# Leadership - Obama Style



## Hans Adamson (Dec 27, 2009)

Sad, but true. I am extremely disappointed:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-west ... 98813.html


----------



## rJames (Dec 27, 2009)

One thing you can be sure of. *If both parties don't like what you're doing, you know you are doing something right!*

Congrats to Obama for staying in the center and trying to fix problems for all Americans.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 27, 2009)

He's pretty consistent for most Presidents. The conservative darling Reagan had the same poll numbers as Obama and he's doing a lot better than Clinton was during this period. The only two modern Pres who polled better than Obama are Bush senior, Bush Junior and Carter. We all know what happened to them.

The truth is that anybody who tries to get anything done gets criticized. Especially if what he's getting done helps people. By and large I find the whole of the human race pretty insane on the subject of helping people. It has been for ever. I always remind myself that leaders like Marin Luther King, Jesus and Ghandi were severly persecuted and their only message really was that we can treat each other a little better than we are.

Obama really doesn't rise up to the caliber of person as those mentioned but he does do his best to do the right things by his book. So he will be criticized for it. 

Funny thing is that if anybody ever bothered to read any of his books one would realize straight away that he's no bleeding heart liberal socialist. But, liberals are really disappointed that he didn't back a public option. I find that really odd. Personally the public option was the only thing that I personally had problems with in the health care overhaul. The other one is capping insurance company profits. I was actually glad to see the public option go. And, I was glad that he didn't put his weight behind it.

In the end now that this ugly mess is behind us his poll numbers will rise as that really only depends on his public appearances and doing a few good PR moves. The public is still pretty star struck by him and he'll use it to get reelected for another 4.

My only really disappointment with Obama is that he's not been radical enough.

Also that guy that wrote the article is pretty wrong. Democrats support Obama by over 80%. Independents are still pretty behind him. The only support he's really lost are from the wacko progressive because Obama isn't one of them and now they're really starting to realize that.


----------



## Hans Adamson (Dec 27, 2009)

josejherring @ Sun Dec 27 said:


> The only support he's really lost are from the wacko progressive because Obama isn't one of them and now they're really starting to realize that.


I don't know if you count me as one of the "wacko progressive" but I am pretty disappointed over Obama backtracking from every campaign promise he made, that made me campaign for him. I know I am not the only one.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 27, 2009)

I'm not ready to agree, Hans. While I wish he were liberal rather than center-right, he's pretty much doing what he said he wanted to do during the campaign - and that includes escalating the war in Afghanistan.

And the healthcare bill we're getting doesn't have a public option, but it's still the most important piece of progressive legislation in years. Since Reagan the solution to every problem has been to cut taxes and deregulate some more. It's not Obama's fault that Lieberman is a C U Next Tuesday.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 27, 2009)

Here, I'm in good company:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/1 ... president/


----------



## José Herring (Dec 27, 2009)

Hans Adamson @ Sun Dec 27 said:


> josejherring @ Sun Dec 27 said:
> 
> 
> > The only support he's really lost are from the wacko progressive because Obama isn't one of them and now they're really starting to realize that.
> ...



No you're not wacko. 

He's delivered on every campaign promise. Or is moving to. Close Gitmo is on the way and working. Pulling out of Iraq is happening. Putting more focus on Afghanistan is done. Changing the medical establishment is working. He never promised a public option. He instead wanted to extend the insurance that the federal workers have and open it up to everybody. But instead of that progressives started to try and throw a public option in the bill completely neglecting the Federal program that's already working trying to seize an opportunity to turn America into some sort of socialized medicine which quite frankly very few people really want.

So what campaign promise that isn't currently underway that you feel he's not delivered on?

Jose


----------



## chimuelo (Dec 27, 2009)

Hey guys the wealthiest people, multi national corporations, & largest banks run our Government. They tell our government what to do and where to put the troops. Do you honestly think a man like Obama who despises war is making decisions on firing missiles into Yemen to further speard the war...?
He will never have any control as his financial base is calling in thier favors and many are quite angry.
The power brokers of the world are the same Kings and Queens, and Saudi Royals, Emirs, OPEC, Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and even the old Carnegie money from the old Railroad days where they started. George Soros is a small time foreign fish compared to the old money. Sure, someone like Bill Gates can claim to be the wealthiest man in the world, but the old familes that financed every war since the French Revoltuion has a combined total wealth that puts Billy out to pasture.
Doesn;t anyone here find it odd that they always have the richest men in the world in Time magazine and never once do you see the Queen of England who owns 1/6 of the Earths land mass...or the Rothschilds who pretty much own every bank including the world bank.....Yeah, I don't fall for the media that is owned by these folks anyways.
Think I am full of crap, who owns the land that Canada is on.....Queen Elizabeth.
Seriously,check out the Canadian currency and you will see her face on the currency, as well as Sterling....
Queen Beatrice ran the entire re financing scams that actually brought down the housing markets. These were no accidents, they are part of consolidation and control. Who owns our Federal Reserve...? It isn't us and I can't trace many documents on that topic, that alone should be a warning.
And while they have the left fighting the right, and scenes of Negroes raping white women, and beating elderly ladies to steal their money ( true story ) we are filling ourselves full of contolled media events as a distraction while our treasury is being stolen....
So think about that the next time the media tells you to look over here, look the other direction, or continue being fed fish and asking for more.

I realize many here prefer Arianna and Bill O'Reilly to tell us what the talking points are for the day, but as long as my fingers and eyes work I don't waste my time on these divisive tactics. The Dems outnumber the Repubs ( as if this matters ) big time, and still we get sqaut for any meaningfull legislation, that should tell you about the real rulers in DC......Money, not the policy of these poor actors we are forced to watch read their pathetic speeches. Why can't they just say what's on their mind, even for a 2 sentance statement they need a cheat sheet..........Should have studied Chopin perhaps.

There were dozens of articles on this little snippet, but only a few left as the internet seemed to cleanse itself.
But Queen Beatrice is a very powerful wealthy women, and to be taken seriously.
Let;s start with Ameriquest........great name from a European for a supposedly American company.
Anyways they were using German banks to re finance mortgages all throughout the USA. This is what caused the housing crisis, not some small fish on Wall Street.
The " owner " was this man...................

http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/ ... 9564.story

Once we became involved in the lawsuit we recieved a notice that the company had gone bancrupt....Wow that was the quickest bancrupcy I ever heard of. The owner then escaped prosecution back to the arms of Queen Beatrice but to avoid lawsuits he was made Ambassador to the Netherlands...........wow...more magic......Funny how some little Queen in Europe can tell the President of the USA what to do and it happens w/o Conregessional vetting, and immediately.....Wow ....Impressive.
Well that ain't shit...........he died 4 days after he went to the Netherlands.........that's convenient......So instead of getting a real ambassador like most countries would Beatrice then demanded the son become ambassador..........wow............magical......overnight he took the position.......as he mourned over the Billions that daddy left him.
Sudden death at the age of 68...............I thought Multi Billionaires had good Doctors>>>??? more coincidence.

At any rate that's how things are done, so don't buy the silly blogs and Fox news Dog and Pony show. Do you own research since we no longer have investigative journalists in the Media. We get O'Reilly's and Maddows and comedians.......and they all have us distracted watching them while our treasury is being emptied.
Follow the money if you really are concerned. But after a hard day at the office I can see how easy it is to sit and be brainwashed by beautiful women and comedians spewing the talking points of the powers that be....

One last rave..........There were pages of articles on this topic of the Arnalls and the Queen, but more magic.................many websites are no longer working, and the articles of the deaths number in the few now.
Reminds me of their power, and how they wish we were more " sheeplike ". If they can take the freedom of information away in China, they surely can do it here....

And no I don't watch that stupid Jesse Ventura show. I learned this from the inside of a courtroom and through actual investigative work on the web years ago. Jesse V. is several years late....

Obama would be a great President if he was allowed to be. But this will never happen as the media will keep his ratings at 50% to control him, and trust me if it drops to 40% the vultures in his cabinet will resign and pretend they never knew him or agreed with anything he did and run against him................Hillary and Bill......... :mrgreen:


----------



## snowleopard (Dec 27, 2009)

It's all about money, indeed. By and large our country isn't a capitalist republic, it's a plutocracy, or kleptocracy. But not a government for the super wealthy, only the wealthy who _are connected_. This holds true with bother parties, and the whole left/right bickering aside. The terms "liberal" and "conservative" holding little meaning, nothing but rubber terms to be stretched to whatever ends by anyone. 

Until there is total campaign finance reform, and lobbying is made a felony, we're not likely to see any real change.


----------



## Hans Adamson (Dec 28, 2009)

josejherring @ Sun Dec 27 said:


> Hans Adamson @ Sun Dec 27 said:
> 
> 
> > josejherring @ Sun Dec 27 said:
> ...


Obama campaigned on the expressed idea that mandatory purchase of health insurance from private companies was wrong. When asked to explain how he differed from Hillary Clinton in regards to the health care reform he would seek, he very clearly emphasized that he thought such a mandate was wrong. If you read the article I linked above, there are more examples. His slogan: "Change that you can believe in" rings particularly hollow to me.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 28, 2009)

I don't think that judging him based on one thing that he couldn't deliver is fair. 

What I find really, really peculiar is that people don't realize that it's not his job to make legislation. As per the constitution the president is only allowed to suggest legislation. He did suggest many, many good plans including a public option. Then the House version of the bill tried to push a "robust" public option. We're not living in a socialist nation. We can not afford any such thing. Medicare is already 1/3 of the federal budget and tying any kind of public option to medicare is insane. I think looking at the numbers Obama just couldn't in good conscience support the public option fully. His original idea of opening up the insurance program that federal workers already have was a good idea. Too bad the congress didn't try to do that. Instead the more progressive members tried to make another welfare style social program and it failed.


----------



## Hans Adamson (Dec 28, 2009)

Crazy or not, I won't be campaigning for Obama around these forums again. (o)


----------



## José Herring (Dec 28, 2009)

I have a feeling you'll be holding the Obama banners again once he's up against Huckabee in 2012. :lol:


----------



## Hans Adamson (Dec 28, 2009)

josejherring @ Mon Dec 28 said:


> I have a feeling you'll be holding the Obama banners again once he's up against Huckabee in 2012. :lol:


 Only if Obama introduces a law that says all Americans have to buy Art Vista libraries, so we can jack up the prices. We'll throw in a free lollipop with each order, if the government subsidizes the plan. ~o)


----------



## chimuelo (Dec 28, 2009)

Once you get it through your head that these people don't give a rats ass about your well being it starts making sense.
The idea of the current spending addicts in DC is to create even more Government jobs and revenue streams.
What a noble cause, providing free health care for those who choose not to have it.
I like the way Pelosi says fines or jail time for those who don't comply.
Wow what a sweet gal....too bad that the illegal immigrants who already have free health care and break our laws never get fined for their crimes.
No sir, I know exactly what these spending addicts want.....MONEY.....yours & mine and our childrens. 
This is and always will be about money. The power brokers know most Americans are divided and uneducated in the DC politics. But to actually believe that these " leaders " care for you and me is proof of their skills of deception.
You don't honestly think that some crack head who now has AID's and can't work, but cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep alive is a concern of theirs....?


