug benefits under the elder drug plan rather that having it be put up for competitive bids as they must do under law for the VA — was disastrous for the economy. I was critical of the way he was spending money, and called his spending policies for the attempt to break the bank that they were. You may also recall that I thought the economy was in trouble when you thought it was going very well indeed. I even went off on a research expedition to see what my fellows here in southern California thought of the economy at your behest. The actual collapse of the stock market and the housing market made my report moot. You, my friend, thought everything was wonderful, and were giving all the credit to the Republicans and the Republican administration as I recall. Do I recall incorrectly? And surely there can be nothing that would have happened that would have changed your mind about such a basic issue in so short a time? Why aren't you now bragging about everything the Republican administration and congress — were you willing to share credit for what you saw as this current boom? I honestly don't remember — had done to bring about this unprecedented American boom? You couldn't do enough to claim credit only a few short months ago. I am unwilling to call the democrats faultless. I am unwilling to say that business cycles were not involved. I believe that there are good-hearted Republicans who actually, like you, don't agree with me. Things aren't black and white. I still believe that the majority of the problems the Republicans have this time around have to do with them veering very far to the right and losing track of the center in American politics, where I believe the majority of Americans still live. The BK theory, at present? We live in a country split between two visions of the state. Vision One is The Security State. Vision Two is The Welfare State. Unfortunately both sides see themselves as mutually incompatible, and we are having more and more hysterical bids for power from representitives from either side. My thought is that we need to have both safety and security for people in this country, in a balance that encourages both and yet doesn't stiffle either. What do you think, folks? Is that plain stupid, or is it worth looking at in more depth? Or something else entirely? Curiously enough, Bob Kaven Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I even went off on a research expedition to see what my fellows here in southern California thought of the economy at your behest. Yes, Bob, you did but that last I heard of it was "I'm still working on it", which was several weeks ago, as I recall. I did not quote you out of context at all. Those are you complete comments with no cutting, pasting or alterations. You may consider it unfair to use your exact statements to prove a point but....they ARE your comments and I must assume you meant them. Once you put something in writing, it's hard to say you are being misrepresented. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, You really should read the postings in their entirety. You in fact took the part you replied to out of context. And you apparently didn't read enough of what I said to understand that you'd done so. This is what I said: quote: You might even notice that I said that I stood by the part that you quoted. I was not objecting to being misquoted. I was objecting to having my views mischaracterized and distorted by leaving out major parts of what I think and feel that are in basic disagreement with you. Those people who haven't followed our conversations may actually believe you have characterized them accurately and fully, when in fact you have simply selected those parts of what I think that acknowledge and agree with what you think. All you have to do is ak me if I agree with these things and I'll be pleased to tell you where I do and don't agree. If you remind me of what I've said before, I will be happy to acknowledge it. If my thinking has changed, I'll say so. Yes, your quote is accurate. It is also a terrible description of my thinking overall. To have picked this as a description of my thinking is like saying all Republicans love everything Bush has done over the last eight years. Or me saying that you do. Give me a break. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
"Your quote is accurate and a terrible description of my thinking overall" Quite a synopsis, Bob. I didn't reproduce the comments to belittle or embarrass you in any way. They are your comments....period. Are you saying that there is something somewhere else said that would make these statements lies or invalid in some way? I don't understand your problem with standing by your own comments. They don't insinuate you love or even support Bush. They simply stated that, by you own opinion, the impetus of this mess we are in was Bill Clinton. They are your words. Are you now denying them or asking people to believe you didn't really mean them? They are statements that stand on their own, regardless of anything that either preceded them or followed them. Yes, I understand that they are detrimental to your argument that the "past eight years of economic disaster" is what caused all of this mess but - once again - they are your own words. Sometimes you just can't have it both ways.... |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, I have made a point of saying, Mike, that the past eight years of economic disaster has been terrible for the country. I have gone into great and specific detail on that. Please feel free to quote me on that, because it's true. I have also faulted Clinton where I thought it appropriate. I have no problem doing both, because both are true. While I think that vast majority of the problems over the past eight years may be laid at the foot of the Republican administration and The Republican Congress, The Republican Control of Congress During The Clinton Administration and the Clinton Administration itself both had contributions to make. I also believe that the current democratic congress is ineffectual in many respects and lacks backbone. Of the three to four major points in the above paragraph that compromise my position as a whole, you have chosen one point to quote me about. You have chosen that quote accurately. To represent that as my whole opinion is, however, a distortion both of what I am saying and who I am. So I guess I need to ask what the political point is that you are trying to make here? I am willing to listen to whatever political point you may have to offer, but I have yet to be able to identify one. Perhaps you are trying to convince me that President Clinton bears blame for some of the stuff going wrong? I said before that I didn't agree with his economic policy, and you have quoted me on this. If you are trying to convince me that I don't believe that President Bush and his Republican allies in the House and Senate don't bear the lion's share of the blame for the past eight years of economic giveaways to the rich and the current collapse of this latest bubble,not only do I remain unconvinced, but I point out to you that while I have acknowledged what I believe is appropriate blame for the Democrats, I have also continuously warned about the liklihood of this current situation, despite your disbelief and occasional mockery. So what is the political point that you seek to argue? That everything in the world isn't the fault of the Republican party over the past eight years? I don't think it is. I think the spinelessness and ineffectuality of the democrats have helped the Republicans enormously over the past eight years. I think the Democratic administration made mistakes over the eight years before that, helped along by the Republican majority for most of that time. I think there's more than enough idiocy to go around. Nor do I think there's a total downside to acknowleding mistakes and responsibility. If you had responsibility, then you can respond differently in the future and change the outcome. If it was all the other guy the last time, you have to change the other guy before you have any hope of changing the situation. And who knows if you can do that? I'd rather take responsibility, myself, at least for the things it's clear I've done. And as much as anything, Mike, I don't like to be crammed into little pigeonholes. I don't fit there and my thinking doesn't fit there either. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Glad you brought up this topic, Balladeer. Everytime I hear about the "failed Bush economic policies", I cringe. There is a never a substantiation of this claim, except to say 'tax cuts for the wealthy.' Oh good gosh, Dem's: are you capable of any proof besides talking points? The truth is, Bush's tax cuts benefited EVERYONE, and the percentage of taxes cut for the wealthy was LESS than the % cut for the middle class. Proof: The lowest income tax rate was lowered from 15% to 10%, the 27% rate went to 25%, the 30% rate went to 28%, the 35% rate went to 33%, and the top marginal tax rate went from 39.6% to 35%. That's ACROSS THE BOARD people, not just tax cuts for the wealthy as Dem talking points falsely lie about. I Say LIE - because all of the politicians know everyone got a tax cut, as well as a rebate for those paid taxes above the $25k income level. I didn't see ONE middle income person RETURN that mandatory rebate. Bush tried to implement a law that would have stopped the Fannie Mae debacle right in its tracks, but Dem's let it die, not even letting it come up for a vote. Bush policies advocate 'free trade' policies. What is wrong with that? I don't see the 'failure' in that either. After all, it was Clinton that implemented the NAFTA rules that killed our trade with close neighboring countries. It was Clinton who sent our technologies to China, helping them catch up decades in a few short years. When a recession was predicted in 2000, the tax cuts had an almost immediate effect, and stopped the bleeding almost immediately. Dem's refused to give Bush credit for this, but had ZERO explanations on how the economy turned around. Let's be frank about something: Clinton was blessed to be in office during the computer age boom; and was fortunate to get out right when chip technology moved to Asia. He didn't do a damn thing to make the boom happen: it was technology, pure and simple. As a matter of fact, Clinton tried to curry favor with our competitors by actually giving them free reign to copy our chips. How did he do this? By failing to prosecute even a SINGLE CASE of illegal dupliction by China, Malaysia or Taiwan. So I ask again: What Failed Bush Economic Policies are Democrats referring to? As this is the most important issue of the election, I think the question deserves a thoughtful answer. tBear |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
Regina, If things keep going the way they are, you can likely build upon your family's heritage and "start it up again" because your family was much like mine and my husband's, and thank goodness I know how to take the egg to the chick to the hen to the broiler.  I'm sure you do too! It's time to start being responsible for ourselves, take a page out of Ramsey's book, and remind ourselves that bartering and a handshake keeps a lot of $$$ in one's pocket. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
tbear, the "Bush failed economic policies" is simply a mantra Democrats hum when trying to avoid facts...that's all. Gasoline is too expensive? Bush's economic policies!!! Sam Swartz got laid off last week? Bush's failed economic policies! The rain ruined the twon picnic last week? Bush's failed economic policies!! That's all they know how to do. When trapped they simply scream out Bush's failed economic policies!! and pretend they have said something poignant. I would go into more detail but Bush's failed economic policies are preventing me from doing so! |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I had a friend in California who made $25,000 a month through most of the Nineties. In 1998, however, he filed for bankruptcy. Economics isn't just about how much you make. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Threadbear, Here are some responses to your request for actual details on criticisms for Bush’s failed economic policies. I tried to spread them out somewhat. I wanted to offer some fairly early critique from 2003, and then an evaluation of the 2004 tax cuts and their effect on the economy after the year and a half that the administration predicted it would take for them to take effect comparing their actual effect against their predicted effect. I also thought that some comments from the defense establishment might be in order. I will be happy to supply you with more, should you wish, but I thought these might be an interesting start for you. The Paul Krugman Op-Ed piece is From The New York Time, which will I suspect make you unhappy. He is also a Nobel Prize winning economist. http://www.workinglife.org/wiki/New+Congressional+Report+Blasts+F ailed+Bush+Economic+Policies+(Sept.+4,+2003) http://www.truthdig.com/report/page2/20081006_republican_economic_theories_dont_add_up/ http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/18/opinion/18krugman.html http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/976 http://www.njpp.org/pr_newjobs12.html I hope some of this might prove interesting. I find that if I click on the http part of each of the links, they seem to connect. Give it a try that way. Sincerely yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Sounds like you friend made quite a nice living, Ron, like over 2 million in 7 years...not bad. I remember when Wayne Newton filed for bankruptcy, too. Of course that didn't touch his houses, properties, or stable of Arabian horses. It simply allowed him to get away from paying a lot of bills. I'm certainly not saying that's what your friend did, but bankruptcy is not what it used to be. I hope your friend was able to hold onto some of that small fortune. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Hi, Bob. Just what I was looking for....let me digest these. But let's be clear on something: Psychology and Economics two subjects that have their scholars in polar opposite camps. Why? Because they're both totally unproven sciences. They're theory-based science, with the final results analysis and their causes highly debatable. I lost all faith in economics when pundits started debating the 'trickle-down' theory. It works, regardless of what people say. I've yet to find someone who worked for a 'poor person.' They just don't run businesses. You kill off the business owners, and we ALL lose jobs. Yet, how often have you heard in the past month, an Econ expert spout off that the banking crisis was caused by this ONE thing. Simpletons! It was a combination of several things, including partisan politics, bad loans to the poor, wealth and greed, power and no penalities, etc. One may have been more disastrous than others, but it took ALL of these factors to really tank the system. By the way: the banking crisis has been renamed by the media this week to: WORLD RECESSION (did ya notice that?) Jeff |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Sunshine, I sure can, I sure do, and it sure does! I’m with you! Homemade cooking is now the unconventional method of prep. Not to mention within the home, but in our schools, eldercare facilities, and hospitals. And we wonder why we have so many issues with having a healthy diet. But there are many modern things I’m grateful for. Such as medicine, tools, equipment, technology, engineering, the right to vote and own property, etc. Can you imagine the decisions boiling down to: “But daddy! Mules are ugly! Why can’t I have the mustang?” “Work your mule, child, then go out and buy your own mustang." |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: How much did he spend per month Ron? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: It seems you may be right Mike, even McCain is at it now: "We cannot spend the next four years as we have much of the last eight, hoping for our luck to change at home and abroad." What some people will say to try to win an election. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
