What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

An irritating* accent?


* Disclaimer: I have never actually met anyone from Duluth. Allegedly the Minny accent is stronger "Outstate," but I don't know what that means.

Oh ya.....for sure. ;)

The most irritating thing about the accent up here in Northern Minnesota is the fact that despite being economically stagnant for the past 40 years, people are still fluent in DFL doublespeak.
 
Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

So I hear the message from conservatives...why can't I criticize Obama without Bush being brought into it?

Its not that these two are necessarily connected. The problem is that as the criticisms are leveled against Obama...there are no solutions, no fixes, no ability to solve problems on the right. Conservatives have not shown they can effectively govern this country. That's where the W administration enters into the topic. Its hard to comprehend the number of ways this country was damaged by 2009...including many Americans having lost decades of wealth.

Next charge by conservatives is...ya, but Obama has been a bad president also.

How? Health care? Comes down to personal opinion...but this country is not even technically worse off. Spending? Again based the way the last decade unfolded, the US economy was in a very dangerous and fragile situation...nobody was spending, nobody was hiring. Somebody had to do both...and the govt did. Frankly, the country's economic plan has been remarkably successful. Assuming we can now start to reign in spending, all indications are that Obama will in fact be a very successful president. The key is that all the constant complaining about Obama is about things that may happen under unfavorable circumstances rather than with Bush which did happen and could well happen again under conservatives if/when they get back in.
 
Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

Using Bush as proof (by anecdote, mind you) that that conservatives can't govern is like saying Obama is proof that sea cucumbers can't govern.
 
Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

Using Bush as proof (by anecdote, mind you) that that conservatives can't govern is like saying Obama is proof that sea cucumbers can't govern.
Except when conservatives do this.

billboard_bush_monster_397x224.jpg

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/09/miss-bush-billboard-leaves-minnesotans-puzzled/
 
Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

Obama is doing pretty much what he said on the campaign trail he would do -- where he's been lacking is on his left flank (ramping up Afghanistan, failure to close Gitmo, failure to substantially address the overreach of the Patriot Act, failure to pursue investigations of the prior administration's corruption, and now his evident 180, or at least 90, on off-shore drilling). The attacks from the right are a continuation of the "you'll be sorry" sour grapes emanations from Rush and Co. after the election. They simply can't accept the country told them, "enough of you. Go away."

Getting Heath Care Reform through was a big deal that will only become bigger in time -- it isn't the New Deal but it is Medicare. It is a centrist* policy -- no single payer, no public option. It is basically his Clintonian "conservative-lite" welfare reform, and under ordinary circumstances it would have been non-controversial, or in any case it would have been the bipartisan compromise after a fight over the alternative liberal solutions. We have an abnormal situation right now where the GOP has to lose their sh1t whenever any Dem proposes anything, but that will be forgotten someday or ascribed to temporary insanity, like fear of fluoridation of water.

I've got no problem with Obama, at the moment, since the main issue of the debt crisis cannot by definition be addressed until the global economy recovers, but in my idealistic dreams I could see him promulgating a plan right now that said, "after recovery we will balance the budget by doing the following combination of tax increases and spending cuts," the idea being that the existence of any reasonable plan will itself start to return some stability and credibility.

He didn't start the fire, but eventually he has to start putting it out. Like Bush Sr. after the Reagan binge, he probably won't get many thanks for it.


(* really it's a center-right policy compared with the rest of the developed world. The only way it could be interpreted as center-left would be the camel's nose theorem, though given the expansion of social security that's probably not far-fetched. Then again, you only worry about the camel's nose if the plan becomes popular, so you can't have both a fear of imposition of an unpopular plan *and* a fear of its expansion)
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

Heehee... Foxton thinks conservatives were responsible for that. I have a bridge in New York to sell him.
Heehee... red cloud didn't read the article that has conservative and right wing people promoting it and even using it to sell products as a way to "argue" against Obama.

a company that bills itself as "The Mother of all Anti-Obama Superstores" has started selling bumper stickers featuring the "Miss Me Yet?" caption and the same photo of Bush -- only one showing him facing in a different direction.

f8865264.jpg
 
Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

So I hear the message from conservatives...why can't I criticize Obama without Bush being brought into it?

