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.
- Status
walrus
Wind up workin' in a gas station
Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.
F the GOP, Barney Frank might as well be a Republican, they're all the same.
F the GOP, Barney Frank might as well be a Republican, they're all the same.
WeWantMore
New member
Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.
Yeah, I realized after I typed that that GOP might have been the wrong moniker there.
Still, I don't get the Tea Party anger over this. He's been a billion times better than Coakley would have been.
Yeah, I realized after I typed that that GOP might have been the wrong moniker there.
Still, I don't get the Tea Party anger over this. He's been a billion times better than Coakley would have been.
walrus
Wind up workin' in a gas station
Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.
Its not the tea party, I doubt the tea party has much presence in Mass.
Its not the tea party, I doubt the tea party has much presence in Mass.
Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.
It's there, I've seen it myself. They didn't elect him but they certainly made him famous - the national tea party made major contributions to his campaign.
But I'm with WWM on this - I look at these tea partiers moaning about Brown and some of his votes, and it's like... look, if it wasn't him, it was Coakley, and instead of voting against you 30-40% of the time, you'd have someone voting against you 100% of the time. It's Massachusetts. Take what you can get. I'm sure if the Democrats could get one of theirs elected from Utah or Kansas that would vote against them with the frequency that Brown bucks the conservative base, they'd be ecstatic. Know where these people are coming from before getting ticked off.
It's there, I've seen it myself. They didn't elect him but they certainly made him famous - the national tea party made major contributions to his campaign.
But I'm with WWM on this - I look at these tea partiers moaning about Brown and some of his votes, and it's like... look, if it wasn't him, it was Coakley, and instead of voting against you 30-40% of the time, you'd have someone voting against you 100% of the time. It's Massachusetts. Take what you can get. I'm sure if the Democrats could get one of theirs elected from Utah or Kansas that would vote against them with the frequency that Brown bucks the conservative base, they'd be ecstatic. Know where these people are coming from before getting ticked off.
walrus
Wind up workin' in a gas station
Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.
I'm sick of the same ol, same ol. I understand the Coakley argument, doesn't pass go to me
Sorry
I'm sick of the same ol, same ol. I understand the Coakley argument, doesn't pass go to me
Patman
Rodent of Unusual Size
Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.
32% republicans (tossing out a number) is still a lot of people... I mean, how many people do you need to coordinate an event... just a few... how many people do you need to have a lot... just a couple thousand... it may be hardER in Massachusetts but I gotta imagine it can be done.
The biggest problem state parties seem to have (in my opinion) is that success and failure begets the like. Without successful candidates the party can't get money... the you can't have candidates without the party having money.
Its a little simplistic... but there you go... on the other hand, if you can jumpstart a movement... as can be had over the internet you have something going.
You get a couple of local business leaders, a over-interested housewife, and some ambitious 20-somethings then you've got the rest. The rallying point idea has been set (Santelli, Beck)... after that you just need enough people to take the horns. High level help does help... but without local involvement and interest nothing happens.
32% republicans (tossing out a number) is still a lot of people... I mean, how many people do you need to coordinate an event... just a few... how many people do you need to have a lot... just a couple thousand... it may be hardER in Massachusetts but I gotta imagine it can be done.
The biggest problem state parties seem to have (in my opinion) is that success and failure begets the like. Without successful candidates the party can't get money... the you can't have candidates without the party having money.
Its a little simplistic... but there you go... on the other hand, if you can jumpstart a movement... as can be had over the internet you have something going.
You get a couple of local business leaders, a over-interested housewife, and some ambitious 20-somethings then you've got the rest. The rallying point idea has been set (Santelli, Beck)... after that you just need enough people to take the horns. High level help does help... but without local involvement and interest nothing happens.
Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.
Sorry for the blast from the past: Martha Coakley should have lost her job as DA, never been elected AG and certainly denied a seat in the senate, all based on her behavior in the Fells Acres "sexual abuse" case. She pandered to the worst fears among voters, and like all of the "sexual abuse" show trials in the 80's and 90's, there was no abuse. But hey, when you're gunning for higher office, putting innocent people in prison or keeping them there when you know they're innocent, is just collateral damage.
The WSJ's Dorothy Rabinowitz won a Pulitzer for her reporting on this case and is a great source for anyone interested in knowing more.
