Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Ok. And I'll stop trying to think you understand context.

Yes, you go ahead and stop trying to think. I don't want you to blow a gasket or anything.

 

[ScottM]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

What a shambolic economic strategy. How embarrassing that our nation has come to this, rather than doing anything at all with a long term perspective.

I tend to agree. While Obama and MOC are congratulating themselves over their "bipartisanship", the bond vigilantes are starting to saddle up.

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I don't see anyone on the left having any issue with you. I certainly can't imagine why they would. You parrot their line real good, while throwing in a little criticism of them here and there to try to look a little more balanced. But your sky-is-falling because of the GOP act is just silly.

I'm pro-guns, generally for most limits on abortion (though not all), for a balanced budget, preferrably a smaller federal gov't, strong borders, personal freedom, anti-affirmative action, and so on, just to name a few. All of which are traditional right-wing positions.

Now, many of those conflict to an extent: to get a balanced budget, taxes will have to go up short term. We can't simply "stop spending" to get out of it, as much as you'd like, no matter what MinnFan and his ilk say. Regarding strong borders, I disagree with Arizona's policies because they're addressing it incorrectly even with the understanding that the Feds are doing jack shiat about it themselves. Personal freedom and national security often conflict - I tend to favor the former to the greatest extent possible. But that's the difference between "all-else being equal" preferencing and living in the real world; comprimises for reality must be made.

I disavow the religious right and the neo-cons because they aren't conservative; the religious right wants the government in everyone's bedroom and family room (so much for smaller government), while the neo-cons are simply corrupt idiots who have no intention of governing responsibly. Both are willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

That the national GOP has generally turned its back on voters like me should speak volumes about the GOP, not me. I've got no love for the Dems in general, but at the moment they are the slightly less bad option.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Yes, you go ahead and stop trying to think. I don't want you to blow a gasket or anything.

Wasn't this your philosophy when Bush was in office? Just ignore what he was doing, focus on the letter behind his name and push on forward even though he wasn't a conservative at all and you supposedly were? (dont get all outraged, you werent nearly as bad as some around here but those of us who were here have long memories Bobby )

The Democrats may be spineless, but the Republicans are hypocrits and sellouts. The conservatives sold their soul for power years ago and that is why Dubya got rousing ovations from Conservatives for 8 years.

Just keep telling yourself though, when you spend it is ok but it is wrong for everyone else. I know it gives you the warm fuzzies

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

For those that are upset that the current tax rates were extended don't worry, income taxes have already gotten much more progressive over the last 30 years.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I disavow the religious right and the neo-cons because they aren't conservative; the religious right wants the government in everyone's bedroom and family room (so much for smaller government), while the neo-cons are simply corrupt idiots who have no intention of governing responsibly. Both are willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

That the national GOP has generally turned its back on voters like me should speak volumes about the GOP, not me. I've got no love for the Dems in general, but at the moment they are the slightly less bad option.

This is where I was up until this week, but the Dems have maybe rolled over once too often. The economic policies inaugurated by Reagan, who at least meant them, and then used as a cloak by the GOP ever since, have transferred trillions from the middle class to the upper class, while the social rhetoric that came from the moral midgets who followed him has atomized the country and made hard knuckled self-absorption a god and civic-mindedness a taunt. The Dems have been a force for slight course corrections and speed bumps that have merely slowed down the Republicans' head-long rush towards rule by the wealthy.

Now the Dems don't even seem to be up to that small task anymore. There simply is no longer an effective counter-balance to a plutarchic capitalism where tanks roll over spearmen under the thin rhetorical guise of "freedom of the market."

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Wasn't this your philosophy when Bush was in office? Just ignore what he was doing, focus on the letter behind his name and push on forward even though he wasn't a conservative at all and you supposedly were? (dont get all outraged, you werent nearly as bad as some around here but those of us who were here have long memories Bobby )

The Democrats may be spineless, but the Republicans are hypocrits and sellouts. The conservatives sold their soul for power years ago and that is why Dubya got rousing ovations from Conservatives for 8 years.