----------



## rgames (Dec 28, 2009)

When has Obama ever led?

That was my #1 criticism of him during the election and the primary reason I didn't vote for him - he's never shown evidence of doing anything other than following polls. And when the polls become difficult to interpret, well, you can't really figure out where to follow, can you?

As I said during the pre-election discussions, Obama might be a good leader one day but I'd rather he demonstrated it before being elected. There's still hope for him but he needs to quit trying to follow polls and make some hard decisions then get folks to follow. That's, ummm, leadership...

You get what you vote for 

By the way, anybody catch Greenspan on Meet the Press last week? According to him, we're in a jobless recovery because Americans were "frightened" into thinking the economy was worse than it actually is. Sound familiar? 

rgames


----------



## rJames (Dec 28, 2009)

rgames @ Mon Dec 28 said:


> According to him, we're in a jobless recovery because Americans were "frightened" into thinking the economy was worse than it actually is. Sound familiar?
> 
> rgames



Yes, and Queen Beatrice and Queen Elizabeth are behind it!

Greenspan is God...all hail Greenspan. We are lucky that he's not just trying to defend a (his) failed policies. Sound familiar? (Dick Cheney?)


----------



## José Herring (Dec 28, 2009)

rgames @ Mon Dec 28 said:


> When has Obama ever led?
> 
> That was my #1 criticism of him during the election and the primary reason I didn't vote for him - he's never shown evidence of doing anything other than following polls. And when the polls become difficult to interpret, well, you can't really figure out where to follow, can you?
> 
> ...



Yeah and sending 30,000 troops to Afghanistan was done 'cause it polled well :roll: 

You're pretty intelligent so I can't understand why you never get your facts straight.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 28, 2009)

Oy gevalt.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 28, 2009)

No, it's not about opium.

Hans, I don't think you're wacko, but how can this work without a mandate?


----------



## Hans Adamson (Dec 29, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Dec 28 said:


> No, it's not about opium.
> 
> Hans, I don't think you're wacko, but how can this work without a mandate?


Nick, first of all I would just remind that this thread was dedicated to discussing an article about Obama's style of leadership. It has turned out to be more about the health care plan, because it symbolizes the straw that broke the camel's back for many of those who carried Obama on their shoulders to become President. 

I cannot imagine any better business to be in after this "reform" than the health care insurance business. It will be illegal not to buy your product. You can set any price you like. Your business is excempt from anti-trust laws, so you engage in right out price-fixing to make sure there will be no competion from other companies offering the product for a lower price. Your business is a profit-driven company listed on the stock market and shareholders expect a good dividend. Executives can basically decide how much money they want to make for themselves and for their shareholders. You and me pay. 

There is only one way of balancing this corrupt scenario: by introducing competition that is not driven by profit, stock dividends, and a good ol' boys club mentality that ensures executives any salary they could dream up. The progressives agreed to go along when Obama changed his mind to support a mandate. They did so only because the proposal included such competition in form of a public option. This public option is far from a health care system of the kind you would find in the rest of the industrialized world (a state-run universal health care system that is free for all). Instead, the public option was another health care insurer of the same type as the current private insurers, with the difference that it had no stock holders, no profit requirement, and an interest in keeping the costs down, instead of jacking them up. 

After the Congress' bill, and towards the end of the Senate negotiations, an individual's choice of the public option would be limited to those who did not already receive health insurance from their employer. Still, the public option would constitute a true not-for-profit competition that would work as a see-saw counterweight to keep health care costs down for all.

The plan which Obama ran on in the Presidential election did not only NOT include a mandate - but Obama further expressed a strong opposition to the idea of a public mandate to buy insurance from private insurers. His own plan included public TV-broadcast negotiations where he personally would interact and take action and bring the price-settings and deals between interest groups buying health care in bulk to a national awareness. I have not read a detailed proposition from Obama how all this would work, but his general intent and ideological view on this issue were very clearly communicated. It now appears many of his stances were just postering to attract enough people to carry him through the campaign and election to become President. It is disappointing.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 29, 2009)

Believe me, Hans, I'm definitely with you about the public option. I'm also not in favor of a mandate. But Obama wasn't able to get what he campaigned on, and the way the bill came out I don't see how it could work without one.

To me it's not fair to say that he was just posturing to get votes when never mind the ridiculous Republican party, there are conservative Democrat jackasses as well.



> You can set any price you like



They have to pay out...I believe it's 85% of their revenues, which is much less than they're paying right now.

What I'd like is for us to get a public option by reconciliation.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 29, 2009)

Your acting like this will be the last piece of legislation on the subject. I don't think it will be.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Dec 30, 2009)

rgames @ 28/12/2009 said:


> When has Obama ever led?
> 
> That was my #1 criticism of him during the election and the primary reason I didn't vote for him...



Richard, you would actually vote for a democrat? Really?


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Dec 30, 2009)

Another, very disappointed Obama fan. :(


----------



## Evan Gamble (Dec 30, 2009)

I feel like given the system Obama gave the public option a real try. Also sadly it just isn't popular enough in this country overall to pass I think.

Now Afghanistan is another issue which I am still debating with myself whether this escalation is supporting the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war or simply trying to correct a problem that was already there. A lot of variables to consider.


----------



## chimuelo (Dec 30, 2009)

ooops.


----------



## rgames (Dec 30, 2009)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Wed Dec 30 said:


> rgames @ 28/12/2009 said:
> 
> 
> > When has Obama ever led?
> ...



Of course I would - I said as much before the election. I voted for Dem's in the last election (local). My feelings are the same now as they were then: Obama COULD be a good president but I haven't seen any evidence of real leadership from him. The article linked by the OP says basically that and I agree with it. But remember that I said it first 

That's not to say it won't ever happen, of course, but I would rather he stayed in the senate for a few more years to figure it out. Allowing him to figure it out on the job as president is a bit risky...

rgames


----------



## SvK (Dec 30, 2009)

Real Leadership?

QUESTION:
Who did social security cover when FDR first passed it?

ANSWER: 
Widows and Orphans.

QUESTION2:
Who does Social Security cover now?

ANSWER:
Everybody..

President Obama will pass healthcare. Yes it is compromised and yes there is no public option. But sooner than later there will be. All major bills that manage to get passed start out with much compromise. Otherwise they would be impossible to pass.

In conclusion, by passing health-care he will have laid a foundation. A foundation that NO ONE has been able to lay since Theodore Roosevelt first attempted and failed 100 years ago.

Furthermore, Obama knows full well that this is politically dangerous for him since we start paying taxes on this from the get go even though it doesn't kick in for 4 years. My point is he really believes in it and is willing to take care of this even though it hurts him. THAT IS CALLED LEADERSHIP.

SvK


----------



## George Caplan (Dec 31, 2009)

Hans Adamson @ Sun Dec 27 said:


> Sad, but true. I am extremely disappointed:



Yes and three cheers for the internet. Looking forward to seeing how your health plans go forward. Good luck with that one :lol: :lol: :lol: 

Centre right? I don't think so. You have a Labour President on your hands and I'm not sure Americans are ready for Labour just yet.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 31, 2009)

Center right in many ways, and this is not the UK. In the US we don't have Labour - the national debate is very, very different. Here most of the people who would benefit from a more socialized system are the ones who vote for the candidates who are farthest right (because they're gullible).

If you look at Obama's policies, very few of them aren't right of center. No candidate who's anywhere near the left has a chance here. Look at the Democratic party. It's not liberal.

But I also say it's way too early to judge Obama. I still believe he's going to have a very positive impact, in fact he already has (just because the bar was so low when he came in) - although I too would like the country to be far more liberal than it is.


----------



## George Caplan (Dec 31, 2009)

Anything would have been positive after the previous imbecile you had as President. My cats would have been positive. Your problem over there is simply out of a population of 350 million, those were the best candidates you could come up with. Naturally, the world watches with great interest at the outcome of health policies in the USA and please forgive any sense of irony you can hear in my voice. :lol:  
And also a President who canes the whole of his intelligent service straight off the bat - as opposed to looking at individuals within that particular community regarding problems on aeroplanes.


----------



## chimuelo (Dec 31, 2009)

Obama owes Labor because he took a ton of their cash. Americans don't have a problem with Labor. To us Labor means Building & Tradesmen who actrually build comething, or help out w/ infrastructure which should be second only to jobs.
Andy Stern's brainwashed high school dropouts w/o shame sell themselves as Labor as if they contibuted something.
A high percentage of the Service Employees Union are undocumented illegal immigrants who use a cousins name or ID from some Central American country or Mexico.
This is a great scam for Mr. Stern.
He will gladly tell his robots where to stand and yell, and funny thing about pensions, you have to be a citizen w/ proper documentation. Sterns Union gets to keep the pension deductions becasue when one of these folks try and cash out their annutity, it is run through the IRS which gladly will take their cut, and then the poor used up immigrant will get a small annuity check and be refused his pension.....
This is exactly what has been planned from the start. They learned this from the Davis Bacon funds and other actual Labor Unions and applied it very effectively.
The Limousine Liberals like Al Gore don't even know which Mexican holidays are which, but they will fight for the right to work of all illegal immigrants.......they care and love them so much... :roll: 

Unfortunately because they took so much money from SEIU and Geroge Soros and other Billionaires they had to give out positions as in the Czars and other folks w/ zero experience at their new position.
Janet Napolitano is a prime example. Van Jones, Sunsteen, Geitner......etc.
Homeland Security..........sheezus.................just a picture of it's brave leader Janet Napolitano encourages our enemies to invade the entire continent.....

Here's what I see.............
We pay for Heath Care for 4 or 5 years, then the supposed Left will say we can't have Health Care because the Republicans have changed the laws now that they're in power............Of course you won't get any money back, and the big IMF and China will keep that.
Hopefully then more folks will realize a President simply does what he's told, and there is no right and left..........only for ratings sake.
At the end of the day, the democrat majority has the entire Federal Government behind them, they have the house the Senate........and this is the best they can do..........I find that to be more proof of how there is no left or right........
It's the have and the have nots..........Kings and Queens w/o the titles.......


----------



## José Herring (Dec 31, 2009)

Last thing America needs or wants is a more socialized system.

Obama is walking a tight rope. The right will never accept anything he does because they're the right. And thank God they are a minority right now. Losing members as each day passes.

But he's no Progressive leftist either. So he's lost support from these people. Thank God that they're a minority too. But you put those two minorities together and they represent about 50% of the electorate. So he's going to need to throw a bone to both those sides.

I'm in the 50% that thinks he's doing a fine job. Past Presidents have failed to make a dent in any way on health care. I voted for him because Obama is less in the pocket of special interest than any politician I've ever seen. But that being said the forces that he's fighting against are formidable. Lots of money and lots of politicians the their pockets. Its just going to take more than one piece of legislation to really get things done. So I hold out hope that he doesn't lose his way and can get behind things like Cap and Trade, and some form of public option. Though that public option that came out of the House is just pure bunk.

