4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Obama speech outlines deficit cut policy proposals
President Barack Obama has laid out a fiscal policy "vision" to reduce the US budget deficit while upholding America's social safety net.
President Barack Obama has laid out a fiscal policy "vision" to reduce the US budget deficit while upholding America's social safety net. He offered a package of tax increases and spending cuts aimed at reducing the deficit by $4tn (£2.45tn) by 2023. And he attacked Republican proposals he said would harm the poor and elderly while cutting taxes on the rich. Mr Obama's proposal would raise taxes on the wealthy, a move Republican congressional leaders swiftly rejected.
The ballooning US deficit is set to be a top issue in the 2012 election campaign. It is forecast to reach $1.5 trillion (£921bn) this year and both Democrats and Republicans have said cutting it is a priority. "We have to live within our means, reduce our deficit, and get back on a path that will allow us to pay down our debt," Mr Obama said in a speech at George Washington University in Washington DC. "And we have to do it in a way that protects the recovery, and protects the investments we need to grow, create jobs, and win the future." Mr Obama insisted that spending cuts should not harm the US social safety net, such as the social security retirement system and healthcare programmes for the poor and elderly.
Republicans have offered their own proposal that would go even further than Mr Obama's, slashing $6.2 trillion from government spending over the next decade, in large part through cuts to government programmes that serve the elderly and the poor. The proposal, put forward by House budget committee chairman Paul Ryan, would also drastically reduce taxes for wealthy Americans. Mr Obama on Wednesday hit back at the Republican proposal, saying: "This is not a vision of the America I know."
In particular, he attacked Republicans' proposal to cut taxes for the wealthy while making elderly Americans pay more for their healthcare, as analysts have said the Republican plan would work out. "They want to give people like me a $200,000 tax cut that's paid for by asking 33 seniors to each pay $6,000 more in health costs?" Mr Obama asked. "That's not right, and it's not going to happen as long as I'm president. "The fact is, their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America. "There's nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires." But top Republicans, whom Mr Obama briefed on his proposal on Tuesday morning, have staunchly rejected his call to increase tax revenue raised from wealthy Americans. The House is due to vote on Mr Ryan's proposal on Friday.
"We don't believe a lack of revenue is the problem, and so we will not be discussing raising taxes," said Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Buoyed by the fiscally conservative Tea Party movement, Republicans have won a series of policy victories, including forcing $38.5bn in government spending cuts for the remainder of the current fiscal year. Mr Obama hopes to retake momentum from Republicans on the issue as the 2012 presidential campaign warms up, analysts say.
Bruising battle ahead
On Wednesday, Mr Obama also sought to brush back liberals in his own party who warn cutting spending now would hinder the nascent economic recovery. "Doing nothing on the deficit is just not an option," he said. "Our debt has grown so large that we could do real damage to the economy if we don't begin a process now to get our fiscal house in order." US political observers expect the fight over the government budget for the fiscal year beginning 1 October to be bruising, as Republicans and Democrats push their competing visions. Last week, the US government came within an hour of shutting down as Republican and Democratic leaders battled to reach an agreement on a budget for the next six months. The deal reached just before midnight on Friday cut $38.5bn from the budget to 30 September.
Lets see how well congress can get along now that theres an actual, meaningful, and essential discussion being held. Probably not well. Also, sorry about the BBCs text format. They format with bizarre and annoying page breaks which makes copy pasting from there difficult and sometimes hard to read.
16879
Post by: daedalus-templarius
Some quick highlights
* A debt failsafe that will be triggered if the debt-to-GDP ratio hasn't stabilized, and begun to decline by mid-decade. This will include automatic spending cuts, and reductions in tax subsidies, but no tax increases. Social Security, Medicare, and low-income programs will be exempted. It will not tie the government's hands in the event that an economic downturn requires fiscal stimulus.
* Cuts to discretionary spending, compatible with those in the Bowles-Simpson recommendations.
* Defense spending cuts, contingent on a thorough review conducted by Secretary Robert Gates, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Obama himself, and savings generated by winding down operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
* Strengthening the Independent Payment Advisory Board, created by the health care law to recommend and implement cost savings reforms to hold down the cost-per-Medicare-patient.
* Simplifying the formula for providing federal matching funds to states for Medicaid, which would automatically increase in the event of a recession
* This is a big one -- Obama will propose using Medicare's purchasing power to reduce prescription drug costs for seniors
* Reductions in agricultural subsidies
* Comprehensive tax reform, which reduces loopholes, simplifies the system, allows the Bush tax cuts for high-income earners to expire, and reduces the corporate tax rate.
I enjoyed listening, seems like a sensible approach to begin with. Of course, since I think its sensible, epic republican histrionics will certainly be incoming. I'm glad during the speech he really hit upon the fact that all of the recent madness centered around 12% of the total budget, aka discretionary spending. Paul Ryan's budget proposal really makes me sick with its huge cuts to education and basically gutting medicare and medicaid, because that top 2% needs another tax cut obviously.
38744
Post by: Brushfire
Too little too late. Both parties will not give up their pet programs to the axe.
If Obama wants to do something now without waiting for both parties to come to a workable compromise, he could as CIC pull US forces out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and order the CIA to cool it on covert operations in Pakistan. The money saved, as well as lives, would be significant.
I also think a mandatory wage reduction to Congress and Senate members pay based on the percentage of National debt increase every year might help spur them to get serious. After all, if they are not suffering, how can they appreciate the common citizen’s struggle to make ends meet?
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Needs moar taxes.
Hungry people need moar food. Poor children need moar healthcare.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Its good to see he re-proposed raising taxes less than 4 months after Congress blocked that. Although I'm actually ok with it...its just so Democratic.
I will note I actually supported many of the intital thoughts of the actual commission. Do I trust Obama in any way, shape or form at this point fiscally? Not one  ing bit.
Strengthening the Independent Payment Advisory Board, created by the health care law to recommend and implement cost savings reforms to hold down the cost-per-Medicare-patient.
Translation more death panels. Love it. Why don't we just throw people to the side of the road? Why does Obama hate old people so much? They will remember that in 2012.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Yup. Death panels.