Its not that these two are necessarily connected. The problem is that as the criticisms are leveled against Obama...there are no solutions, no fixes, no ability to solve problems on the right. Conservatives have not shown they can effectively govern this country. That's where the W administration enters into the topic. Its hard to comprehend the number of ways this country was damaged by 2009...including many Americans having lost decades of wealth.

Next charge by conservatives is...ya, but Obama has been a bad president also.

How? Health care? Comes down to personal opinion...but this country is not even technically worse off. Spending? Again based the way the last decade unfolded, the US economy was in a very dangerous and fragile situation...nobody was spending, nobody was hiring. Somebody had to do both...and the govt did. Frankly, the country's economic plan has been remarkably successful. Assuming we can now start to reign in spending, all indications are that Obama will in fact be a very successful president. The key is that all the constant complaining about Obama is about things that may happen under unfavorable circumstances rather than with Bush which did happen and could well happen again under conservatives if/when they get back in.

ASSUMING spending will be reigned in? There hasn't been any talk of reigning in spending; in fact, the idea of a VAT has been tossed around......which would only increase government spending on the backs of ALL Americans. And no one is hiring now, considering that the unemployment rate has held around 9-10% even through the spring hiring season. You'd be hard-pressed to explain to the millions of unemployed Americans that Obama's economic plan has been "remarkably successful". GDP went up a couple of points, but when you consider that hiring was flat, all you're looking at is higher productivity from the same number of workers.

Here's the dirty little secret: The economy took a digger because the government got involved, not despite involvement; the abandonment of conservative principles by the Bush Administration contributed in large part to the problem. You can drone on and on about CDSs and MBSs, but the bottom line is that people defaulted on mortgages, which made everything down the line from there worthless. Fannie/Freddie continue to hemmorage cash while simultaneously being pushed by politicians to further loosen their already lax lending criteria. Granted, banks were involved in risky practices--and those practices were made possible by government regulation, not despite regulation, as Fannie/Freddie MBSs made up the majority of those types of securities.

I'm in no way defending Bush's fiscal policies--he spent too much and despite being stonewalled by Barney Frank & Co. should have pushed harder on reigning in Fannie/Freddie. In addition, Greenspan shouldn't have kept rates as low as they were for as long as they were--that action alone would have helped avert many of the foreclosures that started the downward financial spiral. Of course, the stimulus passed last year has done very little for the average American--unless they happened to be a government employee whose job was propped up for another year, or a union construction worker that found temporary work on government-funded projects (of course, those jobs are drying up as well).

However, China has recently cut back drastically on the purchase of U.S. government-issued securities, and that alone will continue to push bond rates higher--10-year bond rates have jumped over 1% since January '09; while that sounds insignificant, one point is a lot of money when you look at the amounts being borrowed by the current administration. I'm going to assume you're not well-versed on fiscal policy, because the current trajectory of government spending is not sustainable--and the implementation of a VAT would only worsen the situation by burdening the vast majority of Americans with backbreaking additional costs. And now, the increased spending by the current administration threatens the government's credit rating, which could drastically increase the federal debt via higher interest rates. And with business getting essentially zero help from the federal government in the way of tax cuts or credits, just wait until later this year when the commercial real estate market goes **** up......it's going to be a bloodbath.
 
Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

Heehee... Foxton thinks conservatives were responsible for that. I have a bridge in New York to sell him.

Foxton likes to mischaracterize. Hopefully he enjoys the flavor of the outlet that this was taken from:

Mary Teske, the general manager of Schubert & Hoey Outdoor Advertising reports, "The Bush Miss Me Yet? billboard was paid for by a group of small business owners who feel like Washington is against them. They wish to remain anonymous. They thought it was a fun way of getting out their message.

I agree 100% with small business when it comes to this administration vis-a-vis the previous. We simply would not be in the position we are in today with W at the wheel.

...and just to clarify again for the mischaracterizing lefties up here who like to label peeps - this is regarding business and the economy....and Obama sucks at managing both and his policies are killing business, not helping it. Duh.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/02/bush_miss_me_yet_billboard_is.html
 
Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

the idea of a VAT has been tossed around......which would only increase government spending on the backs of ALL Americans.

VAT is revenue collection and isn't logically related to spending, as I'm sure you know. The issue of how you collect revenue and the issue of how much you spend are separate.