It's a capitalist system in America. It will be forever probably. Socialism is just not going to happen here. Passing legislation that forces the Capitalist forces to play fair ball will. I think the bill goes a long way in doing this. Maybe not far enough but certainly in the right direction. And, who said that its over.

For most people the medical system in America works just fine. Sure I wish we didn't have uninsured. Hell I've been uninsured and its not that pleasant. So some sort of safety net is what's needed here. I thin that will be next but the public option as it is now does more harm than good. it needed to go.

Honestly I don't think Obama really needs to go through congress to get a public option going. All that need be done is extend the program that Federal Employees have to the general public.

I say before we pass full judgment we get this piece of legislation out of the way and see where it goes from here.

And for God sakes people, if you really want to see anything get done don't vote Republican in the midterms. I hope that that party never sees the light of the majority ever again. At least not until Karl Rove and Dick Cheney die. 



Jose


----------



## José Herring (Jan 1, 2010)

Leadership Obama Style:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100101/ap_on_re_as/as_nkorea_new_year_s_message (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100101/ap_ ... _s_message)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 1, 2010)

"Last thing America needs or wants is a more socialized system"

We're on the same side, but I believe strongly that we absolutely do need a more socialized system!

I think you're looking at it as socialism vs. capitalism black and white, but in the real world economies are mixed. Even China has realized that basically capitalist economies tend to produce more (depending on the resources available, of course) and not very many people will argue that capitalism shouldn't be the default in the developed world. But some things are better socialized.

Going back to generalities, we have a huge and widening disparity between rich and poor in this country, a trend that was accelerated by the policies started during the Reagan era (the "trickle down" and excessive privatization bullshit). Most of that is what James K. Galbraith calls "compassion fatigue" - people were tired of caring about other people, so the country moved way, way far toward the right.

It's interesting that the same people who were rabidly in favor of Bush's tax cuts for the rich are now the ones shrieking about the deficit.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 1, 2010)

Re: that link about North Korea, whether or not they're sincere is unimportant; the point is that it's an opening. What this shows is that walking softly is as important as carrying the big stick.


----------



## midphase (Jan 1, 2010)

+ 1 on whatever Nick just said.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 1, 2010)

+ 2 (I'm still trying to figure out what he said too)


----------



## rJames (Jan 1, 2010)

+1

We do need a tad more socialism. I don't think there is an American among us who wants salaries to be determined by the government or that a days work in any field should be paid as much as a days work in another field' i.e. the CEO of General Foods gets paid the same as a factory worker on an assembly line.

...but a totally (100%) free market driven economy leaves many millions trampled in the stampede for the almighty dollar.


----------



## rgames (Jan 1, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Jan 01 said:


> Going back to generalities, we have a huge and widening disparity between rich and poor in this country, a trend that was accelerated by the policies started during the Reagan era (the "trickle down" and excessive privatization [email protected]#t).



And yet Reagan's policies got high unemployment under control quickly and Obama's economic policies have driven it upwards...

rgames


----------



## SvK (Jan 1, 2010)

Rjames / Chimuelo

until the day when republican leadership ( for lack of a better word ), are willing to throw Palin, Beck, Limbaugh under the bus, it will remain impossible to take you seriously. 

SvK


----------



## SvK (Jan 1, 2010)

It is difficult to convey in words how deeply embarrassing and shameful the Beck / Palin crowd makes me feel......

But without a doubt the funniest thing to watch, is when obviously intelligent rebublican senators so unconvincingly pretend to support these bottom-feeders out of fear of losing votes...

SvK


----------



## Olias (Jan 1, 2010)

rgames @ Fri Jan 01 said:


> And yet Reagan's policies got high unemployment under control quickly and Obama's economic policies have driven it upwards...



The facts beg to differ: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Us_un ... 0_2005.png


----------



## rJames (Jan 1, 2010)

SvK @ Fri Jan 01 said:


> Rjames / Chimuelo
> 
> until the day when republican leadership ( for lack of a better word ), are willing to throw Palin, Beck, Limbaugh under the bus, it will remain impossible to take you seriously.
> 
> SvK



Look carefully at the names of the posters when you respond.

Thanks, rJames


----------



## José Herring (Jan 1, 2010)

rgames @ Fri Jan 01 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Jan 01 said:
> 
> 
> > Going back to generalities, we have a huge and widening disparity between rich and poor in this country, a trend that was accelerated by the policies started during the Reagan era (the "trickle down" and excessive privatization [email protected]#t).
> ...



Ignorance abound. Reagan's policies drove unemployment up and only his deficit spending got it under control.


----------



## rgames (Jan 1, 2010)

Olias @ Fri Jan 01 said:


> rgames @ Fri Jan 01 said:
> 
> 
> > And yet Reagan's policies got high unemployment under control quickly and Obama's economic policies have driven it upwards...
> ...



Your "facts" include data only through 2005. Or are you saying Obama was president before 2005? 

Re: Palin/Beck/Limbaugh: I don't like them much and I've said as much around here a number of times (though Limbaugh is mildly entertaining in the same way that Michael Moore is). You repeatedly fail to recognize the fact someone can be critcal of Obama AND not be on the extreme right.

Don't stereotype so much, my man!

rgames


----------



## Olias (Jan 1, 2010)

rgames @ Fri Jan 01 said:


> Olias @ Fri Jan 01 said:
> 
> 
> > rgames @ Fri Jan 01 said:
> ...



I'm looking only at the Reagan years on this graphic. Your statement about his policies getting unemployment under control "quickly" is obviously untrue. It was 1985 before unemployment was lower than it was in 1981. If you're going to define "quickly" as 4 years, then you need to give Obama the same window.

But since you asked: http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=usu ... statistics

So... 

January 2009 (Obama takes office): 8.5%
June/July (peak): 9.7%
November: 9.4%

So, no, it's not under control. But that's only 10 months.

But my main point is that if you're going to attempt to use statistics, at least try to base them in reality.


----------



## Olias (Jan 1, 2010)

Or here are seasonally adjusted statistics: http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000 (http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyO ... NS14000000)

If anyone even buys the argument (I don't!) that a president is responsible for the unemployment rate, then maybe let's look at February 2008 to January 2009 (Bush's last 11 months in office) vs January 2009 to November 2009 (Obama's first 11 months in office).

Bush: 4.8 to 7.6% (58% increase)
Obama: 7.6% to 10.0 (32% increase)


----------



## José Herring (Jan 1, 2010)

Olias @ Fri Jan 01 said:


> But my main point is that if you're going to attempt to use statistics, at least try to base them in reality.



This is my only criticism of you Richard. It doesn't bother me that much that there are people that buy into this right wing bs, but it does bother me a great deal when they start quoting facts that are completely untrue to support their views. We all lived through the 1980's. Reagan had a terrible time with the economy. Actually Jimmy Carter had less unemployment and less debt than Reagan did.

The funny thing is that Reagan ran on this platform of fiscal responsibility yet when he took office the national debt was 700billion. When he left it was 3 trillion. Bush jr. ran on the same platform and yet when he took office the debt was 5.5 trillion and when he left it was over 10 trillion. 

So get off the sanctimonious right wing high horse and really look at the facts before you start spewing that crap again. Both Reagan and Bush sucked economically. I'm hoping Obama doesn't suck as bad. Only time will tell.

Jose


----------



## SvK (Jan 1, 2010)

Rjames,

my apologies, I meant Rgames....

SvK


----------



## SvK (Jan 1, 2010)

Richard, 

I blame all sensible republicans for not coming out swinging against the elevation of mediocrity as some sort of patriotic value. I blame you for pretending that science is some sort of evil which will eventually destroy your pious American fabric. It's embarrassing.

SvK


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 2, 2010)

"And yet Reagan's policies got high unemployment under control quickly and Obama's economic policies have driven it upwards"

Richard, you really shouldn't say stuff like that when you really don't know what you're talking about. I'm sorry, but it's really frustrating to read total nonsense like this.

In addition to your total misunderstanding of the history other people have gone into, Obama's economic policies have absolutely NOT driven unemployment upwards! His economic policy has been economic stimulus, and it's impossible for that to cause unemployment (in the current situation). On the contrary, unemployment would have been considerably worse without that.

How can you put hundreds of billions of dollars into the economy and have that drive unemployment upwards?! You can argue - wrongly - that the deficit spending will create unemployment in the long term, but in the very short term you can't even put that on a bumper sticker.

Will post on Volker's brutal interest rate hike to get inflation under control at the beginning of the Reagan era later (I'm going to bed now). But I will say that it killed what was left of our industrial era.


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 2, 2010)

SvK @ Fri Jan 01 said:


> Rjames / Chimuelo
> until the day when republican leadership ( for lack of a better word ), are willing to throw Palin, Beck, Limbaugh under the bus, it will remain impossible to take you seriously.
> SvK



You have me confused with someone who believes there's a left and a right.
It's noble to have beliefs that you and I both share. It sickens me to see the wealthiest nation on Earth watch it's citizens die from lack of medical coverage, or our soldiers come home to no jobs becasue the stimulus money was spent on some politicians private train to her winery when it was meant for " shovel ready " jobs.

No sir the difference between you and me is, you actually believe the people in DC represent you. I know for a fact they don't and they prove it over and over. You can either accept the facts or deny them.

I do not care to read the Huffington Post, or listen to Rush Limbaugh because they make a living off of the divisions they create in our society.
Hell you're ready to argue with me because you assume since I question the current thieves that I am from the supposed " right."

All of these politicians sell legislation and the newest crock of horse dung is proof there's no left and right.
The supposed " left " has total control over the White House, the stimulus funds, the Senate and COngress and yet we get this bill that taxes us for years before it even begins to become law...?
The insurance rackets have paid for their monopolistic legislative favors to all of these clowns for years, the whole get the rich guy slogan is moot when the richest Banks, CEO's, UN, IMF and OPEC lobbyists are playing Golf with the politicians and having lunch together. 
No sir, I have seen decades of corruption and it sickens me.
The 55 Million for Pelosi's Train that leads to her winery is shameful when we have vets coming home that are dying at Walter Reed from serving and protecting her and her Billionaire husband. 
I could bash Dick Cheney too. Do you really believe he sold his interest in Halliburton once the contract to steal all of the Iraqi Oil was signed........Sure he did, But to an inlaw which is totally legal but none the less shameful as well.
No my friend, I despise all of these bad actors.
Many members of my family have served their country and some never came back alive. IMHO those folks have earned the right to have quality medical coverage, and the same quality that these fat bastards in DC get...not that jive ass Walter Reed rat infested hospital.
I agree with most of the members here on most social issues, as it is the humane and right thing to do. I just despise the people who pretend they have the same beliefs when actually they settle for a train or another airport terminal for their private airport.
Just look at how the corporate controlled media has members here becoming angry at each other arguing over the various " positions " and imagined statistics of the " left " and the " right."
I am sure that many of you guys are defending your beliefs, but please don't confuse these politicians for people that represent or care about you.
Argue over your differences and beliefs, because the false parties are simply a distraction and the moral and racial divisions they create are tricks from the Third Reich. Read your history. They too tried to spend their way out of a depression, and ended up starting wars...............sound familiar..?
Oh and another fact you can either heed to or ignore....the Rothschilds financed both sides during WWII.........Guess who owns all of the little American Banks that are going under....? Guess who also takes money from our treasury at 0 interest and lends it back to us.....................That's right.
This is why we can't even audit our own Federal Reserve........
So while they have you looking at Obama begging in Copenhagen, or the CIA versus Nancy Pelosi hearings which BTW never happened, that's what is going on.
So pass the popcorn........ o-[][]-o


----------



## rgames (Jan 2, 2010)

Reagan inherited mediocre employment and it jumped 3% or so over a couple years to the peak before starting to drop. Obama inherited REALLY LOW unemployment and it jumped 5% or so in about a year to levels about as high as under Reagan (where we are now).