Sorry for the blast from the past: Martha Coakley should have lost her job as DA, never been elected AG and certainly denied a seat in the senate, all based on her behavior in the Fells Acres "sexual abuse" case. She pandered to the worst fears among voters, and like all of the "sexual abuse" show trials in the 80's and 90's, there was no abuse. But hey, when you're gunning for higher office, putting innocent people in prison or keeping them there when you know they're innocent, is just collateral damage.
The WSJ's Dorothy Rabinowitz won a Pulitzer for her reporting on this case and is a great source for anyone interested in knowing more.
Last edited:
Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.
Is that the one that HBO did the special on several years ago with James Woods playing the defense attorney? That was scary. To think you could go from nice person trying to help kids to that kind of make believe witch hunt was stunning.
Here is one for everybody...what pct of kids in your area are on gov't lunch programs?
Read an article that identified the pct of low income kids in a large region with the pct that got free breakfast. It was over 50% which seemed high...so I googled that and found a ton of stuff about how parents scam that system.
Of course nobody wants needy kids to go hungry but who is policing this type of program? I guarantee you 50% of the families don't go without cable, 2 cars, flat screen TV's, designer clothes, $200 cell phones etc. but they get free meals.
Is that the one that HBO did the special on several years ago with James Woods playing the defense attorney? That was scary. To think you could go from nice person trying to help kids to that kind of make believe witch hunt was stunning.
Here is one for everybody...what pct of kids in your area are on gov't lunch programs?
Read an article that identified the pct of low income kids in a large region with the pct that got free breakfast. It was over 50% which seemed high...so I googled that and found a ton of stuff about how parents scam that system.
Of course nobody wants needy kids to go hungry but who is policing this type of program? I guarantee you 50% of the families don't go without cable, 2 cars, flat screen TV's, designer clothes, $200 cell phones etc. but they get free meals.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.
The Base insists on lockstep voting because they believe each political battle no matter how trivial is an epic struggle of "good versus evil," and if the other side scores even one point it's A Harbinger of Doom. It isn't just the right fringe who think that way, though they are extra susceptible given their general confusion of authoritarianism with authority. Daily Kos is the equivalent, a litany of wailing and cursing about any Dem who votes with local sentiment rather than the national party agenda on any issue.
The Base insists on lockstep voting because they believe each political battle no matter how trivial is an epic struggle of "good versus evil," and if the other side scores even one point it's A Harbinger of Doom. It isn't just the right fringe who think that way, though they are extra susceptible given their general confusion of authoritarianism with authority. Daily Kos is the equivalent, a litany of wailing and cursing about any Dem who votes with local sentiment rather than the national party agenda on any issue.
Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.
Companies aren't spending now. Below is an article that talks about a 1.8 trillion that the largest companies in the US are sitting on (which I thought I read somewhere was a record). Little hiring, little investment, little R&D. Likewise, consumer sentiment numbers came out today and are lower than anything since last year.
I'm a big fan of small govt and low taxes in a normal market. Having said that, we're going to have govt involvement in the form of some tax and spend. Lower taxes and government spending is for a healthy economy...yet we need some capital moving through the economy and the govt is the one organization that will do it.
http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/corporations-sit-18-trillion-until-they-get
Companies aren't spending now. Below is an article that talks about a 1.8 trillion that the largest companies in the US are sitting on (which I thought I read somewhere was a record). Little hiring, little investment, little R&D. Likewise, consumer sentiment numbers came out today and are lower than anything since last year.
I'm a big fan of small govt and low taxes in a normal market. Having said that, we're going to have govt involvement in the form of some tax and spend. Lower taxes and government spending is for a healthy economy...yet we need some capital moving through the economy and the govt is the one organization that will do it.
http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/corporations-sit-18-trillion-until-they-get
Patman
Rodent of Unusual Size
Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.
they're sitting on it until they know how to spend it... its like talking to a wall here... these greedballs like making money... so tell them the rules and deny them any weird cash-leveraging exotica and the money will start to work back into the economy.
they're sitting on it until they know how to spend it... its like talking to a wall here... these greedballs like making money... so tell them the rules and deny them any weird cash-leveraging exotica and the money will start to work back into the economy.
Patman
Rodent of Unusual Size
Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.