Also, Republicans hate women, children and poor people. They all hate Christians and despise Jesus' teachings. 
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
Frazzled wrote:Why does Obama hate old people so much? They will remember that in 2012.
Not if they have Alzheimer's and can't afford insurance payments to cover treatment.
16879
Post by: daedalus-templarius
Mannahnin wrote:Yup. Death panels.
Also, Republicans hate women, children and poor people. They all hate Christians and despise Jesus' teachings.
They don't hate women, they just want them to bend to their will.
221
Post by: Frazzled
SilverMK2 wrote:Frazzled wrote:Why does Obama hate old people so much? They will remember that in 2012.
Not if they have Alzheimer's and can't afford insurance payments to cover treatment.
On the positive you only have to buy one present for them ever again. "Oh wow a present? Thanks! Oh wow a present? Thanks! Oh wow a present? Thanks!" Automatically Appended Next Post: Mannahnin wrote:Yup. Death panels.
Also, Republicans hate women, children and poor people. They all hate Christians and despise Jesus' teachings.
Well...yea.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Translation more death panels.
 So you don't like it because of worthless hyper political buzzwords that are totally meaningless? I mean, I know it's going to happen since the American populace can't talk like adults. But really? Death panels? I thought we were done with people bringing that gak up. Why does Obama hate old people so much? They will remember that in 2012.
Probably because they're fething our economy and largely vote for republicans anyway since they're scared of brown people and rap music. The last persons opinion I care about concerning the budget and economy is the person who puts nothing into it and isn't going to be in it in 10 years anyway. They deserve our respect and consideration, not our self destructive obedience.
221
Post by: Frazzled
daedalus-templarius wrote:Mannahnin wrote:Yup. Death panels.
Also, Republicans hate women, children and poor people. They all hate Christians and despise Jesus' teachings.
They don't hate women, they just want them to bend to their will.
Don't we all.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Shuma, don't get upset. It's just garden variety trolling. Better if you ignore it.
221
Post by: Frazzled
ShumaGorath wrote:
So you don't like it because of worthless hyper political buzzwords that are totally meaningless? I mean, I know it's going to happen since the American populace can't talk like adults. But really? Death panels? I thought we were done with people bringing that gak up.
No mamograms for women over 70 on Medicare.
No MRIs for women over 70 on Medicare.
"We don't call them death panels. We prefer to call them cost efficiency Czars."
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Mannahnin wrote:Shuma, don't get upset. It's just garden variety trolling. Better if you ignore it.
He's a mod. He shouldn't be doing that. Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled wrote:ShumaGorath wrote:
So you don't like it because of worthless hyper political buzzwords that are totally meaningless? I mean, I know it's going to happen since the American populace can't talk like adults. But really? Death panels? I thought we were done with people bringing that gak up.
No mamograms for women over 70 on Medicare. No MRIs for women over 70 on Medicare. "We don't call them death panels. We prefer to call them cost efficiency Czars."
I thought you hated nationalized health care? What happened to your ideals? Do they not actually withstand contact with reality? What happened to the "free market"?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Mannahnin wrote:Shuma, don't get upset. It's just garden variety trolling. Better if you ignore it.
1. Its not trolling if its true.
2. Its not garden variety. You know I have not capacity to keep a garden going. This is strictly free range!
( OT but you really should see Garden State. Its quite excellent. )
28848
Post by: KamikazeCanuck
ShumaGorath wrote:Translation more death panels.
So you don't like it because of worthless hyper political buzzwords that are totally meaningless? I mean, I know it's going to happen since the American populace can't talk like adults. But really? Death panels? I thought we were done with people bringing that gak up.
Why does Obama hate old people so much? They will remember that in 2012.
Probably because they're fething our economy and largely vote for republicans anyway since they're scared of brown people and rap music. The last persons opinion I care about concerning the budget and economy is the person who puts nothing into it and isn't going to be in it in 10 years anyway.
I know. Death Panels? Really People really? I thought only pundits on Fox and politicians usedd those terms not real people. Guess this proves Mods aren't real people after all.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Frazzled wrote:Mannahnin wrote:Shuma, don't get upset. It's just garden variety trolling. Better if you ignore it.
1. Its not trolling if its true.
2. Its not garden variety. You know I have not capacity to keep a garden going. This is strictly free range!
It's not true. It doesn't even make sense. You know it's trolling. I know it's trolling. Everyone knows it's trolling.
221
Post by: Frazzled
He's a mod. He shouldn't be doing that.
***You're a poster. You should be doing that either. 
I thought you hated nationalized health care? What happened to your ideals? Do they not actually withstand contact with reality? What happened to the "free market"?
****What made you think I support the free market? I support good government. Good government and US government are two ends of the spectrum. 
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
What made you think I support the free market? I support good government. Good government and US government are two ends of the spectrum.
So you support removing government meddling from senior health care? Is there a point at which your opinions stop conflicting one another? Nevermind the fact that you're attempting to deflect what was your standard anti obama thread troll as a legitimate opinion when it's just rinse and repeated in every thread, your attempts to legitimize it are now conflicting with themselves.
221
Post by: Frazzled
ShumaGorath wrote:Frazzled wrote:Mannahnin wrote:Shuma, don't get upset. It's just garden variety trolling. Better if you ignore it.
1. Its not trolling if its true.
2. Its not garden variety. You know I have not capacity to keep a garden going. This is strictly free range!
It's not true. It doesn't even make sense. You know it's trolling. I know it's trolling. Everyone knows it's trolling.
Mmm, just like Shuma. If someone disagrees with you they are trolling. Your rage warms my heart.
But to that item, yes I'm living that with parents now. Medicare has been eviscerated under Obama so everything he says now I believe the opposite. He's a liar and a conman and the sooner he's fired the better.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Mmm, just like Shuma. If someone disagrees with you they are trolling. Your rage warms my heart.
I claim you're trolling when you are. Which is often. Here is one such instance. But to that item, yes I'm living that with parents now. Medicare has been eviscerated under Obama so everything he says now I believe the opposite. He's a liar and a conman and the sooner he's fired the better.