True enough, grinch. Politicians say many things like that. McCain distancing himself from Bush, Obama distancing himself from his record of voting against tax relief for the middle class while assuring them he is for them, Biden distancing himself from calling Obama "not ready to lead". The world of politics. I've said before and I'll state it again. I am not a very strong supported of John McCain. There are only two reasons he will get my vote..(1) He is not Obama and (2) the prospect of a democratic president and a democratic congress led by the likes of Pelosi and Reed, especially with three supreme court justices ready to retire, is scary. Personally, I think McCain handled it all wrong. Instead of throwing Bush under the bus, I would have reminded the American people of the positives of the Bush administration. Yes, believe it or not, there have been one or two. I would have reminded them that we have not been attacked in the past seven years, even though the same terrorist group responsible for 9/11 have declared there would be more. I would have brought out the economical figures of the country before the oil price-raising and the Freddie/Fanny and real-estate fiasco took hold. I would have shown how the tax rebates re-kickstarted the economy. Instead of letting the democrats and the biased media use "McCain would be another four years of Bush" chant, I would have taken it away from them, I would have called them on it and taken it away from them. McCain, unfortunately, did none of those things. Instead of supporting his president for the good things, he threw him under the bus and tried to distance himself from him. That does not show a lot for his character, i'm afraid. When polls dictate what you claim to stand for, it shows your weakness. Obama has that same weakness, allowing the polls to dictate his speech and promises. Now, at the end of the road with the election overwhelmingly in his grasp. only now is Obama hedging his bets and warning that there may need to be "readjustments" to what he has steadfastly claimed he would do, namely because what he has claimed he would do has always been an impossibility. The taxes generated from taxing "only the rich" and raising capital gains ceiling would not even come close to his "health coverage for all", for example and everyone who takes three seconds to think about it or look at the figures would realize it for the bull it is. Obama, now feeling confident the Oval Office is his, is dropping hints that he may have to go back on some of his promises, which he undoubtedly has known all along he could not deliver. Of course, that will not be his fault, either. He has Bush to throw that on, too. We have two weak candidates to choose from. Not a pleasant situation..... |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Mike, I agree I think Obama will be your next President, if I were a betting man I’d put my money on him gaining around 375 electoral votes. However I don’t share your pessimism about what sort of a job he’ll do when he gets there. I’ve listened carefully to both candidates, I’ve studied their policies and I think Obama shades it as the best man for the job. Granted he’s going to have to amend those policies but both candidates have already admitted that the policies they’re pushing were developed many months before the current financial crisis and that they’ll need some serious amending come 2009. There are several ways to deal with the recession, however odd it sounds cutting taxes and raising taxes are both valid game plans, I could supply a convincing argument for either. I could also do the same for cutting government spending and raising government spending. The only constant is the seemingly paradoxical fact that you have to increase consumer spending. I think Colin Powell is right, I think Obama has a handle on the best way to do that. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Hi, Bob: the links you provided have some major intrinsic flaws, namely that they fail to provide a good solid example of MAJOR policy that negatively affected the Economy. Let’s go thru these traditional Dem talking points and point out the weakness: “For nearly three years, the president and the Republican Congress have failed to take decisive action on behalf of millions of Americans whose jobs, economic security and retirement savings have been ravaged.” What?? the House and Congress with a Dem majority she means? Does she not know about the 2003 Republican oversight and financial correction law that was nixed by Dem’s? Selectively using a time period to make a weak pt. New Overtime laws – not even in effect or passed! How could this influence our present economy? “Miller's report notes that after the $1.35 trillion tax cut of 2001 virtually ignored lower- and middle-income Americans, the $330 billion giveaway of 2003 willfully disregarded some 12 million children, whose parents won't receive the same $400 per-child tax credit that wealthier households enjoyed.” That statement really ticks me off: The 12 million children she’s talking about are people who pay NO TAXES and she’s mad that the household didn’t get a rebate. She uses the term: children instead of household to play the ‘child persecuted card.’ Snore. Why should we offer rebates or tax cuts for people who don’t pay taxes? I don’t get this insanely goofy logic I hear in Dem talking points. The same tax cuts reduced ALL taxes for ALL taxpayers, and i’m sick of hearing the lie that they didn’t benefit them. That’s just a lie, and the Dem leaders know it. Across the board, EVERY paying tax group benefited by 4-12% in less taxes. “Bushies haven't stopped at wages. They're also targeting workers' pensions by refusing to help recover millions in lost retirement savings” The term “Bushies” lets you know the poster is an immature writer. First of all, it is NOT the government’s job to recover private firm pensions! Again, what the h*ll! This writer must believe in true Socialist philosophies. Why would the government do something that controversial that the public isn’t even asking for yet? I’m not going to discuss minimum wage issues. That’s indeed a labor issue, but I believe it’s up to the employer to set their wage schedules. ---- Truthor Dig post: “Since George W. took office, corporate profits have soared, while workers’ wages and benefits have been flat. That shows just who is the object of Bush’s conservative compassion.” gosh, i wonder why: Bush didn’t establish the huge CEO salaries: it was the board members that actively recruited these high price CEO’s and paid them like rock stars. Bush had ZERO to do with this. Consequently, if you overpay the CEO, to compensate the company will UNDERPAY their workers. There is NO evidence that the deficit was caused by tax reductions. Actually, the amount of money the IRS collected WENT UP after the tax cuts. You won’t hear that stat quoted anywhere by the media. The deficit was caused by two things: 1) excessive spending and earmarks across the board for all politicians, and 2) the most expensive war ever waged in terms of money. Same war also has the lowest ‘casualty’ rates of any war fought in the past 200 years (compared in days/vs./casualty ratios.) Again, the article offers commentary on trickle-down, claims to have evidence, but doesn’t present it. Besides, I can always get another econ professor to say just the opposite. ------------------------------------------- NYTimes was an op-ed with just supposition theories, no evidence, no facts. ------------- “The approach that characterized the Bush Doctrine in foreign policy also aptly characterizes the Bush administration’s approach to the economy – creating or worsening the skyrocketing budget deficits and indebtedness, lax corporate oversight, credit and housing market crises that plague us today.” Let’s