So the "facts" show that unemployment has, in fact, gotten much worse much faster under Obama. Unless you don't believe the data from the Bureau of Labor statistics... Sorry - I don't go to the blogosphere for my data 

However, in the spirit of "lies, damn lies, and statistics" a better argument is on how much impact a president and his economic team can really have on improving unemployment (I'll wager it's easier to make it worse).

SvK - I don't follow you. Science has been an enormous part of my life and I hold it in the highest regard, much higher than politics. Not sure what that has to do with the discussion here, though. As I've said before, economics ain't science...

rgames


----------



## SvK (Jan 2, 2010)

Rgames,

So when exactly will you and other sensible Republicans take your party back from those who do not believe evolution should be taught in school? 

SvK


----------



## Olias (Jan 2, 2010)

rgames, you're just spouting garbage now, unless you can cite a source that backs you up.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 2, 2010)

not worth it


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 2, 2010)

> So the "facts" show that unemployment has, in fact, gotten much worse much faster under Obama





The engines had stopped and the plane was plummeting out of control. So you're saying the mechanic who got a couple of the engines started again so the plane is now level should have done something different, and you have facts to prove that: the plane is lower than it was when he started working on the engines.

Your logic is about as faulty it gets.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 2, 2010)

By the way, the economic policies we're talking about include TARP (Bush policy), an economic stimulus package that's much smaller than it needs to be (because it was the best he could do with only three Republican senators voting for it), and other moves by the Fed (Bernanke was appointed by Bush, of course).

I have plenty of criticism of Obama's policies, but this stuff is just retarded.


----------



## rgames (Jan 2, 2010)

SvK @ Sat Jan 02 said:


> Rgames,
> 
> So when exactly will you and other sensible Republicans take your party back from those who do not believe evolution should be taught in school?
> 
> SvK



When did I claim to be a republican? I hold no party affiliation and regularly vote for both republicans and democrats. Again, my friend, careful on the stereotypes  I know you love Obama but the world is not entirely us vs. them. There are some in-betweeners.

Re: sources: I already named my source: the Bureau of Labor Statistics www.bls.gov. Average annual unemployment the year before Reagan took office (1980) was about 7.1%. Basically flat to 7.6% in 1981, then it rose to about 9.7% in 1982. So about 2.6% rise over his first two years. Average annual unemployment for the year before Obama took office (2008) was about 5.8%. For 2009, it's about 9.3%. So about 3.5% rise over his first year, alone. If it keeps going up at the current rate, Obama will beat Reagan hands down by the end of his second year. But let's hope that doesn't happen... we'll see.

So, summary: Reagan had 2òv   ¼ßƒv   ¼ß„v   ¼ß…v   ¼ß†v   ¼ß‡v   ¼ßˆv   ¼ß‰v   ¼ßŠv   ¼ß‹v   ¼ßŒv   ¼ßv   ¼ßŽv   ¼ßv   ¼ßv   ¼ß‘v   ¼ß’v   ¼ß“v   ¼ß”v   ¼ß•v   ¼ß–v   ¼ß—v   ¼ß˜v   ¼ß™v   ¼ßšv   ¼ß›v   ¼ßœv   ¼ßv   ¼ßžv   ¼ßŸv   ¼ß v   ¼ß¡v   ¼ß¢v   ¼ß£v   ¼ß¤v   ¼ß¥v   ¼ß¦v   ¼ß§v   ¼ß¨v   ¼ß©v   ¼ßªv   ¼ß«v   ¼ß¬v   ¼ß­v   ¼ß®v   ¼ß¯v   ¼ß°v   ¼ß±v   ¼ß²v   ¼ß³v   ¼ß´v   ¼ßµv   ¼ß¶v   ¼ß·v   ¼ß¸v   ¼ß¹v   ¼ßºv   ¼ß»v   ¼ß¼v   ¼ß½v   ¼ß¾v   ¼ß¿v   ¼ßÀv   ¼ßÁv   ¼ßÂv   ¼ßÃv   ¼ßÄv   ¼ßÅv   ¼ßÆv   ¼ßÇv   ¼ßÈv   ¼ßÉv   ¼ßÊv   ¼ßËv   ¼ßÌv   ¼ßÍv   ¼ßÎv   ¼ßÏv   ¼ßÐv   ¼ßÑv   ¼ßÒv   ¼ßÓv   ¼ßÔv   ¼ßÕv


----------



## Olias (Jan 2, 2010)

rgames, your manner of using statistics is so unbelievably wrong. Look at the _monthly_ statistics and you'll see that the annual average for 2008 is biased because most of the year was low. Then in the last couple of months it went up very quickly. Annual average stays low. Monthly average went up almost 60% over the course of 2008.

Learn to talk accurately about what you're debating. It'll get you a long way.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 2, 2010)

The problem is that those statistics are barking up the wrong tree. They have nothing to do with the policies.

Richard:



> Nick's comment that Reagan's economic policies were "[email protected]#t" was, itself, [email protected]#t: Reagan's economic policies were not so terrible and Obama's are not so great. That's my point here.



I'm sorry, but you don't even know what those polices are; comparing unemployment statistics over time is 100% irrelevant. It doesn't even matter whether your stats are right! Yes, Reagan's economic policies sucked huge goat custards.

It so happens that two things happened when he came into power. One was the tax cutting at the top that led to the huge income disparity we have now. It was wrong then, it was wrong when it was done again during the Bush era, and it needs to be reversed now. Our economy grew over the past few years, but that didn't trickle down to the middle class.

The other was Volker's war on inflation. As I said, he raised the interest rates in order to lower inflation - which threw the country into a massive recession. People say it was Reagan's policies that laid the groundwork for the boom that followed, but actually it was a combination of luck (never mind that the booms weren't actually as great as everyone thinks). The Soviet empire collapsed and materials became very cheap. Then we had the dot com era. That wasn't because of Reagan's bullshit policies, it was because of world events.


----------



## rJames (Jan 2, 2010)

madbulk @ Sat Jan 02 said:


> Obama walked into inevitable historic unemployment, powerless to prevent it from soaring and powerless to stop folks 20 years from now from googling up "unemployment 2009" and attributing it to him probably.



Thanks Brian, a voice of reason. Its just sad when people quote facts so far out of context. It is pure politics. 

Richard, the reason you are labeled a Republican is because (in this case) you are spouting the (republican) party line. Or, at the very least, sounding like a bloviator from Fox news. Reagan was God and Obama can't succeed because he is inexperienced. Let's give Obama more than a year to fix the very few (#@??$%@#) problems that he has tackled in his short tenure. 

Even some of what Chimuelo is true...but he takes it to such extremes. Sure, the people in the world that have been in power for hundreds of years are trying to keep that power. Our democratically elected officials take graft, yes; are somewhat controlled by the influence of lobbyists, yes; but are they part of a global conspiracy to hold down the people of the world, no. Dude...NO.

Think about it. Intelligent people disagree. There are intelligent republicans, there are intelligent democrats, there are even intelligent holy men around the world. But is everything they believe true? Not so sure about that. So, next time you are listening to Fox News or Art Bell (sorry to take your name in vain, Art) on the radio, think about what they are saying and ask yourself, "does this make sense? is this the only possibility? is there a chance of an alternate explanation of this situation?"


----------



## José Herring (Jan 2, 2010)

rgames @ Sat Jan 02 said:


> SvK @ Sat Jan 02 said:
> 
> 
> > Rgames,
> ...



Your statistical analysis is just flat out wrong. When Bush left office unemployment was at 7.2% and rising super fast. 

I too grow weary of you repeating yourself. Especially when what you're repeating makes absolutely no sense.


----------



## rgames (Jan 2, 2010)

> It doesn't even matter whether your stats are right!





> Your statistical analysis is just flat out wrong.





> It is pure politics.



Not right, not wrong, not political, just "lies, damn lies, and statistics."

Last thing I'll say on that one is that annual numbers are a perfectly acceptable basis of comparison because they smooth out the noise in the monthly variations. (Monthly temperatures have gone down dramatically here in Tucson over the past month - I guess that whole global warming thing is a crock!)

And yes - interest rates under Reagan were terrible. That was a definite drag on economic activity. Not sure I can argue it wasn't a necessity to fight inflation, though. I can say, however, that it's tougher to pin interest rates as the cause of Reagan's recession than it is to pin Obama's recession on his constant threats of economic armageddon during the campaign. Hint: look at the monthly unemployment numbers - when did they start their meteoric rise?

And no - I don't think Reagan was a God.

And yes - I get labelled a republican every time I disagree with a democrat. Interestingly, I don't get labelled a democrat every time I disagree with a republican. Maybe the dem's could use some diversity training... 

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 2, 2010)

You know, getting back to the original point Hans was making: I think some of you are missing how huge a shift this health insurance bill is, despite not being perfect. This is the biggest piece of progressive legislation in a generation; it marks a shift from cutting taxes and deregulation as the answer to every problem.

Obama is making an impact.

By the way, Social Security went through revisions to include more people after a while. Roosevelt had to make compromises too. It's not all over yet (never mind that it hasn't passed either).


----------



## rgames (Jan 2, 2010)

The part that I'm still not comfortable with on health care is the cost: the reason we don't have universal health care is that it's so expensive and I don't know that this bill will help us much in that regard.

Who among the congress have agreed to vote for the assumed 21% reduction in doctor's fees? The numbers I've seen assume this 21% reduction takes place.

My fear is that, like Social Security and Medicare, we're creating another entitlement program that will be close to bankrupt at some point in the future. SS and Medicare/Medicaid are already the largest use of tax dollars.

Again, the thing that's preventing universal coverage is cost and I don't know that we're adequately addressing it with this bill. I also don't see how adding government will make that happen...

rgames


----------



## rgames (Jan 2, 2010)

OK - more thoughts on costs:

I had the federal government health insurance for seven years while working for the fed gov't. I now have private insurance that is both much less expensive (about 20% less than what I paid when working for the federal gov't) and provides much better coverage including dental and vision which the base fed system did not cover.