Just keep telling yourself though, when you spend it is ok but it is wrong for everyone else. I know it gives you the warm fuzzies

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt (although I probably shouldn't, given your smarmy comments), and assume you are confused. As I know you've been around awhile and seen a lot of my postings on Bush. I've blasted him long and hard for his grossly irresponsible fiscal policies, and I was never a fan of going into Iraq, though once we're in there I recognize that you have to make the best of where you're at now. Overall, Bush was a massive disappointment to me, and I've said this many times in the past, including while he was in office. You either have a bad memory or you're purposely misrepresenting what I've said around here.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

As a Worthy Opponent, I'll vouch that Bob had many rational insights about the Chimperor back in the day.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

As a Worthy Opponent, I'll vouch that Bob had many rational insights about the Chimperor back in the day.

Waddaya got against James Worthy!

Chimperor. Don't think I've heard that one before.

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

This is where I was up until this week, but the Dems have maybe rolled over once too often.

Oh I agree, the Dems have rolled over way too many times. But when the choice is the weak ninny vs. strong but corrupt, well, what are you gonna do.

Frankly, the first presidential candidate to admit that tax hikes are going to be necessary to balance the budget, and mean it, gets my vote. Though I won't be holding my breath on that one.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Oh I agree, the Dems have rolled over way too many times. But when the choice is the weak ninny vs. strong but corrupt, well, what are you gonna do.

I'll take Louis Brandeis, FDR and MLK. Give me brains, brawn, and an iron will. The courage of convictions -- that's what the other side has (well, they aren't big on brains, but they have the dollars to compensate) and it will take an equal or greater force.

Frankly, the first presidential candidate to admit that tax hikes are going to be necessary to balance the budget, and mean it, gets my vote. Though I won't be holding my breath on that one.

Walter Mondale said this right back at the beginning in 1984 -- "he won't tell you that. I just did." That worked out well for him. But it was the right thing to do.

You can't tell the country taxes have to go up if somebody else is saying taxes "have to" be cut. This is broccoli vs fudge, and most people are obese.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Walter Mondale said this right back at the beginning in 1984 -- "he won't tell you that. I just did." That worked out well for him.

You can't tell the country taxes have to go up if somebody else is saying taxes "have to" be cut. This is broccoli vs fudge, and most people are obese.

I always liked Walter Mondale for saying that.

 

[pirate]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

No my position is the policies that are in place now are designed to create a two class system. Poor and rich. The middle class is shrinking and ALL of the data supports that premise. Read "The Two Income Trap" by Elizabeth Warren. You will disagree with her solutions and conclusions but she lays out the problem in very clear detail.

Scooby - thanks for the book referral, I'm not an EW fan by any stretch but will read the book to better understand what she is saying. I have been pretty active on here when it relates to the middle class and how that is defined...household income is the typical measure and that is misleading as the number of single and retired households is changing all the time. I read a summary and when she says it isn't spending that causes the problem I have to say that one consistent theme in here theories is that it is always somebody else's fault, usually big, for profit companies. Again, this is from a summary but it was quoting from the book when it said people are 'forced' to move to more expensive houses, near the best schools because they want better education for their kids and have to pay hefty tuitions and the cost of those houses increases because of the influx of people. Really? Those summaries are from sites supporting her book and suggesting it be bought. To say that overspending isn't the problem but it really is buying expensive houses and paying tuition in the pursuit of good schools seems to be inconsistent.

Like you say, we may not all agree on her conclusions...but I also don't agree with her problem statement. It isn't the rich alone buying 6,000 BTU backyard, built-in grills on their new paver patios. The rich don't own all the flat screens, poker tables, PWCs, XBoxs, home theater systems, SUV's, third cars, boats, vacation houses, time shares, wet bars, subzero refrigerators, granite counters etc. She can say that isn't spending but somebody bought that stuff, most likely at credit card interest rates. The rule about saving XX months of bills doesn't change with two incomes and higher bills.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I always liked Walter Mondale for saying that.