look at that: Bush tried to pass legislation that would have created corp oversight, and the credit oversight, and housing oversight. Looks to me like the Dems dropped the ball on that one. They didn’t react until the crisis actually hit, then blamed it on the Republicans for not doing anything proactive (See Barney Frank.) Foreign policy overreach: How is Bush’s office responsible for private firms selling and trading assets to China?? “Now, evidence is mounting that the Bush administration’s policies in both arenas are reckless and unsustainable” uh.....where? Why didn’t the writer reference what he is talking about? Let’s throw out a claim, and if said often enough, people will believe it, huh? “Turmoil on Wall Street”- excuse me: what part of the Government IS Wall street? exactly none The real story is the European market has been in a tailspin AS WELL for the past 6 years, their own fault, for consolidating power without letting competition drive the market. Europe is currently in an inflationary period with inflated Euro worth, no demand for goods, exports flat. No competition to even the playing field. Let's talk plainly here: the Democrats have had 8 years to nail Bush specifically to Econ problems, but don't have any bullets in their guns to point to anything that had a direct effect on anything. The tax cuts WERE beneficial to all middle class, and the CEO overpayment is something the company themselves should be held accountable for, not Bush. T.bear |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Mike, just for your information: Obama is the LEAST experienced politician EVER to run for President in the past 75 years. (Just a little under 3 years national experience) (Truman (2 years experience) took over for FDR when FDR passed away, so he didn't initially 'run' for office.) You have to go allllll the way back to Lincoln to find a more inexperienced candidate. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Lincoln - what a loser, if that’s what we’ve got to look forward to we’re in real trouble. We need someone with experience - someone like Nixon - now there’s a fine upstanding fella. McCain should use that in the campaign: VOTE FOR OBAMA GET LINCOLN - VOTE FOR McCAIN GET NIXON |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Threadbear, All right, here are some links specifically about tax cuts and the theoretical foundation for them, The Laffer Curve. I have tried to keep the sources middle of the road or to the right of it for the most part. I don’t want this to be a jousting of ideologies, left versus right. Although we probably have that disagreement, I think our disagreement here has more to do with fact than ideology. I’m trying to treat it that way here. The first article give the most references from conservative sources with more available directions for exploration, should you be interested. Apparently, at the very highest levels — say 100% — the Laffer curve is pretty much absolutely trustworthy, as it is at the bottom — o%. But there appears to be an optimal level for it. I won’t go further, since the material I’d be talking about isn’t covered in these references, and I don’t want to be having to set out and prove an alternative to you here. I’m simply agreeing with our current President’s father when he called this sort of policy at one point when he was campaigning against Reagan “Voodoo Economics.” Then he found himself stuck with them, and apparently he didn’t know how to get out from under. While they won him the election in ‘88, I think they cost him dearly in ‘92. Though I may be misreading the past a bit. It simply seems that way to me now. http://logicizer.blogtownhall.com/ http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/economist/4065 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692027,00.html http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/01/the-new-laffer.html Anyway, have a look at the above and tell me what you think. All my best, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
grinch, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "We need...". Which "we" are you referring to. Certainly not England and, since you profess not to be a favorite of either American party I'm curious who you are representing with that comment. Possibly McCain will use Nixon the day after Obama uses Carter. This type of finger-pointing is useless. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I think the whole world has a stake in American politics, Mike, and therefore a right to an opinion. It wasn't just Iraqis, after all, who offered their views on Saddam Hussain and what "we" needed over there? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Mike, I agree, it’s pointless to judge a candidate based on past experience, the exceptions prove that particular rule. The “we” is sort of an all encompassing one. What happens in the US has repercussions beyond the borders of your country and we, you, me and the plumbers of Iraq and China need the best person possible leading your country. No pressure of course, just don’t bugger it up for us - please. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Thanks, Bob for the links. Am reviewing them, deeper, but most of that I already knew thru research on tax rates. Here is something I wish to throw out: Tax cuts stimulate the economy but they can also reduce the revenue that the IRS can collect. Which is more important right now: stimulating the economy or worrying about tax revenues? Why not just ask people 25,000 to kick in 10% of their income to taxes? 33-40% of the US tax paying population DOESNT pay any taxes! How did that happen? If middle income people like me pay 33%, why should people 15K less pay at least 10%? Aren't they getting the same benefits, and more, than me? On a grander scale, who is to say that the rich should pay over 50% of their income to taxes? Think about what this means: that the government is more important than the individual, so suck it up rich guys. No person should have more than 40% of their money go to taxes. None, zero zip. and the moderately poor SHOULD pay something into the system, especially since they disproportionately draw on it more often. 7-10% of their income should be do-able. But here is the reason: Dem's claim, gosh you are penalizing the poor and rewarding the rich! Not true, BOTH would paying taxes, but the rich will be paying over 40% of their income to taxes. Prior to JFK, the tax rate for the rich was a ridiculous 90% of their income!!! |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Oh, wow Grinch!! I've already heard Obama being called the political Messiah now you're calling him: Lincoln Let's let him earn those stripes before we annoint him in the same class as Lincoln, Ok? Obama IS what he is, nothing more, nothing less,... for the moment [This message has been edited by threadbear (10-26-2008 08:32 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I see....If that's what we've got to look forward to and We're in real trouble didn't sound like a " concerned citizen of the world" comment to me. Thanks for the clarification.... |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