I'm pretty sure when they state that reforming and reducing medicare is central to fixing budget and healthcare issues they don't mean your parents are going to get to keep the current levels of care. They're going to get more then me. I accept that. You probably should too. But it doesn't mean they're going to get as much as they used too. It's whats going to happen because they cost everyone else a lot of money. It doesn't make someone a liar if they do something that adversely effects someone you know. It's pretty clear here that your opinions on the issue are being heavily effected by personal traumas related, but thats not a reason to be totally contradictory and conflicting when you discuss it.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
If Obama is actually a liberal or socialist, than it follows that he wants Medicare to give people more care. In which case, either a) He's not really a liberal or socialist. Or b) He has failed at protecting Medicare from whoever in the government (hint: starts with an R) does want to cut Medicare.
Automatically Appended Next Post: ShumaGorath wrote:Mannahnin wrote:Shuma, don't get upset. It's just garden variety trolling. Better if you ignore it.
He's a mod. He shouldn't be doing that.
You know the address for the court of appeals.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Mannahnin wrote:If Obama is actually a liberal or socialist, than it follows that he wants Medicare to give people more care. In which case, either a) He's not really a liberal or socialist. Or b) He has failed at protecting Medicare from whoever in the government (hint: starts with an R) does want to cut Medicare.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:Mannahnin wrote:Shuma, don't get upset. It's just garden variety trolling. Better if you ignore it.
He's a mod. He shouldn't be doing that.
You know the address for the court of appeals.
I hit their doorbell. I don't know if anyone was home though.
2059
Post by: ArtfcllyFlvrd
Mannahnin wrote:If Obama is actually a liberal or socialist, than it follows that he wants Medicare to give people more care.
I personally think he is and believe he does. But the reality is he has spent sooo much money and put us in such a bind financially that he has to at least appear like he wants to fix it. And no one will take your comments seriously unless you talk about the serious problems, medicare being one of them.
221
Post by: Frazzled
ShumaGorath wrote:Mmm, just like Shuma. If someone disagrees with you they are trolling. Your rage warms my heart.
I claim you're trolling when you are. Which is often. Here is one such instance.
Your definition, although more in line with your average dictator in seemingly again consisting of "agree with me or something's wrong with you," is not frequently shared by those actually desiring a discussion. In truth I may have misperceived your original post and not realized you didn't actually want discussion. Too Bad!
But to that item, yes I'm living that with parents now. Medicare has been eviscerated under Obama so everything he says now I believe the opposite. He's a liar and a conman and the sooner he's fired the better.
I'm pretty sure when they state that reforming and reducing medicare is central to fixing budget and healthcare issues they don't mean your parents are going to get to keep the current levels of care. They're going to get more then me. I accept that. You probably should too. But it doesn't mean they're going to get as much as they used too. It's whats going to happen because they cost everyone else a lot of money. It doesn't make someone a liar if they do something that adversely effects someone you know. It's pretty clear here that your opinions on the issue are being heavily effected by personal traumas related, but thats not a reason to be totally contradictory and conflicting when you discuss it.
Big difference in saying its going to cost more and then: 1) saying there will be no decline in care which is what was actually said over and over and over; and 2) determinations that make tests that can be absolutely life or death unavailable. Ask a woman if no longer being able to get breast exam screenings is merely not keeping the current level of care? As the immortal bard once said" "nuts."
963
Post by: Mannahnin
I think he's very centrist. Lliberal-leaning, but genuinely wants compromise and consensus. He wants at least some Republicans to agree with him and work with him, and bends over backwards to try to make that happen. A lot of "real" liberals get angry about it, as we see him compromising on principles we'd rather he stand firm for, and breaking promises we'd rather were kept. Obviously it's not all his fault. Presently I still believe more of the fault lies elsewhere than in his own lap, but we'll see what the voters and donors and volunteers think next year. Automatically Appended Next Post: Ask a woman if no longer being able to get breast exam screenings is merely not keeping the current level of care?
Speaking of which, I have another thread to post...
221
Post by: Frazzled
I hit their doorbell. I don't know if anyone was home though.
Wait that means you're in my yard.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Not your yard.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Mannahnin wrote:I think he's very centrist. Lliberal-leaning, but genuinely wants compromise and consensus. He wants at least some Republicans to agree with him and work with him, and bends over backwards to try to make that happen. A lot of "real" liberals get angry about it, as we see him compromising on principles we'd rather he stand firm for, and breaking promises we'd rather were kept. Obviously it's not all his fault. Presently I still believe more of the fault lies elsewhere than in his own lap, but we'll see what the voters and donors and volunteers think next year.
***Funny because thats exactly not how he operated when he controlled Congress...
Automatically Appended Next Post: Mannahnin wrote:Not your yard.
WEll its more polite than the truth of the matter :
Being a weiner dog means the world is your toilet!
2059
Post by: ArtfcllyFlvrd
Mannahnin wrote:He wants at least some Republicans to agree with him and work with him, and bends over backwards to try to make that happen.
Maybe recently... maybe. But he's not acting out of his heart but out of polictical necessity. It's easy to be super liberal all the time when your district is san fransico. If you need win places like ohio, florida, new mexico, neveda, and the truly centrist places you can't go too insane. I still say most of his own ideas, his own rhetoric, and his history (when he only had to win a extremely liberal area of chicago) are blatant socialism.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Frazzled wrote:Mannahnin wrote:I think he's very centrist. Lliberal-leaning, but genuinely wants compromise and consensus. He wants at least some Republicans to agree with him and work with him, and bends over backwards to try to make that happen. A lot of "real" liberals get angry about it, as we see him compromising on principles we'd rather he stand firm for, and breaking promises we'd rather were kept. Obviously it's not all his fault. Presently I still believe more of the fault lies elsewhere than in his own lap, but we'll see what the voters and donors and volunteers think next year.