If a VAT makes increased spending easier to bear because it reduces debt, then it reduces debt. That isn't the ideal -- it's more efficient to use any surplus from anywhere, particularly reductions in spending, to directly pay down debt in the same way that a consumer should pay off his credit cards before anything else. But what you're arguing would be like saying "a person in debt should refuse a raise because that might let him spend more."
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

If a VAT makes increased spending easier to bear because it reduces debt, then it reduces debt. That isn't the ideal -- it's more efficient to use any surplus from anywhere, particularly reductions in spending, to directly pay down debt in the same way that a consumer should pay off his credit cards before anything else. But what you're arguing would be like saying "a person in debt should refuse a raise because that might let him spend more."

VAT makes more sense in a production/consumption-based economy like the US has than the current array of various income taxes, levies, "fees", etc., at the federal level. Moreover, people control their own tax liability based on what they consume/buy. Unfortunately, I doubt the implementation of a VAT would be accompanied by a concurrent reworking of the Internal Revenue Code to reflect the 21st century.
 
Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

Speaking for myself, my 2010 concession is that we're past the point where cost-cutting alone will save the U.S. from crashing spectacularly (spending is now set at the highest level since the height of WWII). Whether or not you voted for it, the money has now been spent (although 70-some percent of economists agree that neither stimulus package did any good at all) and we've all got to pay it back. Taxes will and must go up. But which taxes, on who, and how much? The VAT is one option.
I favor jacking up everyone's federal income tax, right now, this month, so that everyone can see in their paychecks the cost of their recent votes for more spending. Then dialing them down when/if that spending is cut.
 
Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

VAT is revenue collection and isn't logically related to spending, as I'm sure you know. The issue of how you collect revenue and the issue of how much you spend are separate.

If a VAT makes increased spending easier to bear because it reduces debt, then it reduces debt. That isn't the ideal -- it's more efficient to use any surplus from anywhere, particularly reductions in spending, to directly pay down debt in the same way that a consumer should pay off his credit cards before anything else. But what you're arguing would be like saying "a person in debt should refuse a raise because that might let him spend more."

Given the level of government spending relative to GDP and the current deficit, it takes a pretty hard core gatherer-and-sharer to conclude, "Ah ah - the problem here is not enough revenue!"
 
Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

Given the level of government spending relative to GDP and the current deficit, it takes a pretty hard core gatherer-and-sharer to conclude, "Ah ah - the problem here is not enough revenue!"

Spending is too high, taxes are actually fairly low by historical standards. The 2x2 possibilities are:

(1) Cut taxes, increase spending (the current GOP, the easiest politically, and certain economic death)
(2) Increase taxes, increase spending (the current Dems)
(3) Cut taxes, cut spending (the old Libertarians)
(4) Increase taxes, cut spending (Nobody, the way to economic health, and certain political death)


I'd love to move to (4) but short of a Dictatorship of Accountants (not such a bad idea) that isn't on offer. At least we're off (1) for a while.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

How do we go about getting this?

seriously, I saw where there are an unprecedented number of small business owners with no political experience running this year under the Tea Party/fiscal responsibility banner as Republicans. If we all do our research and support our local candidates, it could still happen after 2012 (a balanced budget).
 
Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

Spending is too high, taxes are actually fairly low by historical standards. The 2x2 possibilities are:

(1) Cut taxes, increase spending (the current GOP, the easiest politically, and certain economic death)
(2) Increase taxes, increase spending (the current Dems)
(3) Cut taxes, cut spending (the old Libertarians)
(4) Increase taxes, cut spending (Nobody, the way to economic health, and certain political death)


I'd love to move to (4) but short of a Dictatorship of Accountants (not such a bad idea) that isn't on offer. At least we're off (1) for a while.
How is it that you claim taxes are historically low - based on the top income tax rate? Because according to this, total tax revenue (which is what I'm talking about) is running in the high teens as a percentage of GDP, pretty much the same as it has since 1945, give or take a dot-com or real-estate boom here and there.
 
Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

seriously, I saw where there are an unprecedented number of small business owners with no political experience running this year under the Tea Party/fiscal responsibility banner as Republicans. If we all do our research and support our local candidates, it could still happen after 2012 (a balanced budget).


Bill Maher makes a good point in this rant. Unless the teabaggers talk about cutting defense they aren't really serious about balancing the budget.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/24/bill-maher-to-tea-baggers_n_550430.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top