No problem Mike. Threadbear quote: No, I was calling him Obama, you brought Lincoln into the conversation, remember. quote: I think you were trying to suggest that Obama was unsuitable for the office of President because he was inexperienced and then promptly shot yourself in the foot by pointing out that Lincoln was more inexperienced. I merely added a further bullet by pointing out that Nixon was very experienced but, I think you’ll agree, he wasn’t the best President you’ve ever had. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Grinch: you brought up a great point: too much experience can lead a politician to be corrupt, jaded or just plain not-caring. Fortunately, McCain is none of those. I don't think Obama is any of those either. We are lucky this election to have two pretty squeaky clean politicans (as politicians go anyway). Their friends and associations are suspect, but for the most part, both seem to be straight-shooters. McClain had the respect of almost all opposing Democrats before running, so it's pretty hard to paint him as a villain. You may have just put your finger on WHY people are ga-ga for Obama. They want someone who IS inexperienced in order to combat the Old-Boy's club. Fresh voice, and all that. I'm just not sold on Obama's credentials other than his speaking prowess. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Could that possibly be because he has none, Tbear? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Threadbear, What proportion of those under poverty level would you like to have people pay income tax, Threadbear? Families under $15,000 for four were under poverty level for years, and I'm pretty sure that the cut off is higher than that now. For a family of four it's $21,200. Here are the guidelines in general, if you're curious. http://www.workworld.org/wwwebhelp/poverty_guidelines_federal.htm The thing is, many of us think that poverty is a reason not to charge people when it's not absolutely necessary. Whereas, having extra disposable income may make it inconvenient, but won't cause starvation. Remember those kids you were getting all weepy about before they were born? Some of us think they're worth bothering about after they're born as well. About the people below the povery line: These are people who frequently have competition between rent and food for their kids. I don't know about you, but as a guy who's both rented and owned, I know that it's a much better deal to own. You get help from Uncle when you own. There are lots of things that Uncle is helpful about when you can afford an accountant, too. That's another thing about the Laffer curve that the right doesn't talk about (in addition to the stuff I referenced in the articles I cited a few postings back). That is that the Laffer curve talks a lot about how much rich folks tend to fudge things on the taxes as the tax rates go up. That's a fancy way of saying that the closer you get to the high end of things, the more likely you are not to pay what you really owe, so the government shouldn't really count on it. Your solution, to pick on the people at the poverty line or below it, the people who are starving or close to it, to pick up the difference is too cold for my blood. To say they don't pay taxes means they don't pay income taxes, Threadbear, not that they don't pay withholding or social security or the rest of the tax and fee business like everybody else and hope they get back what they put in for at the end of the year. They pay the same regressive sales taxes as everybody else, and because they pay rent, their relative housing rates tend to be higher on a percentage basis than their more wealthy cousins. Food costs them relatively more because they frequently can't afford economies of scale. Their health tends to be worse because they can't afford preventative care and because the care they get is usually emergency care without sufficient follow-up and long term care to resolve the issues. Their medication may or may not be covered. You and I can usually get insurance, with a bit of luck. But all this is another discussion. One about health care, which I believe is another Republican disaster that's only grown worse over the past eight years. If the VA can buy its medication quite successfully by competitive bid, why has the Bush eldercare medication program found it necessary to let the pharmaceutical companies set the price for their own products, rather than having prices set by competitive bids? Suddenly the market isn't good enough for big business. Wow! I guess the only thing we can do is soak the taxpayers, and wreck a potentially workable program so the guys who are sabotaging it from the start get to say I told You So. I get whiplash just thinking about it. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
another Republican disaster that's only grown worse over the past eight years. Well, I'll say one thing for you, Bob. You're consistent. I see the "past eight years" mantra is alive and well. Ah, yes the health care, that republican disaster. Er, hold on a second. Seems I recall that the health care issue was such a problem during the Clinton administration also that Bill put his top person, Hillary, in charge of it to straighten it out...which she failed miserably at doing. I'll double-check but I don't think that happened during the past eight years. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
threadbear, here's something I always found astounding about poverty level. Our military, teachers, police officers, fireman, and certain very important medical personnel are all paid starting wages that are well below poverty level. They usually do receive good medical and retirement benefits, if they make it to retirement. We'd better take care of those in those positions, or what will it matter who's politic-ing what if there's no one qualified to protect or treat or teach us. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
About certain taxation that affects the wealthy and the well hard-earned: I vehemently disagree with federal estate taxation and piggybacking inheritance taxes by states, such as Tennessee. If a person has already paid taxes on assets and monies while living, why should any part of those same assets and monies be taxed again (twice in our state) before the benefactor receives an inheritance? I feel it's double(triple)dipping. And it also allows the government to seize an estate if the benefactor/s can't come up with the new taxes due on the property which may have been in the family for generations. Many heritages have been muscled out of the hands of families due to the daunting inflation rate of property taxes and values. I've seen many mourn twice, for the loss of their loved ones and then the loss of what those loved one worked so hard for, gone, to the highest bidder at auction. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Hilary's solution was voted down by a concerted campaign of special interest groups and Republicans. I think she was too idealistic at the time. I think failure to take up her plan or something like it has put our health care system into a very dangerous state. Perhaps there are other folks who've worked in the health care system who have some generous things to say about it. Or about the way it's been handled over the time that Senator Clinton's proposals were voted down. The way that insurance drives the system presently has not been for the good of the patients, certainly, though people have tried making lemonade as best they can, and some treatment reforms have been helpful. Briefer hospital stays, for example, have been useful overall, though not in all cases. Closing of many state psychiatric hospitals has been to my mind, a disaster for the patients who mad depended on them. It's not clear how we will ever tabulate the fatalities directly or indirectly attributable to that one. Inpatient treatment of Depression, at one point, was only covered for ten days for medication stabilization at a time when a two week trial was necessary to see if the medication was useful, and it wasn't uncommon to try a patient on two or three medications before finding one that worked. I could go on. While I'm at it, I'm interested how people are managing to blame Barney Frank and the Democrats for the banking crisis. The legislation in question was during 2002, if I remember correctly or 2003, when the Republican had and used a large majority in both the senate and House. Nothing passed without Republican sanction, and the notion that the democrats could have gotten through a bill without the support of the Republican majority is hysterically funny. The Democrats couldn't even get measures scheduled without getting them past the Republican speaker of the house. After the bill in question was passed, as I recall, the president in his weekly radio address took credit for extending home ownership to the needy. Perhaps some of my Republican friends would help me by checking out the appropriate transcripts. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Bob, not entirely correct. Barney Frank was chairman of the finance Committee, and the proposal was tabled in his committee, never came up for a vote because he convinced his Dem compatriots to just 'let it die' because "Freddie and Fannie Mae aren't in any trouble at all." At that time, Dem's had veto power in several committees and the best way to kill a Republican proposal was to never let it come up for a vote. The proposal never got thru the committee for a vote. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Threadbear, And since then? And the President's Weekly Radio address? Are you saying that with the Republican majority, the issue never came up again? Given the number of times Republicans (or Democrats too, for that matter; in this I believe they are alike)bring up issues that they believe are vital politically, such as tax cuts or measures attacking Roe V. Wade there should be a broad trail of loud and frequent discussions about this through both houses of the congress, even though money matters must come from the House. I suspect that the Republicans wanted to register some disapproval, and then be able to say via President Bush, that they were against the Practice of Redlining, which created large dead zones in the middle of cities, amongst other problems. Sub-prime loans were not the right way out. I think both major parties did nasty things to the pooch on this one, frankly. I think we need some new economic thinking in general. I tend toward Keynesian economics myself, but I'd like to see some well thought out economic theory that would both describe the events on record without any funny fixes or distortions, and which might provide a good future model. The Republican model currently in use is more a political than an economic model if I understand correctly, and that's pretty dangerous. I thought the references to conservative economists' critiques of current Republican economic theory that I provided yesterday was interesting, though not, of course decisive. It was certainly worth a lot of thinking, though, more than a fast response. Thank you as well for your courteous response to my confusion about the details of House Finance committee actions, by the way. It's nice to get well thought out responses from which I can learn. Not that I don't at other times. but this feels more of a collaborative effort at coming to some sort of understanding of the truth rather than a debate. All my best, Bob Kaven [This message has been edited by Bob K (10-27-2008 08:25 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
actually, Bob, that's not correct. Hillary had no solution. She never made a serious peoposal at all. It's easy to blame the evil Republicans in congress for her inabilities but that dog doesn't hunt. It's no crime to say she blew it but apparently it's too hard for those words to come out of democratic lips. Additionally, if you check, I think you will find that Bill Clinton, in both campaigns, used health care as a major issue that was in trouble and needed to be resolved. That did not occur during the past eight years, either. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Bob, you are a scholar and a gentleman. Good on yer, mate! Nothing would be more boring than an economic strategy discussion, either here or in the campaign! Bob the problem has to be that all models for economic growth are smashed. Globalization has vastly complicated things thru reinvestment, loss thru exchange rates, bad loans, risky speculation. The old econ models were more 'demand or supply' sided: tangibles were considered to drive the market more than the transaction itself. Boy, that's such a subtle difference, but it's a killer one. Transactions and profits from trading loan and equity futures has replaced commodity selling as the fastest way to make profits. It was indeed a bubble that was just waiting to be popped, both Internationally and here in the States. It's just begun, however. Housing demand will drop, housing prices will drop; retail sales will be the lowest in years for Christmas, gas prices will tumble (because people can't afford hi-gas); demand for products will wane- people will be laid off, pensions will default and health benefits will be cut by employers. When those begin to happen, you will know whether just a couple of toes are in Recession, or the whole leg. ------------------------- Once that happens, you know who benefits during a Recession don't you? Derivitive speculators: the 2000 version of Carpetbaggers. That's how we partially got into this mess in the first place. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, Hillary did have a 1993 Health plan. It was real. The Republicans were more interested in destroying it than in getting something that would work. Personally, I believe this to be a tactic and not a strategy, a stopgap and not a solution. I have offered three links about the 1993 plan. All of them are very clear that Senator Clinton’s plan was real. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/may96/background/health_debate_page2.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan http://mediamatters.org/items/200709210001 Sincerely, Bob Kaven [This message has been edited by Ron (10-28-2008 12:20 PM).] |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
Hillary may have had a health plan in 1993, Bob, but she wasn't a senator until 2000. As Bill Clinton's wife, what leverage did she truly have to do anything with her plan, other than encourage others to do what she wanted? Isn't that being a bit presumptuous? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Of course it is and it's just another example of liberals claiming that, when Congress is republican, it's congress's fault and when congress is democrat, it's the president's fault. So what's new??? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Sunshine, I was responding to Balladeer's postings #37 and 43, I believe. In speaking of a Senator, the correct for of address is "Senator." If she was First Lady at the time, I would still call her Senator because she is now a Senator unless I wanted to venture into a usage such as "the then First Lady" Hillary Clinton. This seems a bit awkward. In speaking of Senator McCain's war captivity, I speak of him with his current title, Senator, and not by his then Military ranks. If you are curious about what she could do to get the plan passed, you might have a look at some of the links I referenced. Clearly it was not sufficient, but I think that she had some pretty powerful opposition arrayed against her and she fought hard. I believe that anybody in this country who fights for what they believe in in a legal fashion is not being presumptuous. The word has a suggestion of being above one's self, and in America more than any other country, I think the word being used about somebody's efforts in our political system suggests that there is a class system in operation that there shouldn't be. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