***Funny because thats exactly not how he operated when he controlled Congress...
Of course it is. Or the healthcare bill would have gotten passed in a month, and included a public option. Not a year and been watered down to pander to people who would rather poor people die in the street.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
I still say most of his own ideas, his own rhetoric, and his history (when he only had to win a extremely liberal area of chicago) are blatant socialism.
I'm pretty sure you don't know what the word socialism means in either it's historic, dictionary, literary, or U.S. political context.
2059
Post by: ArtfcllyFlvrd
ShumaGorath wrote:I still say most of his own ideas, his own rhetoric, and his history (when he only had to win a extremely liberal area of chicago) are blatant socialism.
I'm pretty sure you don't know what the word socialism means in either it's historic, dictionary, literary, or U.S. political context.
So trolling is bad but flaming is totally fine?
I love when people who don't know you automatically assume you are idiot because you have an opinion they don't like.
221
Post by: Frazzled
ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:Mannahnin wrote:He wants at least some Republicans to agree with him and work with him, and bends over backwards to try to make that happen.
Maybe recently... maybe. But he's not acting out of his heart but out of polictical necessity. It's easy to be super liberal all the time when your district is san fransico. If you need win places like ohio, florida, new mexico, neveda, and the truly centrist places you can't go too insane. I still say most of his own ideas, his own rhetoric, and his history (when he only had to win a extremely liberal area of chicago) are blatant socialism.
I'm not faulting him. If I were President and had control I'd do the same thing, except I wouldn't have let the Creature (Pelosi) hijack my proposals. But then again, if I were eleceted all that hassle of voting would be a thing of the past anyway. Just do what I say and everything will be all right.
On the positive between this joke, the actual commission recommendations (which I put faith and great store by as they have actually moved to the "how do we implement this stage") Ryan's plan of rightwing nuttiness and a few others that will pop up I think we can make sausage out of this puppy, which is how the system is supposed to work. Automatically Appended Next Post: Mannahnin wrote:Frazzled wrote:Mannahnin wrote:I think he's very centrist. Lliberal-leaning, but genuinely wants compromise and consensus. He wants at least some Republicans to agree with him and work with him, and bends over backwards to try to make that happen. A lot of "real" liberals get angry about it, as we see him compromising on principles we'd rather he stand firm for, and breaking promises we'd rather were kept. Obviously it's not all his fault. Presently I still believe more of the fault lies elsewhere than in his own lap, but we'll see what the voters and donors and volunteers think next year.
***Funny because thats exactly not how he operated when he controlled Congress...
Of course it is. Or the healthcare bill would have gotten passed in a month, and included a public option. Not a year and been watered down to pander to people who would rather poor people die in the street.
He didn't try it in the first few months if you recollect. The horror of the Pelosi Democrat gravy train (stimulus bill); Global tax and Spend; and then healthcare hit. He couldn't do that first because of that whole imploding economy thing. By the time he got around to it (besides again letting Pelosi craft it-why? why?!?!?) there was already heavy blowback from the previous bills. Automatically Appended Next Post: ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:ShumaGorath wrote:I still say most of his own ideas, his own rhetoric, and his history (when he only had to win a extremely liberal area of chicago) are blatant socialism.
I'm pretty sure you don't know what the word socialism means in either it's historic, dictionary, literary, or U.S. political context.
So trolling is bad but flaming is totally fine?
I love when people who don't know you automatically assume you are idiot because you have an opinion they don't like.
Its fun isn't it?
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:ShumaGorath wrote:I still say most of his own ideas, his own rhetoric, and his history (when he only had to win a extremely liberal area of chicago) are blatant socialism.
I'm pretty sure you don't know what the word socialism means in either it's historic, dictionary, literary, or U.S. political context.
So trolling is bad but flaming is totally fine? I love when people who don't know you automatically assume you are idiot because you have an opinion they don't like.
Please then, enlighten about what obama believes or espouses that makes him blatantly socialist. As a litmus test I'm going to do the Ronald Raegan comparison. It has to be something Ronald Raegan didn't also believe or espouse. Be careful about your examples, Obamas socialism is the same standard progressivism that has been in American politics for 70 years and I'm not going to have a hard time drawing direct comparisons. As you may have noticed before, I dislike opinions that do not respect reality or are self conflicting. The idea that Obama is specially a socialist among american politics does not conform to the reality of American politics.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
It is not flaming to say that you don't think someone knows something. It is flaming to call them an idiot. They are not the same thing.
2059
Post by: ArtfcllyFlvrd
The idiot is implied by the tone.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
On a side note, I hear that John Boehner himself believes that global warming is real and excessive UV exposure causes cancer, but pretends otherwise, and makes himself a self-tanning potion from the fat of murdered babies. Automatically Appended Next Post: ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:The idiot is implied by the tone.
Tone is a darn tricky thing to judge on the internet, and most of us are better off assuming that (or at least acting as if) a pleasant, charitable tone is being used. If you think the person is being rude or breaking the rules, hit Alert Moderator.
16879
Post by: daedalus-templarius
Mannahnin wrote:On a side note, I hear that John Boehner himself believes that global warming is real and excessive UV exposure causes cancer, but pretends otherwise, and makes himself a self-tanning potion from the fat of murdered babies.
#NotIntendedToBeAFactualStatement
221
Post by: Frazzled
Mannahnin wrote:On a side note, I hear that John Boehner himself believes that global warming is real and excessive UV exposure causes cancer, but pretends otherwise, and makes himself a self-tanning potion from the fat of murdered babies.
***I thought it was babies and puppies? You don't get that vaguely orange tan just with babies. have we learned nothing from the Kerry fiasco?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:The idiot is implied by the tone.
Tone is a darn tricky thing to judge on the internet, and most of us are better off assuming that (or at least acting as if) a pleasant, charitable tone is being used. If you think the person is being rude or breaking the rules, hit Alert Moderator.
***I think the next post right above yours helps clarify his tone actually.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Frazzled wrote:ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:Mannahnin wrote:He wants at least some Republicans to agree with him and work with him, and bends over backwards to try to make that happen.