Me too. If it's true, say it -- shout it -- and chance the consequences. If nothing else, history will prove you were right.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Read Elizabeth Warren's book. It lays it out very well.

I cannot tell you how much I loathe that author and that book. Not the thesis, which is superficially correct. But by the gods, if ever there was ever a person who needs to be punched in the face.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I cannot tell you how much I loathe that author and that book. Not the thesis. But by the gods, if ever there was ever a person who needs to be punched in the face.

I love that book. I honestly did not understand how I could make so much more money than my parents but relatively speaking was not able to afford a better lifestyle until I read it.

And the thesis is why I mentioned it more than anything. I know many here would hate the solutions offered by the authors.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I love that book. I honestly did not understand how I could make so much more money than my parents but relatively speaking was not able to afford a better lifestyle until I read it.

And the thesis is why I mentioned it more than anything. I know many here would hate the solutions offered by the authors.

I just wish a half-sentient hominid had written it instead of the poster child for Smugness. She should have been a member of the Echo Chamber -- she's got the persona down pat.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

This is where I was up until this week, but the Dems have maybe rolled over once too often.

Now the Dems don't even seem to be up to that small task anymore. There simply is no longer an effective counter-balance to a plutarchic capitalism where tanks roll over spearmen under the thin rhetorical guise of "freedom of the market."

So what are the implications of that for you? Does that mean that you have decided to shoot the spearmen before the tanks roll over them?

Just because an elected official doesn't execute the way you thought he might...doesn't mean that you change your goals. Continue forward based on who you are...and continue to work for what you believe in at each future point in time.

 

[ScottM]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I cannot tell you how much I loathe that author and that book. Not the thesis, which is superficially correct. But by the gods, if ever there was ever a person who needs to be punched in the face.

I've dealt with many very "disagreeable" people in my career, but Elizabeth Warren is one of the very few who elicits a visceral reaction from me. I'd rather listen to Glenn Beck explain "game theory".

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Scooby - thanks for the book referral, I'm not an EW fan by any stretch but will read the book to better understand what she is saying. I have been pretty active on here when it relates to the middle class and how that is defined...household income is the typical measure and that is misleading as the number of single and retired households is changing all the time. I read a summary and when she says it isn't spending that causes the problem I have to say that one consistent theme in here theories is that it is always somebody else's fault, usually big, for profit companies. Again, this is from a summary but it was quoting from the book when it said people are 'forced' to move to more expensive houses, near the best schools because they want better education for their kids and have to pay hefty tuitions and the cost of those houses increases because of the influx of people. Really? Those summaries are from sites supporting her book and suggesting it be bought. To say that overspending isn't the problem but it really is buying expensive houses and paying tuition in the pursuit of good schools seems to be inconsistent.

Like you say, we may not all agree on her conclusions...but I also don't agree with her problem statement. It isn't the rich alone buying 6,000 BTU backyard, built-in grills on their new paver patios. The rich don't own all the flat screens, poker tables, PWCs, XBoxs, home theater systems, SUV's, third cars, boats, vacation houses, time shares, wet bars, subzero refrigerators, granite counters etc. She can say that isn't spending but somebody bought that stuff, most likely at credit card interest rates. The rule about saving XX months of bills doesn't change with two incomes and higher bills.

What you need to do is compare now to the '70's and make sure you are fair and don't factor in technology too much. In the '70's you could buy a single family home, own two cars, and send your kids to a decent school and your job would be cutting paper in a bindery and your wife could stay home.

Nowadays you can't do that without two incomes. That's the trap.

I understand what you are saying that there are a lot of people out there flushing money down the toilet. However, I am not one of them and I can tell you that everything she says in that book is very real, at least for me.