Dear BobK Semantics are just that. We need to be clear on what a person was at the time they were in a position of one or another title. At the time Ms. Clinton made her proposed Health Plan, she was an attorney, a wife, and a mother. Now, she is a senator, yes, but at the time of her proposals which I remember her being quite vehement about, and which she could not get her husband to get passed, she was neither a Senator nor a President in the making with the exception of being so in her own mind. And I can give her kudos for her political aspirations. So, we have to take into configuration of when we talk about certain people in politics, so that we do not confuse others who do not have time to research such nuances. Simply, "prior to the time of becoming Senator, Hillary Clinton worked on ... " etc. Not that I would correct you, Bob, but it made ME scratch my head and I wondered which time warp I had walked into back in 1993. Thanks for your patience. I know that I am not as verbose as most of you in the political arena, and I wasn't meaning to say she didn't do what she certainly did do, but I had to make sure that we all knew that she was not in a position as a wife of a president to mandate such authority other than to change the China pattern at the time of her proposal.  |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Sunshine, The President appointed her head of the taskforce, as Presidents appoint other people heads of task forces. Some of these folks have titles in addition, some don't. They are all heads of task forces with whatever authority that carries with it. Her charge was to investigate the problem and to write a report with recommendations, which is what she did. I am unclear what authority you imagine she might have had beyond that. Even the President would have been hard pressed to implement the report without funding, which would have required the approval of the House. What was your thinking on the matter? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bob, when Hillary was campaigning to be the presidential nominee, she was asked what she could do about health care since she wasn't able to accomplish much when she was in charge of revamping it and she replied that she didn't know as much then as she does now and that she would now be able to handle it. There was no talk about the nasty republicans stopping her or any other of the excuses you bring up for her. By her own admission she basically said that she wasn't informed enough then. Nice try, though |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, In my posting # 45 I offered three references about the issue. If you had read them, your last posting would probably have had to take them into account. I suspect Senator Clinton was merely being polite in not criticizing the opposition. And honest about the amount of experience she has gained since that time. My own preference would be for a single payer system. I'm told the French system is excellent, and I've heard nice things about the German system as well. Not having actually researched them, I can't really say. I have a fairly good idea that having coverage declined by folks with a high school education working in Insurance bureaucracies is not the best use of money here, though. The amount of money wasted in overlapping bureaucracies run by competing companies is reflected by premium costs, and by the amount of physician time devoted to paperwork instead of direct care. Physicians must also hire extra personnel to cope with dealing with the insurance standards and collections. It's bad medicine and inefficient business practice and one of the things it produces is an excess of uncovered patients who could have been covered and paid for by a single payer system. One of the flaws in the 1993 Hillary Clinton plan was that it involved competing HMO systems, and there wasn't enough government involvement. Too much would have been on the backs of small business people as a result. It was a flawed program, but a real one, and if the Republicans had actually been interested in helping with the health care issue rather than denying its existence, we'd be a lot further along now. Instead a lot of the Republican arguments at the time focused on denial of there being a health care crisis at all. And that, Mike, killed the thing dead. Now there are probably an additional eight or ten million uninsured folks, and even the Republican Nominee is forced to offer a Health Care Plan that by rights should have been in place fifteen years ago. What are you trying to say, Mike? That there shouldn't be a plan? That Hillary knew it was a crisis and didn't push hard enough against Republican opposition? That The Republican's should have tried to come up with some sort of decent compromise 15 years ago? Or simply that you don't like anything that has anything to do with Democrats, and tend to oppose anything Democratic in a sort of reflex move? Are you so upset about the current election that you have to detour 15 years out of your way to find a Clinton to kick to make yourself feel better? It's still not clear to me Obama's going to win, though I hope he does. Is there some sort of actual issue about the current election and the politics of the day that concerns you that might help us all by being aired? What might that be? And would you consider looking at the three short articles on the 1993 health care initiative you see so upset about, so I don't have to paraphrase them and waste my time typing stuff other people have already said better. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Only a Democrat could say that with a straight face, Bob. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
What am I trying to say, Bob????? What I'm trying to say is some of what you just said. Yes, there is a health care problem and the system needs a major overhaul and it has been that way for some time. Health care has been a major talking point for presidential wannabees for many years and elections. So what am I trying to say?....that your comment about "the past eight years' (once again) in reference to health care is as off the wall as your "past eight years" of economic disasters and your "past eight years" of just about everything else in the world is nothing but bias with no foothold in reality. Yes, I realize you are not a fan of Bush but, reading your thoughts one would get the impression that America was Nirvana until "the past eight years" ruined it. I suspect Senator Clinton was merely being polite in not criticizing the opposition  Now THAT'S a first!!!!!!!!! Not even Democrats go so far as to call Hillary polite! |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Ron, quote: I believe too facile a rely, too quickly made. You are a man who prides himself in not taking rigid or doctrinaire positions about things. Turning some military responsibilities over to private contractors, for example, was a poor idea. It was in fact cheaper to clump mess facilities together in Iraq because it saved Halliburton money on kitchen facility duplication and personnel. The army, run by the government, had made a point of not doing so. The mortar attacks on the combined mess facilities by local resistance fighters was a demonstration why governmental control had been a good idea for the army's mess facilities. Hiring Blackwater mercs may have been a useful idea as a way of getting around shortages of military personnel insofar as the administration was concerned. Certainly the president has been known to suggest that more private troops would be useful. Private troops, however, have a loyalty that may not be to the country first. In Faluja, while the marines were in holding positions around the city, a group of Blackwater troops ended up driving into the middle of the city when they should not have been there. Did they not get the orders from the Military command, or did they have conflicting orders from the private commanders who were paying them. Perhaps they were insufficiently trained or equipped or supported and ended up wandering into the center of the city. Exactly what the train of events were that lead to them being dismembered and hung up on a bridge there don't seem to be clear, but they were not part of a unified command structure, and were operating in conflict with the military orders. The resulting chaos greatly effected the handling of the conflict. If there had been greater government involvement and less private involvement, it is indeed possible that events could have been significantly different. These are two examples. The fact that there are only two is accidental. If you were taking my part in the discussion, you would no doubt be able to come up with a great number of others to prove the same point. The fact that the government is over-involved in many other aspects of our lives is absolutely true. I am especially