Maybe recently... maybe. But he's not acting out of his heart but out of polictical necessity. It's easy to be super liberal all the time when your district is san fransico. If you need win places like ohio, florida, new mexico, neveda, and the truly centrist places you can't go too insane. I still say most of his own ideas, his own rhetoric, and his history (when he only had to win a extremely liberal area of chicago) are blatant socialism.
I'm not faulting him. If I were President and had control I'd do the same thing, except I wouldn't have let the Creature (Pelosi) hijack my proposals. But then again, if I were eleceted all that hassle of voting would be a thing of the past anyway. Just do what I say and everything will be all right.
On the positive between this joke, the actual commission recommendations (which I put faith and great store by as they have actually moved to the "how do we implement this stage") Ryan's plan of rightwing nuttiness and a few others that will pop up I think we can make sausage out of this puppy, which is how the system is supposed to work.
If you posted more stuff like this we'd agree a lot more and you'd get in a lot fewer fights.
Frazzled wrote:[ Mannahnin wrote:Frazzled wrote:Mannahnin wrote:I think he's very centrist. Lliberal-leaning, but genuinely wants compromise and consensus. He wants at least some Republicans to agree with him and work with him, and bends over backwards to try to make that happen. A lot of "real" liberals get angry about it, as we see him compromising on principles we'd rather he stand firm for, and breaking promises we'd rather were kept. Obviously it's not all his fault. Presently I still believe more of the fault lies elsewhere than in his own lap, but we'll see what the voters and donors and volunteers think next year.
***Funny because thats exactly not how he operated when he controlled Congress...
Of course it is. Or the healthcare bill would have gotten passed in a month, and included a public option. Not a year and been watered down to pander to people who would rather poor people die in the street.
He didn't try it in the first few months if you recollect. The horror of the Pelosi Democrat gravy train (stimulus bill); Global tax and Spend; and then healthcare hit. He couldn't do that first because of that whole imploding economy thing. By the time he got around to it (besides again letting Pelosi craft it-why? why?!?!?) there was already heavy blowback from the previous bills.
The stimulus bill/economic disaster aversion methods were a baton passed to him from the outgoing team. Pretty much everyone from both parties got on that gravy train, even if they lied about it afterward (like Palin, among others).
I reiterate: The healthcare bill was worked on for over a year, and vastly watered down in trying to get Republicans on boad, including abandoning the public option he championed strongly when he was running for election. He had control of both houses congress. He easily could have passed a much different bill without making concessions to Republicans. But that's not what he did, in clear contradiction to your contention that he is not a compromiser and consensus-seeker.
2059
Post by: ArtfcllyFlvrd
ShumaGorath wrote:Obamas socialism is the same standard progressivism that has been in American politics for 70 years
That progressivism is socialist. Much of the modern Democratic Party is little more than an American socialist party. Not all, but a lot.
Nationalized/Centralized medicine is socialist.
Aggressively progressive income taxes are socialist.
Increased aide and subsidies for the underprivileged and poor are socialist.
Emphasis on federal over state and local government is socialist.
Emphasis on collectivism over individualism is socialist.
If you think those are all good things that’s fine, but they are all socialist ideas.
You only have to listen to the guy speak for about five minutes before you get a good picture of where his mind really lies. I'm sorry if the label appropriate for his ideaology is political suicide, but it is what it is.
221
Post by: Frazzled
No he needed the extra support from his own base to pass it. reason being it was so bad many knew it would hurt them. Voila we now have a strongly Republican Congrss and high likelihood of a Republican Senate after the next election. They over reached and the people called them on it.
8303
Post by: sexiest_hero
Play nice guys.
I feel let down by BO, and I find it sad that his most rabid fans, are the people hurt worst by his caving in. All it take is just one stroll through youtube aol or yahoo. to see what ever he says The other side will be against it. If he wants to cut medicare and medicaid fine. but there better be some tax hikes and Military base closings to go along with it. I wish the guy would spend time shooting town crazy myths as well.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:Mannahnin wrote:He wants at least some Republicans to agree with him and work with him, and bends over backwards to try to make that happen.
Maybe recently... maybe. But he's not acting out of his heart but out of polictical necessity.
And again, I point to the healthcare bill as an enormous piece of evidence that he tries to build consensus and get bipartisan agreement even when he doesn't have to and it pisses off his liberal supporters.
ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:[It's easy to be super liberal all the time when your district is san fransico. If you need win places like ohio, florida, new mexico, neveda, and the truly centrist places you can't go too insane.
So should I accuse you of flaming when you use the phrase "insane" to describe the policies which won him election to the office of President by the majority of American voters? The American people elected a firm advocate for and supporter of a Public Option. He beat up McCain in the debates in part by advocating that we deserve access to the same kind of healthcare that he and McCain enjoyed as Senators. Despite that, and despite the Dems having both house of Congress for two years, they bent over backwards to water down their healthcare bill to try to get bipartisan support, and gave away the Public Option.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled wrote:No he needed the extra support from his own base to pass it. reason being it was so bad many knew it would hurt them. Voila we now have a strongly Republican Congrss and high likelihood of a Republican Senate after the next election. They over reached and the people called them on it.
Not at all. The majority of American voters elected a guy who promised them a public option. They got beat up in the midterms because they lacked the balls to stand up and fight for what we elected them to give us. And they let nutjobs screaming about "death panels" in town halls control the debate over the healthcare bill.
16879
Post by: daedalus-templarius
sexiest_hero wrote: All it take is just one stroll through youtube aol or yahoo. .
Comment sections on most sites are a toxic miasma of conflicted, half-aware ramblings made by people that can barely string a grammatically proper sentence together.
Kind of like talking politics on facebook too. Some places claim they moderate their comments, but I don't ever believe it.
21678
Post by: Karon
Why are you guys throwing around words when you don't tell me what you mean?
Death Panels, Socialism, Liberalism, I want you to give me the fething definition if you are going to use the word.
Don't use Socialism as a negative term, its not, it is working for countries that are handling themselves hell of a lot better in the world than the United States.
2059
Post by: ArtfcllyFlvrd
sexiest_hero wrote: If he wants to cut medicare and medicaid fine. but there better be some tax hikes and Military base closings to go along with it.