So, no, I don't want the expand the same health care that the senators and reps get - there are better, cheaper options in the private sector. My guess is most of the senators and reps have health care coverage beyond the basic policy provided by Uncle Sam.

Second, if congress cuts the tax break for the insurance my employer provides, then I'm going to be hit with a larger bill for that ON TOP of the additional taxes I'm paying to subsidize the folks who don't have insurance. Given that private employers often PAY YOU to opt out of their programs, I'm guessing that a lot of folks who currently have insurance will be forced to drop it when hit with both of those cost increases. So you've now increased the number of uninsured.

Third, I don't understand how we can afford the "can't be denied because of pre-existing condition" clause (is that actually in this bill?). That's changing it from insurance to a subsidy. Insurance works because there's a large pool of people paying in and only a small pool of people using it at any one time - it's a risk-management odds game. Any other system is not, I don't think, economically viable and will become a huge sink for tax dollars.

EDIT: yes, I favor universal health coverage. But it has to be economically viable or else we wind up with more uninsured folks on top of a huge addition to the national debt - that's the chasm I can't see my way across with the current bill.

OK - I think that's it for now.

rgames


----------



## madbulk (Jan 2, 2010)

> Not right, not wrong, not political, just "lies, damn lies, and statistics."


Agreed.



> Last thing I'll say on that one is that annual numbers are a perfectly acceptable basis of comparison because they smooth out the noise in the monthly variations.


Yeah, but unless you look at surrounding rolling 12-month periods too, you can just as easily wind up with calendar reliant phenomenon, trends, whatever you're looking for. In other words, annual numbers are damned lies too, in the wrong hands.



> And yes - interest rates under Reagan were terrible. That was a definite drag on economic activity. Not sure I can argue it wasn't a necessity to fight inflation, though.


Doesn't make you a republican.



rgames @ Sat Jan 02 said:


> I can say, however, that it's tougher to pin interest rates as the cause of Reagan's recession than it is to pin Obama's recession on his constant threats of economic armageddon during the campaign. Hint: look at the monthly unemployment numbers - when did they start their meteoric rise?



This might. 

This is definitely not Obama's recession. And in my opinion neither is it Bush's or even Greenspan's primarily. But even if it were, this is the bursting of a bubble that needed to burst. Unemployment was coming. Recession was coming. 

There's plenty to critique, I agree, but we're in this mess because we're in this mess.
He didn't put us in this mess.


----------



## Olias (Jan 2, 2010)

rgames @ Sat Jan 02 said:


> Last thing I'll say on that one is that annual numbers are a perfectly acceptable basis of comparison because they smooth out the noise in the monthly variations. (Monthly temperatures have gone down dramatically here in Tucson over the past month - I guess that whole global warming thing is a crock!)



I like that technique... trying to back up nonsense with more nonsense.

FYI, when calculating unemployment statistics, they do this thing called "seasonal adjustment" to account for what you (incorrectly) claim using annual averages would smooth out. If one needs to do any smoothing (which one doesn't in this case), you'd use a moving average. Picking an arbitrary window (January to December) is ludicrous, and would get you thrown out of any room filled with people who know what they're talking about.

(If you don't see the problem with using annual average, then consider that the argument would be flipped around if we picked a different 12-month window.)

But hey, if you want to use that kind of argument, I give up. You win. There's just no reasoning with someone so attached to his line of bullshit.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 2, 2010)

rgames @ Sat Jan 02 said:


> The part that I'm still not comfortable with on health care is the cost: the reason we don't have universal health care is that it's so expensive and I don't know that this bill will help us much in that regard.
> 
> Who among the congress have agreed to vote for the assumed 21% reduction in doctor's fees? The numbers I've seen assume this 21% reduction takes place.
> 
> ...



Finally some sense out of you. You were starting to remind me why I bolted out of Tucson as soon as I got the chance.

Of course cost is a factor. I don't think that anybody is denying that. Also the cost of treating the uninsured is breaking the backs of hospitals and the government for supporting failing hospitals.

Thomas Jefferson once wrote that the United States government shouldn't get involved in charity work. So for me, I was glad to see the public option go. On the other hand I do think there are some really good things in this bill that will help bring the cost of insurance down. Maybe not immediately but certainly over time.

Having been involved in the medical field for a brief time I know for a fact that the insurance companies are bleeding the medical profession dry. They are increasingly unwilling to pay for the cost of medical care especially at the HMO, PPO level. 

So I've come to the conclusion that insurance company reform is mandatory. Increasing competition is mandatory. I really honestly think that this bill will do that, and if the girl down the street has to pay a little more taxes on her botox injections so that some single mother working a waitress job can afford insurance then so be it.

Do I think that the Dem plan is perfect. Certainly not. But one thing I know for damn sure is that the Republicans don't have a plan. Their only plan is to obstruct and stop things from happening. That's no plan. So I consider the party a bunch of hot windbags with nothing to offer America. I'm waiting for a real republican candidate or even a decent indie one but it ain't happening.

But it's like this. There's an Army field manual that I wish the pro military party would read. In this manual there's a line: "Any plan no matter how poorly conceived if boldly executed is better than no play at all."

Criticize all day long. It's easy to criticize people that are getting things done. Just as it's easy to criticize a composer when he completes a major film. Dems are getting things done. Republicans are not. They didn't even when they were in power.


----------



## rgames (Jan 2, 2010)

madbulk @ Sat Jan 02 said:


> This is definitely not Obama's recession. And in my opinion neither is it Bush's or even Greenspan's primarily.



Agree with all of that - as I and others said WAAAAYYY back on this thread it's really tough to argue how any president has much positive influence. That's why it's pointless to argue differences of a few percent in unemployment numbers. I do think, however, that an administration can screw things up more readily than they can fix them, so it would be easier to argue that it's Bush's or Greenspan's recession unless you buy my theory that Obama created it to win the election  Greenspan did lend credence to that theory a couple weeks ago, by the way...! As I said earlier in this thread, remember that you heard it here first 

OK let's fix health care now.

rgames


----------



## rgames (Jan 2, 2010)

josejherring @ Sun Jan 03 said:


> I know for a fact that the insurance companies are bleeding the medical profession dry.



That and malpractice insurance. A single malpractice award can destroy an entire practice (remember, most docs are small businesses with a few nurses, receptionist, etc). I think we need to have a look at the lawyers as well as the doctors. I don't think the actual lawsuits have much of an effect but the sum total of all the malpractice insurance expenses must be huge.

*In fact, here's a thought*: I bet the average private practice in the US spends as much on malpractice insurance in a year as it costs to provide basic health insurance to 10 people. So get rid of the need for ridiculous insurance premiums and have them spend that money on subsidies for health insurance. Tough sell, though, because the lawyers are the losers on that one. EDIT: I come up with the equivalent of about 16 million people's worth of basic health insurance going into malpractice insurance. That's a lot of money taken from the lawyers and given to health insurance...!

If the dem's are really serious about the bill then have them all sign up to vote for the 21% reduction in doctor's fees. It's a major assumption in the CBO's analysis. Tell 'em to put up or shut up! (Hint: the medical lobby will never let that happen because I doubt private practices could absorb that reduction in income).

rgames


----------



## midphase (Jan 3, 2010)

I have to wonder why is it that the only way some people can understand how the other side feels is by experiencing hardships themselves? I really don't wish this on anyone, but it would certainly drive the point home if you were to get sick and be denied health coverage because of some BS reason that your insurance company concocted to get away with not paying to get you better.

George Carlin once said...have you ever noticed that all the women who are against abortion are the ones who you wouldn't want to fuck in the first place?

The same seems to be true with all those opposed to health care reform (or willing to dig into their pockets to help those less fortunate), they all seem to have rock solid coverage and have never experienced hardships.


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 3, 2010)

I couldn't agree more on getting rid of these frivalous lawsuits that the bottom feeders feast upon. But 90% of the DC elite are lawyers, and they have accepted campaign funds and donations to their favorite charities to ensure that frivalous, John Edwards style lawsuits can bleed the insurance companies, which in turn bleed the Medical community that gets passed on to us.
Jeez in 1995 my youngest son was born and I had no coverage. I ended up paying 275 USD a month, interest free thankfully to pay the bill, but when I got the bill the Aspirin they offered me while my wife was threatening to kill me ( pregnancy anger ) costed me 10 dollars... >8o 
I would hate to see what it is 14 years later..
Obama was very brave to even take this to Congress, and unfortunately many of these clowns fear they will be voted out, so they are waffling around which causes this bill to be basically worthless. But at least it's a step in the right direction.
We as the commoners know that lawsuit caps. and laws that force competition and getting rid of that bull shit pre existing policy would cause huge price drops and provide for those who truly need such coverage, but as mentioned above, Congress has no hardships, they are covered by the elite Cadillac policy.
If they were the least bit concerned about cost, they would pass up the campaign contributions and bribes that they accept and actually prove they represent us by bringing down costs. You will see though, being re elected is the main concern of these elitists and if taking money from the Law lobby to keep the frivalous lawsuits alive is what they need, we will be the last priority to them. 
Until then, they are meaningless, self serving bastards that could care less about the sick, much less the tax payers who allow them the lucrative jobs they enjoy.
So sure, Obama is pissing off many folks about Gitmo, Afghanistan and Health Reform, but as I said earlier and maintain, he and his inexperienced advisors are learning as they go, and for the first year they have taken some serious steps forward, they should be commended.
As far as keeping campaign promises, if you believe these professional liars while they go state to state changing their positions accoring to local polling, then you should also send some money to those " charities " that show you tortured unfed animals with sad looks on their faces..... =o 

I loved that George Carlin joke too............. :mrgreen:


----------



## midphase (Jan 3, 2010)

"The real issue is how do we put together a system that is economically viable? Just because we want it to happen doesn't make it so - there are lots of things I'd love for everyone to have but there's no economy that allows it to happen. "

I guess part of the anger coming from liberals is that Republicans and Conservatives put no such economic concerns ahead of the war in Iraq (or defense in general). It seems that when Bush was spending left and right like money was going out of style, and on conservative issues, there was little outcry from those who now act like very fiscally responsible individuals.

This is very theoretical of course, but my guess is that if McCain had won, and he was pushing for more defense, more "anti terrorism" and more war in Iraq spending, there would be very little opposition coming from guys like you. 

To many of us liberals, having a non-economically viable health care system is way more important than having a non-economically viable war on terror.


----------



## rgames (Jan 3, 2010)

The difference is that the majority of spending in a war is over with quickly and we can recover during peacetime - universal health insurance will require a continuous commitment for as long as the US Government is around.