concerned with civil liberties and the growing levels of executive power in our government. I am in sympathy with much of your position, and have been vocal about it in these pages many times, as you must be aware. I am hardly a knee-jerk Democrat, though I certainly am a Democrat and happy to be identified as such. I have also been critical of the party many times. I am for example very critical these days of the threat to use of Martial Law reported by some congressmen when they spoke of how they came to vote in favor of the bail-out bill a few weeks back. I regard this as an infringement on the powers of congress by the executive branch. I also regard this as the first signs of a constitutional crisis set up by the current crop of neo-cons in their constant pressure to cede power to the executive. Whoever the new President may be will be in a very tough position in terms of needing to give back power the executive branch has appropriated or (as aptly put) given away by the legislative branch. The Republicans have been only too happy to turn it over to their guy, and the Democrats displayed an amazing lack of backbone in their failure to fight the Republicans every step of the way. This is one of the most shameful decades in the history of the country. That said, I still believe that government needs to be very active and involved in some things. Private involvement will not substitute; the interests are different. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Uh, of what, Bob? You just spent two paragraphs talking about people contracted by the Federal government who, perhaps, were rather poorly supervised. Hiring contractors doesn't absolve our government of responsibility. There is no such thing as "private involvement" in war. Still, I'm not denying there are arenas where government involvement is necessary. Our real goal, perhaps, should be to make those arenas unnecessary? War would be a real could place to start, too. quote: We're getting off-topic, but since this is the second time you've brought it up let me go on record as saying I don't believe it. Give me names, give me exact quotes, and maybe I can be convinced. Vague rumors don't mean much, though. However, were it true, my disappointment in our Administrative branch would only be exceeded by my disdain for our Legislative branch. I'd like to think they'd have the balls to call such a dumb bluff. quote: I don't think so, Bob. Self-interest is self-interest, and when morning arrives the politician puts on his pants the same way the CEO does. The pants probably cost about the same, too. "I don't trust a man who talks about ethics when he is picking my pocket. But if he is acting in his own self-interest and says so, I have usually been able to work out some way to do business with him." Robert A. Heinlein |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Ron, quote: Uh, of insufficient government involvement, Ron. I am, uh, no more a Valley girl by the way than you are. It use of "uh" this way is, uh, and intellectual affectation of pretending to be more folksy than you are. The referent was clear enough, I thought; and if it wasn't, playing self-consciously dumb was no way to encourage me to believe you were playing straight with me. As you say, having the government pretend to get rid of responsibility doesn't absolve them of it, though this is what they pretend in both cases. It simply gives the appearance of saving money at the expense of spending unnecessary lives. In this case, I'd rather have my government take responsibility for the outcomes more directly. Pardon me, but isn't that what you were saying? quote: One of the two references below is the video of the address from CSPAN. The other is an extended and somewhat wild interview with Naomi Wolf. She is my exception to my usual principle of keeping Left Wing stuff off this site because I think that you can check most of the stuff she has to say to check it for truthfulness. Though the story about the brigade being brought back to the U.S. is quite a bit more complex than she reports it, it is essentially true. The CSPAN video is short, only a few minutes; the interview with Naomi Wolf takes about half an hour. There is also material by Glenn Beck about the martial Law video. What he says I have no idea, but you might want to check that out since he is usually on the Right and will probably be in disagreement with anything I say, so you’ll probably get some balance. I wouldn’t try to give you a piece of false information. You can hear the exact quote for yourself. It is not a vague rumor, it was a reference I found on CSPAN. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaG9d_4zij8&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XgkeTanCGI&feature=related I think the Naomi Wolf is worth watching in its entirety. You will find stuff you probably will find unpalatable throughout, but I suspect you are too fair-minded to disregard her whole. She is extremely well read and researched, though currently a fair spooked woman. See for yourself. If you’re still in need of further references, let me know. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: No, Bob, it's an oft used literary convention to display confusion or hesitation. It's not much different than having a character in a story swear to show state of mind? Just more polite. quote: It would still be just a vague rumor, Bob, and would remain so until Congressman Sherman was willing to reveal the identity of the people allegedly attributed with such threats. However, I think it's fairly clear from the 48 second spot you linked, and even more clear from the Congressman's five minute interview with Alex Jones, that the rumor is more disingenuous than it is vague. And, yea, I'm being polite again. Here's a direct quote from Brad Sherman: "Wall Street used, uh, these panic tactics to get us to pass this 700 billion dollar, uh, what the bill really is is 700 billion dollars in unmarked bills. They said the market would drop by 4000 points, blood would flow in the streets, and lions would be devouring children in the parks of Los Angeles." Setting aside the Valley Girl hesitations and the obvious hyperbole, Bob, the threats seem to be coming from Wall Street, not the White House. He still doesn't tell us specifically who is speaking for Wall Street, though, does he? Later in the interview, when directly asked to name names, here's what the Congressman says: " Private conversations between members on the floor, you really can't reveal without the permission of the other party." Now it's other Congressmen? Speaking for Wall Street? I guess not, because Sherman goes on to say, "I think these were people who really believed what they were saying. I don't think these were people who, uh, uh, got called by Goldman Sachs and said, oh, go say this or go say that. The panic takes on a life of it's own." That panic seems to work both ways, doesn't it? How many parents in this country have told their kids to look both ways before crossing the street? Would you characterize that as a threat, Bob? Or as a warning? How many parents have perhaps went a little overboard and painted horrible pictures of what might happen if the kid disobeyed and rushed into the street without looking? Threat or warning, Bob? It seems to me a lot of people have tried to take the words of Brad Sherman and twist them to suit their own purposes. Lots of drama. Fortunately, the honorable representative from California doesn't seem to be among those people. He quite clearly admits, "I know that some comments like that were made. I didn't take them seriously, I know some would, I thought it was just overblown effort to create a panic in order to pass a bad bill." p.s. I only got about five minutes into the Naomi Wolf video. Apparently there was an American coup on October 1 and we have only a short time to arrest the President. Excuse me if my trust in anything this individual had to say declined after that? |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