Why? We spend about twice the money on entitlement as we do the military. Why shouldn't they get twice the cuts. Not to mention virtually all of the almost 4 trillion dollars in debt he has wracked up has been in stimilus or entitlements. It would take a $1.5 trillion per year cut (all in entitlements and stimulus) just to get us back to a $400 billion deficet with defense spending being around 1/3 of the budget.
221
Post by: Frazzled
daedalus-templarius wrote:sexiest_hero wrote: All it take is just one stroll through youtube aol or yahoo. .
Comment sections on most sites are a toxic miasma of conflicted, half-aware ramblings made by people that can barely string a grammatically proper sentence together.
Wow its almost like someone is talking about me. 
29408
Post by: Melissia
daedalus-templarius wrote:Social Security, Medicare, [...] will be exempted.
Then it's not gonna work...
* Comprehensive tax reform, which reduces loopholes, simplifies the system, allows the Bush tax cuts for high-income earners to expire, and reduces the corporate tax rate.
Well, at least THAT will help. The top percent get taxed a smaller percent of their money than the middle class because of these loopholes and etc.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Mannahnin wrote:ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:Mannahnin wrote:He wants at least some Republicans to agree with him and work with him, and bends over backwards to try to make that happen.
Maybe recently... maybe. But he's not acting out of his heart but out of polictical necessity.
And again, I point to the healthcare bill as an enormous piece of evidence that he tries to build consensus and get bipartisan agreement even when he doesn't have to and it pisses off his liberal supporters.
ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:[It's easy to be super liberal all the time when your district is san fransico. If you need win places like ohio, florida, new mexico, neveda, and the truly centrist places you can't go too insane.
So should I accuse you of flaming when you use the phrase "insane" to describe the policies which won him election to the office of President by the majority of American voters? The American people elected a firm advocate for and supporter of a Public Option. He beat up McCain in the debates in part by advocating that we deserve access to the same kind of healthcare that he and McCain enjoyed as Senators. Despite that, and despite the Dems having both house of Congress for two years, they bent over backwards to water down their healthcare bill to try to get bipartisan support, and gave away the Public Option.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:No he needed the extra support from his own base to pass it. reason being it was so bad many knew it would hurt them. Voila we now have a strongly Republican Congrss and high likelihood of a Republican Senate after the next election. They over reached and the people called them on it.
Not at all. The majority of American voters elected a guy who promised them a public option. They got beat up in the midterms because they lacked the balls to stand up and fight for what we elected them to give us. And they let nutjobs screaming about "death panels" in town halls control the debate over the healthcare bill.
Incorrect. Obama won because he wasn't Bush. The Democrats could have run a complete nobody and he would have beaten the Republican candidate ...oh wait!....
39004
Post by: biccat
ShumaGorath wrote:Lets see how well congress can get along now that theres an actual, meaningful, and essential discussion being held. Probably not well.
Totally agree.
You were talking about Democrat obstruction to the Republican budget plan, right?
29408
Post by: Melissia
And McCain wasn't Bush either, despite how hard he tried to appear like him...
16879
Post by: daedalus-templarius
Frazzled wrote:daedalus-templarius wrote:sexiest_hero wrote: All it take is just one stroll through youtube aol or yahoo. .
Comment sections on most sites are a toxic miasma of conflicted, half-aware ramblings made by people that can barely string a grammatically proper sentence together.
Wow its almost like someone is talking about me.
Oh Frazzled, no that wasn't actually aimed at you at all. I mean, have you read Youtube comments before? or Yahoo comments? They make my head hurt.
I think you are perfectly capable of putting together a grammatically proper sentence, and I generally don't consider your comments to be a toxic miasma either, however I do occasionally disagree with them 
biccat wrote:
You were talking about Democrat obstruction to the Republican budget plan, right?
Even Reagan's budget advisor say's his plan is bunk, as does just about every other economist I've seen a reaction from. His cuts to education are particularly revolting.
29408
Post by: Melissia
biccat wrote:You were talking about Democrat obstruction to the Republican budget plan, right?
Republicans don't have a budget plan, they have a torch, a soapbox, and a megaphone.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Karon wrote:Why are you guys throwing around words when you don't tell me what you mean?
Death Panels, Socialism, Liberalism, I want you to give me the fething definition if you are going to use the word.
Don't use Socialism as a negative term, its not, it is working for countries that are handling themselves hell of a lot better in the world than the United States.
I 'm just addressing the death panel thing. When an organization sudenly determines that the primary ways of determining cancer that kills millions of women is no longer needed for women over 70 you better believe thats a god damn death panel. Automatically Appended Next Post: daedalus-templarius wrote:Frazzled wrote:daedalus-templarius wrote:sexiest_hero wrote: All it take is just one stroll through youtube aol or yahoo. .
Comment sections on most sites are a toxic miasma of conflicted, half-aware ramblings made by people that can barely string a grammatically proper sentence together.
Wow its almost like someone is talking about me.
Oh Frazzled, no that wasn't actually aimed at you at all. I mean, have you read Youtube comments before? or Yahoo comments? They make my head hurt.
I think you are perfectly capable of putting together a grammatically proper sentence, and I generally don't consider your comments to be a toxic miasma either, however I do occasionally disagree with them
biccat wrote:
You were talking about Democrat obstruction to the Republican budget plan, right?
My wife call's my opinions "absolute crap" I thought she had called in a vote.
Even Reagan's budget advisor say's his plan is bunk, as does just about every other economist I've seen a reaction from. His cuts to education are particularly revolting.
39004
Post by: biccat
Frazzled wrote:I'm not faulting him. If I were President and had control I'd do the same thing, except I wouldn't have let the Creature (Pelosi) hijack my proposals. But then again, if I were eleceted all that hassle of voting would be a thing of the past anyway. Just do what I say and everything will be all right.
Seems you've got a friend in the House, Frazzled.
"take back your party, so that it doesn't matter so much who wins the election"
"elections shouldn't matter as much as they do"
That whole "elections have consequences" meme was so two years ago.