Plus, congress funds all wartime activities so, in theory, they can just quit funding the military and we'll be forced to pull out of any war - that can be done quickly if it really becomes a problem. You can't just cancel health care for millions of people at the drop of a hat. Also, when congress wants to quit funding wartime activities, they usually have the public behind them - that would never happen with healtch care. So funding wars allows flexibilty - funding health care locks you in forever. As such, economic viability is a more pressing concern in the health care issue.

rgames


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 3, 2010)

Well I just finished a little researching which is how I find the truth.
Seeings how the media has no investigative journalism anymore I'll research what interests me.
The Trial Lawyers Lobby is broke and losing members at an alarming rate. I cannot find the tax records for the fiscal year that ends on July 31st, but the AAJ is being investigated by special interest groups and they report the findings most of the time.

I believe this whole legislative session is staged, and the bill has had approval and passed privately long ago when Big Pharm, GE and the AMA were eating at the White House. The " Bill " will become a political timing issue for 2010 re elections, and also for the next legislative session.
Why would the Trial Lawyer Lobby be broke....? Well they gave out campaign funds at an alarming rate, and the Lawyers were discovering from back channel communications that the Doctors will take pay cuts, in return for protection, just like the Mafia that started the insurance business.
Trial Lawyers do not want to sue the Government, it would come out of their pockets if they lose, and these guys don't like 50/50 chances, but are use to sure bets.
So once again we are being fed horse shit. The suppose "right " is basing their positions on lawsuit caps right..? And it appears that Obamas team has quietly discovered a way to end all lawsuits..... :?: 
Then why not go public with this as many people who don't support this are sure to be happy with this legislation.
My head is spinning from reading too much crap about this.
But I think it's safe to assume when lawyers stop paying their membership dues and the association is broke, it means their usefulness is no longer necessary.
I could be wrong but this would make me extremely happy. Whether or not this is intentional is inconsequential, but you'd be surprised at what I find when I follow the money trail.
I for one have excellent insurance through the local Musicians Union which attaches itself to the Carpenters Health & Welfare fund.
But I pay out of pocket 480 for medical and 190 for Vision and Dental....but I milk them for every nickel that I can.
I would love just to pay a tax which is sure to be less for even better coverage...who wouldn't.

So if I appear extreme it's becasue I find this whole process to be phony. The Lawyers bailing out from their " associations " is where the money led me. I am pleased to discover they have spent themselves into debt with bribes and didn't get what they wanted, which is the status quo. I am just shocked this news hasn't been made public.
I guess we will see what's up pretty soon. But this is proof that I am not a freak, and it also prooves what we are being told and seeing in the media is misleading and staged.

Fingers Crossed.


----------



## rgames (Jan 3, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Jan 03 said:


> The Congressional Budget Office - nonpartisan - figures that the Senate version of the bill is going to save us money in the long term, to the tune of (if I remember right) $180B the first decade and over a trillion the second.



Exactly - and the CBO analysis assumes the 21% doctors' fee reduction will finally get through congress (followed by another 5% or so every year thereafter). I can't see how that will ever happen - it was supposed to happen every year since 2000 or something like that and gets overridden every year. I want to see the CBO re-do the analysis with some more realistic numbers because the 21% reduction in fees is not going to happen - I doubt private practices could survive such a cut. I don't know what level of cost reduction that represents but I'm guessing that if those reductions don't happen (or the costs increase, which is what will likely happen) that $180B in savings becomes a huge deficit. And that's only the first 10 years - this program will go on forever.

And relax, man - I'm on your side on this one. I'm in favor of universal health care coverage and I'm in favor of helping others to pay for it. However, if we create a system that is not sustainable then we haven't done anyone any favors.

The more I think about it, the more I like my idea of re-directing malpractice insurance premiums to health care. I really think that's a winner. Now why haven't we heard about that one before? Oh yeah - our federal gov't is run by lawyers!

rgames


----------



## The_Dark_Knight (Jan 3, 2010)

midphase @ Sun Jan 03 said:


> "
> 
> Actually our federal government is run by corporations and private interest lobbying groups, and that's a shame.
> 
> I really don't understand for the life of me why lobbying is even legal...it's essentially legalized bribery...I don't get it.



+.000000000000000001


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 4, 2010)

"I really don't understand for the life of me why lobbying is even legal"

Because politicians need money to get elected. And as long as campaigns are ridiculously expensive, we're going to have the best government money can buy.


----------



## The_Dark_Knight (Jan 4, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Jan 04 said:


> "I really don't understand for the life of me why lobbying is even legal"
> 
> Because politicians need money to get elected. And as long as campaigns are ridiculously expensive, we're going to have the best government money can buy.



Campaign finance reform (18 years since I first heard mention of it being an emergency that needed to be addressed). How would our world look now if Perot had been elected? :mrgreen: Different. >8o


----------



## The_Dark_Knight (Jan 4, 2010)

CREEPY

"By the summer Perot commanded a lead in the presidential race with 39 percent of the vote,[16] but on July 16, Perot unexpectedly dropped out.[17] Perot eventually stated the reason was that he received threats that digitally altered photos would be released by the Bush campaign to sabotage his daughter's wedding.[18] Former CIA Operative Gene 'Chip' Tatum later revealed his role in targeting Perot, acting upon orders of the OSG to neutralize Perot.[citation needed] Regardless of the reasons for withdrawing, his reputation was badly damaged. Many of his supporters felt betrayed and public opinion polls would subsequently show a large negative view of Perot that was absent prior to his decision to end the campaign"


----------



## José Herring (Jan 4, 2010)

Sad, Sad, time in America history.

That's when I first realized that the powers that be would stop at nothing to remain the powers that be.


----------



## SvK (Jan 4, 2010)

in 3 weeks the prez makes history by signing health-care after 100 years of failed attempts....

everything else is just spin.

Back in the day when FDR signed social security; when LBJ signed medicare the Repubs spinned those things as the worst ever too..

blah, blah, blah.

SvK


----------



## José Herring (Jan 4, 2010)

For me its a two edge sword. It's a sad state on human affairs that the government has to step in and force us to take care of each other, or to take care of our older folks that can't work any more.

Makes me think that we live in kind of a slave society. Forced to work until you're broken and old at which point the government steps in and takes care of you.

Something's wrong with the world.

Jose


----------



## rgames (Jan 4, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Jan 04 said:


> Because politicians need money to get elected. And as long as campaigns are ridiculously expensive, we're going to have the best government money can buy.



Just so I'm clear - you're OK with the fact that Obama backed out of his initial commitment to use public financing for his campaign, right? And, of course, McCain kept his promise to use public financing. Think about how many health insurance policies the Obama money machine could have paid for...



> I really don't understand for the life of me why lobbying is even legal...it's essentially legalized bribery...I don't get it.



Lobbying is actually an essential element of the democratic process - any time you contact a senator or rep to express support for an issue, that's lobbying and it's the way it's supposed to work.

Where it fails is that the relatively small percentage of folks who are involved in the political process are involved primarily during presidential elections (which, of course, affects only the executive branch, 1/3 of the power triangle that is American government). So, basically, you have only a few people involved in only a small portion of the government. Furthermore, the branch of government that those few people are involved with (the executive branch) doesn't control the money. What do you expect?

The presidential elections generate the most press, though, so people blindly follow that lead thinking that it's the most important part of their civic lives. It really is not. Why do you think lobbysits don't bother with presidents?

Anybody can create a lobby - if it has enough votes behind it, congress will listen. That's how it's supposed to work.

The system is not broken - the American people are.

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 4, 2010)

Richard, I'm talking about an entire different level of finance. Elections should cost in the thousands, not the millions. You're just picking on Obama while pretending not to be a right wing nut.


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 4, 2010)

I have been staying away from alchohol and drugs because I couldn't afford the medical care and rehab programs that Hollywood's wealthy drug addicts can afford.
So I am really glad for the free health care.
I have been paying too much for my insurance but the coverage was pretty good.
But now I can do all the drugs we get offered and chug Jagermeister because of the free health care...awesome.
God Bless the USA.
Hopefully we can become more like Amsterdam and Zeist over in the Nederlands... :mrgreen: 
I hated leaving the coffee shops and cafe's there.
Well maybe Vegas can legalize drugs, we already have Government regulated Prostitution, it's actually run really well.
Well the IRS came out here and screwed things up at the Mustang Ranch.
They owned it as a silent partner and screwed it up beyond repair. Well they are unemployable Government workers so it came as no surprise.
We should really thank the the middle class that work for a living for carrying the taxes for this.
The usual going after the rich guys slogans sound nice, but we all know that story too well. The Middle Class gets to carry the show. But when you think about it might be cheaper to pay taxes instead of Health insurance.
Who knows maybe we might get the same quality health care the elitisits have in DC.
All I know is life will be grand, the extra 700 USD a month I pay can go towards more hardware and software.


----------



## Dan Selby (Jan 5, 2010)

Hi Richard,

That may be true in principle but really misses the distorting and corrupting effect that corporations and their large block of capital has on your democratic process (IMHO). It is my understanding that, in Washington, the large corporate interests (particularly the financial sector and health insurance sector) have about 6 full-time paid lobbyists for every member of the house and senate and that these industries spend literally hundreds of millions of dollars per year in lobbying for their interests.

In that environment, where every house member and senator is being daily courted, cajoled, petitioned, wined, dined and financially induced, isn't it naive and unrealistic to just say that this is democracy in action and it's up to the people to have their say too? That it's their fault if they aren't lobbying to the same degree as as corporations employing thousands of talented, experienced professional lobbyists?

Dan



rgames @ Tue Jan 05 said:


> Lobbying is actually an essential element of the democratic process - any time you contact a senator or rep to express support for an issue, that's lobbying and it's the way it's supposed to work.
> 
> Where it fails is that the relatively small percentage of folks who are involved in the political process are involved primarily during presidential elections (which, of course, affects only the executive branch, 1/3 of the power triangle that is American government). So, basically, you have only a few people involved in only a small portion of the government. Furthermore, the branch of government that those few people are involved with (the executive branch) doesn't control the money. What do you expect?
> 
> ...


----------



## George Caplan (Jan 5, 2010)

josejherring @ Mon Jan 04 said:


> For me its a two edge sword. It's a sad state on human affairs that the government has to step in and force us to take care of each other, or to take care of our older folks that can't work any more.
> 
> 
> Jose



In the Uk they spend 20 billions alone in housing benefits every year. The amount of benefits that are collected in the UK today is completely out of control. If you are on benefits in this country today you will almost certainly vote labour in the election here in May. You would crazy not to. The Nation Health Service is the biggest employer in europe. Why is that I wonder.


----------



## mf (Jan 5, 2010)

Because there's hardly anything more important than health perhaps?


----------



## rgames (Jan 5, 2010)

Dan Selby @ Tue Jan 05 said:


> isn't it naive and unrealistic to just say that this is democracy in action and it's up to the people to have their say too?



I don't think so - the people involved with the corporations are American citizens as well and have every right to have their positions represented. The difference is that they're much more organized and tenacious. Your post implies that there's a difference between corporations and "the people" - that's not the case: the corporations are part of "the people". It is, of course, true that the corporations have a disproportionate amount of influence but, again, that's because nobody is countering them.