Companies exist to make money for shareholders. When there's an ambitious regulatory agenda taking shape (which I'm not passing judgement on here), naturally they're going to wait and see how it'll affect various investments (what will health care costs per new employee be? Will R&D tax cuts be extended? How much can I leverage capital to borrow? etc. etc. etc.
It's not a conspiracy. It's a recession.
It's hard to believe this cash hoarding is due to a vast CEO conspiracy to get a Republican elected. Actually, it's laughably lame.
Companies exist to make money for shareholders. When there's an ambitious regulatory agenda taking shape (which I'm not passing judgement on here), naturally they're going to wait and see how it'll affect various investments (what will health care costs per new employee be? Will R&D tax cuts be extended? How much can I leverage capital to borrow? etc. etc. etc.
It's not a conspiracy. It's a recession.
Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.
Anybody who does not like making money is a fool.
I like making money too. Does that make me a greedball?
Anybody who does not like making money is a fool.
ScottM
**** it feels good to be a bankster
Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.
Frankly, given Obama's anti-business rhetoric and actions, and the degree of legislative and regulatory uncertainty in the world from healthcare to taxes to employee rights, companies are content to sit on their cash and invest it at 1-2%. They don't want to spend it, invest in new projects or lend it. They have guaranteed streams of cash to finance existing operations, and they have discovered they can be remarkably lean. A lot of jobs that were lost are not coming back anytime soon. There are very few incentives for most businesses to start any large scale expansion or initiatives.
Frankly, given Obama's anti-business rhetoric and actions, and the degree of legislative and regulatory uncertainty in the world from healthcare to taxes to employee rights, companies are content to sit on their cash and invest it at 1-2%. They don't want to spend it, invest in new projects or lend it. They have guaranteed streams of cash to finance existing operations, and they have discovered they can be remarkably lean. A lot of jobs that were lost are not coming back anytime soon. There are very few incentives for most businesses to start any large scale expansion or initiatives.
Last edited:
Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.
Many of your points I may agree with. Yet as a consultant working with execs of big companies, organizations usually invest and hire more based on their expections of the markets in which they participate and the overall economy. Government activities are by no means at the top of the list.
But in the end, your point doesn't change the equation. Businesses and consumers are just not spending or investing...they're hoarding. And like it or not, somebody (ie the govt) needs to continue to force money through the economy or we've got much bigger problems.
Many of your points I may agree with. Yet as a consultant working with execs of big companies, organizations usually invest and hire more based on their expections of the markets in which they participate and the overall economy. Government activities are by no means at the top of the list.
But in the end, your point doesn't change the equation. Businesses and consumers are just not spending or investing...they're hoarding. And like it or not, somebody (ie the govt) needs to continue to force money through the economy or we've got much bigger problems.
Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.
Part of this all comes down to your economic philosophy. Modern American economic philosophy has come to be dominated by the need to consume and thus drive the economy. There was a time when the economic philosophy was basically opposite. That you pay off your debts and accumulate surplus and out of that surplus you fund economic expansion. Today we just want people to go into debt further and further to keep driving the economic machine. Rightly, people are starting to recognize that debt isn't necessarily your friend, especially at very high levels. Short term it may not make the economy directly as active. But long term you're better off with less debt and financially robust entities. There is of course a whole lot of nuance I've left out, but I find it fascinating how this nation has bought almost exclusively into the spend, regardless of debt, and it's good for you and the economy. In the end I think it's a pretty lousy philosophy if you care about something more than very short term economic and/or personal benefit.
Part of this all comes down to your economic philosophy. Modern American economic philosophy has come to be dominated by the need to consume and thus drive the economy. There was a time when the economic philosophy was basically opposite. That you pay off your debts and accumulate surplus and out of that surplus you fund economic expansion. Today we just want people to go into debt further and further to keep driving the economic machine. Rightly, people are starting to recognize that debt isn't necessarily your friend, especially at very high levels. Short term it may not make the economy directly as active. But long term you're better off with less debt and financially robust entities. There is of course a whole lot of nuance I've left out, but I find it fascinating how this nation has bought almost exclusively into the spend, regardless of debt, and it's good for you and the economy. In the end I think it's a pretty lousy philosophy if you care about something more than very short term economic and/or personal benefit.
- Status