8303
Post by: sexiest_hero
Republicans don't have a budget plan, they have a torch, a soapbox, and a megaphone.
That's what America wants. It's easy to blame Poor people for the housing crisis and Hispanics for job losses that to say. WE all f'ed up.
If people wanted to actually work together we'd get.
Give up some entitlement and raise some taxes on the wealthy.
I've never seen a person president or otherwise bend over backwards for somebody who hated them so...well there was this one movie....
39004
Post by: biccat
sexiest_hero wrote:I've never seen a person president or otherwise bend over backwards for somebody who hated them so...well there was this one movie....
You must not have been around from January '01 to '09.
221
Post by: Frazzled
biccat wrote:Frazzled wrote:I'm not faulting him. If I were President and had control I'd do the same thing, except I wouldn't have let the Creature (Pelosi) hijack my proposals. But then again, if I were eleceted all that hassle of voting would be a thing of the past anyway. Just do what I say and everything will be all right.
Seems you've got a friend in the House, Frazzled.
"take back your party, so that it doesn't matter so much who wins the election"
"elections shouldn't matter as much as they do"
That whole "elections have consequences" meme was so two years ago.
Pelosi, Obama really should have sent Hillary to smark her around until she got in line. He blew his presidency letting her craft anything but the lunch menu.
8303
Post by: sexiest_hero
I have a lot of respect for her, she's got more balls than the big O. She fought hard for his goals and got tossed under the bus. It's Just people love saying Reid/Pelosi because that's pretty much all they know.
29408
Post by: Melissia
sexiest_hero wrote:Republicans don't have a budget plan, they have a torch, a soapbox, and a megaphone.
That's what America wants.
Tea party != all of America.
Just a small, very obnoxiously vocal portion.
Just large and vocal enough to cause a few seats to change and give trouble to both the repugs and the dems, but small enough that they can't actually get what they want done.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:ShumaGorath wrote:Obamas socialism is the same standard progressivism that has been in American politics for 70 years
That progressivism is socialist. Much of the modern Democratic Party is little more than an American socialist party. Not all, but a lot.
So you're using a watered down, meaningless version of socialism that is a synonym for democrat. Lets run through your bullet points.
Nationalized/Centralized medicine is socialist.
And yet republicans fight to defend medicare cuts tooth and nail. Reagan had a large hand in reforming and continuing this very system. Aggressively progressive income taxes are socialist.
That sentence doesn't even make sense. You swapped out progressive for "scaling with wealth" which it doesn't mean in any dictionary anywhere. Also you used progressive and socialist as a synonym again which continues to show that you don't have a firm definition for socialist and use it interchangeably with democrat or liberal. Comparing current and Reagan era tax rates also doesn't favor your comparison. Increased aide and subsidies for the underprivileged and poor are socialist.
Like those farm subsidies? Like medicare? Like social security? The things on the chopping block? I think you may want to actually revisit which party protects the largest forms of socialized expenditure. Hint: Its the one with the elderly voting block that screams death panels every chance it gets because actual reasonable debate doesn't favor them. Emphasis on federal over state and local government is socialist.
No. It's not. Thats not what that word means. I'm not even going to throw out republican examples. Thats just NOT WHAT SOCIALISM MEANS. Emphasis on collectivism over individualism is socialist.
No. Thats collectivist. You just used the word. Please try and avoid using socialism to mean more then 5 conflicting things at once. If you think those are all good things that’s fine, but they are all socialist ideas.
It doesn't matter what I think of them. What matters is you're incredibly loose and utterly meaningless use of the word socialist as a buzzword for "bad liberal". You only have to listen to the guy speak for about five minutes before you get a good picture of where his mind really lies. I'm sorry if the label appropriate for his ideaology is political suicide, but it is what it is.
It's hard to label something accurately when you don't have a real organized view of what that label actually means.
16879
Post by: daedalus-templarius
The media and some politicians certainly make the tea party out to be like 80% of the population.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
In particular, he attacked Republicans' proposal to cut taxes for the wealthy while making elderly Americans pay more for their healthcare, as analysts have said the Republican plan would work out. "They want to give people like me a $200,000 tax cut that's paid for by asking 33 seniors to each pay $6,000 more in health costs?" Mr Obama asked. "That's not right, and it's not going to happen as long as I'm president. "The fact is, their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America. "There's nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires." But top Republicans, whom Mr Obama briefed on his proposal on Tuesday morning, have staunchly rejected his call to increase tax revenue raised from wealthy Americans. The House is due to vote on Mr Ryan's proposal on Friday.
The rich have earned not only their comfort, but opulence, the old have earned nothing. So we will give the rich a tax break that is worth more than what 90% of people earn in a year.Really?
8303
Post by: sexiest_hero
I'm just surrounded by them here in Ohio. I'm still getting Obama is going to cut Military pay in half emails from my inlaws.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
biccat wrote:sexiest_hero wrote:I've never seen a person president or otherwise bend over backwards for somebody who hated them so...well there was this one movie....
You must not have been around from January '01 to '09.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. [breathes deeply] AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Pretty much everyone cut Bush all sorts of slack until at least 03 or 04. He didn't start losing good faith and credibility until people realized they were being lied to and the country hijacked for a totally unnecessary war of choice. There were a few exceptions. A friend of mine asked him personally here in NH, during the race, about upholding Roe vs Wade, and he said "I don't think this country's ready for a change." Then the first day in office he reinstated the Global Gag Rule.
29408
Post by: Melissia
daedalus-templarius wrote:The media and some politicians certainly make the tea party out to be like 80% of the population.
Of course they do, it's sensational and therefor it's "news".
But the Tea Party movement doesn't represent even a majority in the Republican Party as far as actual elected politicians go, nevermind the nation at large.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
I grew up Libertarian. NH is the selected state for the Free State Project, where Libertarians interested in moving home pick one state to move to which is small and already sympathetic to their views, and work together to make that State a bastion of Libertarian ideas and ideals. I know a few Free Staters.