The American people get all wrapped up in the presidential elections for a few months every four years and spend the other 3.5 years mostly ignoring their government. Congress really runs the country but most folks pay no attention to them. The lobbyists do.

For example: you see folks accusing Bush and Cheney of being War Mongers and trying to profit from warmaking. War mongers couldn't care less about the presidency - they care about who's in the Congress because those are the folks who control the money. It doesn't matter if we're at war or not - Congress is spending big dollars on defense and the lobbyists have a constant presence there to make certain they have access to those dollars. Meanwhile the American people spend the time between presidential elections ignoring the goings-on in DC.

In a lot of ways the president in the US wields much less power than the congress. The president's only real power is to pursue military actions - he has no control over spending and he can't create legislation (though he can veto it), so he has no way to write his own agenda into the lawbooks. (Which brings up an interesting point - if Obama is so interested in health care legislation then why didn't he lead the effort when he was, ummm..., a legislator?).

Congreòx"   ½t0x"   ½t1x"   ½t2x"   ½t3x"   ½t4x"   ½t5x"   ½t6x"   ½t7x"   ½t8x"   ½t9x"   ½t:x"   ½t;x"   ½t<x"   ½t=x"   ½t>x"   ½t?x"   ½[email protected]x"   ½tAx"   ½tBx"   ½tCx"   ½tDx"   ½tEx"   ½tFx"   ½tGx"   ½tHx"   ½tIx"   ½tJx"   ½tKx"   ½tL


----------



## George Caplan (Jan 6, 2010)

mf @ Tue Jan 05 said:


> Because there's hardly anything more important than health perhaps?



You may well be right and if that is the case, based on that logic, the USA will almost certainly go broke if they follow that model, which they probably won't. 

And if McCain were President and Palin were Vice President, you probably wouldn't be discussing anything.


----------



## mf (Jan 6, 2010)

George Caplan @ Wed Jan 06 said:


> mf @ Tue Jan 05 said:
> 
> 
> > Because there's hardly anything more important than health perhaps?
> ...


Is Germany broke? Canada? Switzerland? Norway? Japan? Holland? Ireland? Belgium? China? Sweden? Italy? ...
Give me one example of a country that went broke because of supporting public health.

The overall scope of economy in a society/community is: the well-being of its members. And health is an essential part of it, in fact the very basis of it. If some businessmen, out of their own greed, fail to take that fundamental notion into consideration, it is the society's (community's, state's) prerogative to set them straight.

Imo, what they do in America now is the (long due) right thing, morally AND economically. It will surely pay back on long term, plus the general well-being will increase on both short and long term.


----------



## Dan Selby (Jan 6, 2010)

Richard,

Your point about your legislature wielding more power than your executive is taken and I have no argument with that but misses the meat of what I was saying...

When you say, however, that there is no difference between corporations and "the people" I believe that is a fundamentally false assertion. Corporations are NOT part of the people. They are separate legal entities whose interests do not necessarily align with, and may often be directly and diametrically opposed to, those of the people they serve and the communities in which they are embedded. This wasn't always the case, but it is fair to say now that typically corporate interests equate solely to those of their shareholders. And often their shareholders are other large corporate financial stakeholders (pension funds and the like), often based overseas. The interests of the corporation are solely increasing profit and value to their shareholders.

And this is the real current environment in which these corporations spend hundreds of millions of dollars annually on skilled fulltime professional lobbyists and on campaign contributions (at every level of government) to singlemindedly, doggedly pursue their interests. 

I don't think it's realistic to suggest "the people" simply have to be more engaged, and that's enough, in order to mitigate against the distorting effect of corporations using their vast financial muscle in cloaked ways to exert undue influence on your democracy. It simply isn't a level playing field, is it?



rgames @ Wed Jan 06 said:


> Dan Selby @ Tue Jan 05 said:
> 
> 
> > isn't it naive and unrealistic to just say that this is democracy in action and it's up to the people to have their say too?
> ...


----------



## José Herring (Jan 6, 2010)

_
Is Germany broke?_ Yes... _Canada? _Yes... _Switzerland? _ On its way... _Norway? _ Yes ..._Japan? _Yes ..._Holland?_ Yes ..._Ireland?_ Most Certainly ..._Belgium?_ Don't know ..._China?_ Cooks their books so they seem like they have money, but they really don't. That's why they gave up communism for some sort of quasi communistic socialist capitalism. ..._Sweden?_ Yes ..._Italy?_ Yes ...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 6, 2010)

What's your definition of "broke," Jose?


----------



## José Herring (Jan 6, 2010)

Not my definition of broke. Business definition of insolvent. You have more money going out than money coming in. It's simple. Of course governments try to over complicated it. But it really is simple.

If you spend $100,000 a year and you only make $50,000 so that you need to borrow $50,000 a year to make your expenses--You're broke. It may take years for you to feel your brokeness especially if you have good credit. But sooner or later your debt will overshadow your ability to make or borrow money and you'll go bankrupt.

It's one of the key things that I look for when I buy stock in a company. I've not lost any money in the stock market. Companies that are solvent will always make money no matter what the market is doing. Most governments I know of on earth today are insolvent. They are spending more money than they take in through taxes. This idea that a company or government is solvent if you add their income plus the money they borrow is a bullshit Keynes economic twist that is hurting countries all over the world. It's a distortion of economic basics that governments have just bought into over the last century.

Real economics is based on one fact. Outgo must be less than income. If governments were smart they would bring in the money then adjust their budget to fit within the money they have on hand. They don't do this. They make the budget and hope that they get the money in. If they don't then they borrow the rest. Any country, individual or business that violates this rule is going to come up hurting sooner or later. Sure you can juggle your bills and what not and you may be able to do it for a longish period of time but sooner or later the hammer falls.

That's not to say that in times of emergency if you need cash you shouldn't borrow. But, it is to say that if you borrow you had better find a fast way to pay it back quickly. Another thing that governments seem to violate on a yearly basis.

The only real criticism I have of Obama atm is that he's abandoned working on the debt to appeal to Nancy Pelosi and that overly progressive gang. We have got to get spending under control over here or will end up like a European country with no working capital and no influence in the world. It's my priority no. 1 and it seems to be Obama's priorty no. 10.

I agree with Richard on only one point. We could have universal healthcare and all the social programs progressives desire but we can't do it if we don't have the money. I honestly think that health care would of passed with a public option etal if we were sitting on a decent balance sheet rather than 12trillion in debt. 



Jose


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 6, 2010)

Notice all of the Politicians switching sides and dropping out of the local, state and national electoral...?
Hey maybe Arlan Spectre can go back to the Republicans now that he collected campaign contributions posing as a turncoat.
Bottom feeders, every last one of the " right " and the " left."
Maybe we can get affordable quality health care and replace every last one of these arrogant elitists at the same time.
We all need a fresh start every now and then.
I'm game for giving this " democracy " another chance as long as the current thieves keep dropping out and get replaced by successful businessmen and medical professionals, anything other than another " lawyer " that never saw the inside of a courtoom.
I still predict the Health care Bill will pass, and we will pay taxes for 4 years before it is implemented, and then the " Right " will be in control again and change the laws so we end up paying for something, all while we never recieve the benefits, and while the insurance companies continue to rake in the cash.
Perhaps many here will realize the left is the right and vice versa. Pawns in the game of collecting cash for the sale of legislation. Nothing changes, and just like right now these Bastards are still crying about how tough of a spot Bush put them in, we will hear the same snivellings form the weasals of the " right " as they cry about how Obama really screwed us and caused these huge deficits, etc, etc. I think these guys would fold quickly under interrogation......................not a man among them.
At least JFK took the blame for the failed Bay of Pigs. It's embarrassing to see our current leaders whining about how tough it is for them to spend trillions of dollars,..............give me a break. I'll take one week of their pay and feed the entire neighborhood and send them to a doctor... o=< 
And yes most likely most Americans will remain brainwashed and divided and continue watching thier favorite divisive show, and the sheep won't notice the wolves that feast in DC on " OUR Money."


----------



## George Caplan (Jan 6, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Jan 06 said:


> What's your definition of "broke," J



Stuff like China owns bonds i.e. American debt, to the point that if they ever called them in, they would be the ones in trouble and not the USA. That's broke.

Broke is the UK. What I find interesting is suddenly the Prime Minister after bankrupting the country after 12 years of total incompetence, suddenly becomes competent with 4 months to go to a general election. That's broke.

Broke is the previous US government letting Lehman Bros go down unnecessarily simply out of what appeared to be spite.

What is also amusing is when the conversation is obviously about funding and where it comes from, someone pipes with how important your healthcare is. :roll: :lol: 
Never would have thought of that.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 6, 2010)

George Caplan @ Wed Jan 06 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Jan 06 said:
> 
> 
> > What's your definition of "broke," J
> ...



The only thing is if the whole world's gone broke then who's really holding the debt? Could be China, but my feeling is that it's the Chinese banks which are owned by the same people that own America banks. My feeling is that it's the same 12 people holding the entire world hostage financially...Oh no, I'm starting to sound like Chimuelo! >8o 

Debt=bad. Debt=owned by bankers.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 6, 2010)

> But it really is simple



No, it's hellishly complicated (which is why I asked the question)! Macroeconomics isn't the same as balancing a checkbook, and in fact that's precisely why conservatives are wrong - and as an aside people who say they're socially liberal and fiscally conservative make no sense.

Money is far removed from a simple representation of goods and services, i.e. the simple barter system, when you're looking at a whole economy. And running a deficit doesn't mean you're broke at all, in fact I believe what people like Paul Krugman and Robert Reich say: we need to run a much larger deficit at the moment - more stimulus.

I remember an old thread on NS where you (Jose) posted how Keynes was out of his mind. Not at all, and we're seeing that in action right now.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 6, 2010)

By the way, in the longer term we're going to run into the problem of there not being enough resources to support first-world living standards for the rest of the world. The earth just doesn't have them, and that's why we need to take huge action to avoid ecological collapse (another thing conservatives don't want to do).

But that's a different thing from what we're going through right now. What's happening now is a shortage of demand, not a shortage of resources. This is a financial crisis, same as the Great Depression.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 6, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Jan 06 said:


> > But it really is simple
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, It's this part of liberalism I just don't buy. Every subject has it's basic premises. Once those premises are violated the whole subject goes haywire. Macroeconomics may be complicated in its practice but its still based on the same simple economic principles. You spend more than you earn you get into trouble. Sooner or later. Sure the government can step in a give money to ailing industries, these industries then keep people employed and thus the government can collect taxes on employed individuals. All that is good. But it doesn't violate the fact that if you spend more than you take in you're going broke. All those extra taxes that are being collected at this point are only going to pay the interest on the debt, and all those beautiful plans that Obama has, he won't be able to afford them.

And, don't compare me with conservatives. I'll spend an entire afternoon talking about they ways they are wrong. Their economic philosophies are even more incorrect and their only solution is for the government to "not spend money". Talk about delusional.

Jose


----------



## mf (Jan 6, 2010)

josejherring @ Wed Jan 06 said:


> _
> Is Germany broke?_ Yes... _Canada? _Yes... _Switzerland? _ On its way... _Norway? _ Yes ..._Japan? _Yes ..._Holland?_ Yes ..._Ireland?_ Most Certainly ..._Belgium?_ Don't know ..._China?_ Cooks their books so they seem like they have money, but they really don't. That's why they gave up communism for some sort of quasi communistic socialist capitalism. ..._Sweden?_ Yes ..._Italy?_ Yes ...


Many economists would disagree with your apocalyptic view. Hmm... Knowing otherwise than the rest of the world, the 12 people, hostage world, ... - that sounds a bit paranoiac to me. You don't really believe that crap, do you?

And by the way, balancing expenses with benefits, is that what you think a society should do, at the cost of social well-being? I think they tried something like that during the third Reich, but even those ruthless simpletons couldn't rely on basic arithmetics, and had to resort to long term loans. Money? That's just a way of keeping a sort of a score for a larger political game - and I mean the real, benign one of keeping things advancing. But those numbers you seem obsessed by are the most volatile thing in the world, they always get transformed into something else. Don't worry, China doesn't own shit in America.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 6, 2010)

Jose, I'm not comparing you with conservatives, but your understanding of macroeconomics is a total misconception whether or not you agree with the basic premise. And what you're saying about the taxes paying interest on debt is incorrect.

I'm sorry, but I've read enough about this to be dangerous - and to know that you're missing how fluid all this is. The Fed has a huge effect on the economy, for example. Just look up Quantitative Easing in Wikipedia. They created a trillion dollars out of thin air!


----------



## rgames (Jan 6, 2010)

Lo - e'er I ponder:

What fate doth bring harsher sentence
Than being branded a Conservative?

Sooner I would take trampling by ten thousand beasts
Or arrows from ten thousand archers
Than be included among their ranks!



rgames


----------



## mf (Jan 6, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Jan 06 said:


> It's really bizarre how so many people can be so sure they're right and yet be totally irrational.


 :D 

Isn't being sure of anything a sure sign of irrationality? :wink:


----------



## José Herring (Jan 6, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Jan 06 said:


> Jose, I'm not comparing you with conservatives, but your understanding of macroeconomics is a total misconception whether or not you agree with the basic premise. And what you're saying about the taxes paying interest on debt is incorrect.
> 
> I'm sorry, but I've read enough about this to be dangerous - and to know that you're missing how fluid all this is. The Fed has a huge effect on the economy, for example. Just look up Quantitative Easing in Wikipedia. They created a trillion dollars out of thin air!



2 problems with that. The Fed is a private company that loans money to the US government that we use as currency. 2) Flooding the market with excess dollars cheapens the value of that dollar.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 6, 2010)

Neither is true, Jose. Yeah that guy who used to be Bette Middler's manager (I forget his name) has that video on YouTube, but the Fed is totally different from a private company.

And if you're right about #2- aw forget it, you're wrong.  Really, they didn't flood the market, the dollars aren't excess, and the dollar isn't declining.

Go back to school, son.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 6, 2010)

mf: no.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 6, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Jan 06 said:


> Neither is true, Jose. Yeah that guy who used to be Bette Middler's manager (I forget his name) has that video on YouTube, but the Fed is totally different from a private company.
> 
> And if you're right about #2- aw forget it, you're wrong.  Really, they didn't flood the market, the dollars aren't excess, and the dollar isn't declining.
> 
> Go back to school, son.



Let me school you!


_
I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.
~ Woodrow Wilson_

Don't let me even get started on how the Fed is a public shell controlled by private interest. I think the quote by the pres that signed the act is proof enough.

Jose


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 6, 2010)

I don't. Our whole government is controlled by private interest - as we discussed right before this - but the Fed is not the same as the legislature. In fact it's accountable to the legislature.

Come to think of it, please do take me to school. I'd like to hear what the hell you're talking about.


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 6, 2010)

You're an excellent forum Moderator Nick.. :mrgreen: 

This is great entertainment watching how the media has polarized society.
I have seen 2 people so far start leaning towards the real issue of who really runs things instead of the side show, cherry picked talking points from the divisie blogs and cable news shows.

I happen to have to a candid shot of Araianna Huffington in a Bikini with Rush Limbaugh in a Speedo at a private resort in Fiji.
You see, there's more proof that ratings driven media pays a high salary and it's an exclusive club of the elite....... >8o 
It was suppose to be shown on CSPAN but I think the elitists in DC have reserved that time for transparency's sake..... /\~O 

I even have a better joke.............Scharzeneggar is Governor of California... :lol: 
He's married to a Kennedy " left " and he's a " right. "
Does anyone really buy this horse shit......???

This is great entertainment though, and now that I have been alerted that this is spoken about over at NS it does seem that there's an agenda of sorts.

I enjoy the Parrots from the " left " and the " right. "
Just whisper something in their ear more than once and it spreads amongst the composers of the world........ :lol:


----------



## José Herring (Jan 6, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Jan 06 said:


> I don't. Our whole government is controlled by private interest - as we discussed right before this - but the Fed is not the same as the legislature. In fact it's accountable to the legislature.
> 
> Come to think of it, please do take me to school. I'd like to hear what the hell you're talking about.



Fed is only partly accountable to the legislature. Most of the Feds operations are actually not accountable. It even states as much on the website for the Fed Bank of New York. If you think these guys are not in it for the out right money and not controlled by private interest then you're really, really pulling the wool over your eyes. It's no coincidence that Paulson was employed by firms like Goldman Sachs, ect... adn that Geitner and Greenspan are members of G30.

It looks all innocent on paper but I really do suspect there's more than meets the eye. I find it odd that the firms that these guys are associated with received most if not all of the bailout money.

Hey I'm kind of all for it. Because my stocks are making bank right now!


----------



## The_Dark_Knight (Jan 6, 2010)

Man of the year? Ben Bernanke. :mrgreen: 

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1946375_1947251,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/specials/packa ... 51,00.html)


----------



## mf (Jan 7, 2010)

"he and his wife still share a Ford Focus that's not quite paid off"

Why the creepy emoticon? Gotta love Ben Shalom Bernanke.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 7, 2010)

> I happen to have to a candid shot of Araianna Huffington in a Bikini with Rush Limbaugh in a Speedo at a private resort in Fiji



Now that is NASTY!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 7, 2010)

> I enjoy the Parrots from the " left " and the " right. "



So I'm a parrot? Gee thanks.


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 7, 2010)

Sorry 'bout that Cheif.
I meant the divisive corporate controlled media outlets like General Electric, I mean NBC. The Bloggers, the silly Hannities....etc. I didn't mean for that to become personal. 

Arianna and Rush would make a great porn flick.
Or better yet, I would like to see something like " Nailin' Palin "....

I must admit though I do enjoy John Stewart, Bill Maher and Greg Gutfeld.
Maher is too dedicated and offensive at times but as you know I enjoy watching Politicians get drug out on the mat no matter which " faction " they claim allegience to.

Since none us can control what the elites want for us since they seem to mimic the English House Of Lords, you may as well have fun.
Hell Al Franken is a Senator now. Now that's as funny as Arnold as a Republican Governor......

Someday our vote will count but only if it's obvious that 90% of the American population demands it.
As long as the media can keep everyone at 40/60 or 60/40 ratio, the same old power brokers that killed the Kennedy's will continue their reign...

I have to go pretend I like my gig,

CiaoMein My Brotha's.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 7, 2010)

I would NOT like to see that porno! (Or any other one for that matter. Naked women okay, but seeing other people shagging makes it look like something I certainly wouldn't want to do.  )

By the way, Al Franken is actually very bright.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 8, 2010)

Al Franken is doing a great job as senator imo. I like his candidness.


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 8, 2010)

Al actually is pissing lots of the elite off, so I like him too, but is in no position to legislate anything yet. But telling Leiberman he couldn't have more time to speak was awesome.......STFU said Al.... o-[][]-o 

If I were in control of the USA here's what I would do.

1) Pull out of Europe, Japan and South Korea. If someone attacks them we send in the Subs, the B2's the drones and Special forces like we did in Afghanistan the first time. That's how you win a war. You attack and destroy, then negotiate.
The trillions we save can buy Americans their insurance if they have no ability to buy their own. Besides our troops are sitting ducks in Iraq and Afghanistan. We let them guard the polling booths........WTF ^&*&* let Afghans take those pot shots not our sons and daughters.

2) Then force the insurance companies to compete as they did in the '70's for those who don't need to breastfeed from Uncle Sam and rightly so. I have worked hard and been successful because I was forced to excell. If I know there's a nanny who will take care of me my motivation factor would change somehow.

3) Reward those who show they have what it takes in Science, Sports, Art, Music and yes War as in West Point. Send these talented people where they need to go. Once they graduate have nominal interest free payments on the schooling but at a rate the colleges wouldn't charge. The feds can pay these Universities so they remain private.

4) Free states from these unfunded federal mandates. Let them run their state the way the citizens want.

5) Quit taxing industry and business. We have lost most businesses to Mexico and China when Amercians could have those jobs. The Unions and the Federal government have turned into a politically correct nightmare. Just look at California, we can't build enough warehouses in Nevada for the businesses that are fleeing that state.
California is the heart of America, it also is a progressive social experiment and it has signs of success from those programs. But taxing businesses and industry just makes them go to Nevada or even worse to Mexico....you can't blame them it's just common sense.

6) Government should be for those who can't help themselves, but I do not wish to be pushed into the one size fits all approach of the DC elitists. Those who work hard and play by the rules should reap what they sow. Sure I will pay a tax for that, but taxing the business that would employ me means less jobs......why can't these morons in DC understand this...? NAFTA gave the corporations a chance to take our jobs away. Tax the living hell out of the profits they gain form exploiting overseas labor and this will discourage others from leaving. NAFTA was meant to help Mexico supposedly, but those workers are getting screwed. If you don't believe me stand out by Nogales or SanIsidro and you can see thousands of immigrants sneaking over just to earn a living to take care of thier loved ones. I guess they pay less than we were expecting. Tax the fuckin'Hell out of those Corporations, it's not like they're bringing the money back home and chipping in for education or anything. It's despicable and if anything is Un Amercian that is.....

O.K. so start throwing the Tomatoes, but I love my country and it's people. It's my Government that has abandonned me and I have earned the right to tell those rich self serving deal making sons of bitches what I think.

I'm out of here. The Playboy Girls of Rock & Roll are playing tonight at CES and I want some action shots. Low Angle, etc.

CiaoMein My Brotha's.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 8, 2010)

I agree with #1 very much, and I'd add other countries to that. There's absolutely no reason for us to have an empire of bases all around the world.

Nor for that matter is there any reason for us to spend as much as the rest of the world combined on "defense." I'd cut the "defense" budget down to about a quarter of the size. That would free up 15% of the federal budget for useful things and make us a lot safer in the process.


----------