Having grown up with these folks gives me a rather sharp perspective on the Tea Party, being as it is made up primarily of an unholy amalgam of traditional small-government Libertarians, nutjob religious conservatives, and paranoid conspiracy crazies. I am sympathetic and friendly to many of the Libertarians, even if I find their economic ideas childishly selfish and badly in conflict with reality.
39004
Post by: biccat
Mannahnin wrote:I am sympathetic and friendly to many of the Libertarians, even if I find their economic ideas childishly selfish and badly in conflict with reality.
Well, you've clearly made your opinion clear about people you disagree with. I'm amazed that you somehow made it to be a moderator with such biased views against people of the opposite political persuasion.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Pretty funny, eh? Especially since the original owner of the site, who asked me to moderate here ten years ago, is quite Libertarian, and we've butted heads over politics a few times over the years.
I have a great deal of respect for their views on social and other issues. I have a great deal of respect for other people whose politics I disagree with. Not all of them, of course, but many of them.
My dad ran for Congress as a Libertarian and my mother ran for Governor. I know Libertarianism. It's like my first family. I'm never going to be a Democrat, even if they're the closest thing in this country to an passably-acceptable political party IMO.
I can rip on the ideas, even if I like the people. I'm not even of the opposite political persuation. I'm not a communist or even a proper socialist.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
Mannahnin wrote:I grew up Libertarian. NH is the selected state for the Free State Project, where Libertarians interested in moving home pick one state to move to which is small and already sympathetic to their views, and work together to make that State a bastion of Libertarian ideas and ideals. I know a few Free Staters.
Having grown up with these folks gives me a rather sharp perspective on the Tea Party, being as it is made up primarily of an unholy amalgam of traditional small-government Libertarians, nutjob religious conservatives, and paranoid conspiracy crazies. I am sympathetic and friendly to many of the Libertarians, even if I find their economic ideas childishly selfish and badly in conflict with reality.
Socially, I love libertarians. Economically, completely different issue. I'm more a lefty there.
2059
Post by: ArtfcllyFlvrd
ShumaGorath wrote:ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:ShumaGorath wrote:Obamas socialism is the same standard progressivism that has been in American politics for 70 years
That progressivism is socialist. Much of the modern Democratic Party is little more than an American socialist party. Not all, but a lot.
So you're using a watered down, meaningless version of socialism that is a synonym for democrat. Lets run through your bullet points.
Nationalized/Centralized medicine is socialist.
And yet republicans fight to defend medicare cuts tooth and nail. Reagan had a large hand in reforming and continuing this very system.
Aggressively progressive income taxes are socialist.
That sentence doesn't even make sense. You swapped out progressive for "scaling with wealth" which it doesn't mean in any dictionary anywhere. Also you used progressive and socialist as a synonym again which continues to show that you don't have a firm definition for socialist and use it interchangeably with democrat or liberal. Comparing current and Reagan era tax rates also doesn't favor your comparison.
Increased aide and subsidies for the underprivileged and poor are socialist.
Like those farm subsidies? Like medicare? Like social security? The things on the chopping block? I think you may want to actually revisit which party protects the largest forms of socialized expenditure. Hint: Its the one with the elderly voting block that screams death panels every chance it gets because actual reasonable debate doesn't favor them.
Emphasis on federal over state and local government is socialist.
No. It's not. Thats not what that word means. I'm not even going to throw out republican examples. Thats just NOT WHAT SOCIALISM MEANS.
Emphasis on collectivism over individualism is socialist.
No. Thats collectivist. You just used the word. Please try and avoid using socialism to mean more then 5 conflicting things at once.
If you think those are all good things that’s fine, but they are all socialist ideas.
It doesn't matter what I think of them. What matters is you're incredibly loose and utterly meaningless use of the word socialist as a buzzword for "bad liberal".
You only have to listen to the guy speak for about five minutes before you get a good picture of where his mind really lies. I'm sorry if the label appropriate for his ideaology is political suicide, but it is what it is.
It's hard to label something accurately when you don't have a real organized view of what that label actually means.
I don’t even know how to respond.
Saying that a steep progressive income is not socialist when Karl Marx himself advocated for it is silly.
Saying emphasizing federal government over local government is not a socialist idea when virtually every socialist in history has instituted a strong federal government is silly.
Saying collectivism does not go hand in hand with socialism which emphasizes the needs and success of the group over the individual is silly.
Comparing Reagan’s medicare reform with socialized medicine when Reagan was one of the biggest opponents of socialized medicine in recent history is silly.
Yes sometimes Republicans support social(ist) programs for various reasons. I don’t usually agree but that’s beside the point. You are the one saying I think socialism is bad, I said no such thing. But Barack’s ideas are textbook socialist thinking. Do what you will with that fact, but it is a fact.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Just because a socialist or communist advocated a thing, does not mean that thing is necessarily socialist. If Karl Marx advocated a nutritious breakfast, that doesn't make breakfast socialist. Socialism as a concept is not synonymous with a federal government over local governments. You could have a locally-based socialist system just as easily.
Wikipedia wrote:As a political movement, socialism includes a diverse array of political philosophies, ranging from reformism to revolutionary socialism. Some currents of socialism, often referred to as state socialism, advocate complete nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange as a strategy for implementing socialism; while social democrats advocate public control of capital within the framework of a market economy. Libertarian socialists and anarchists reject using the state to build socialism, arguing that socialism will, and must, arise spontaneously. They advocate direct worker-ownership of the means of production alternatively through independent syndicates, workplace democracies, or worker cooperatives.
Reagan was a vocal opponent of socialized medicine, but what he was talking about was vastly different than what Republicans or Tea Partiers are criticizing in America nowadays. You need to get a bit more substantive here. Shuma's point is that many Reagan policies, in terms of health care, taxes, (etc.) were actually much closer to Obama policies than to those of people who presently oppose him.
Republicans support a lot of socialist programs. We have a socialized military. And fire departments. And police.
Obama is a bit more socialist than Republicans typically are, but compared to people who actually support socialism in countries where it's not a dirty word, he's a far cry. It's like the old joke about the Brit explaining to a fellow Brit about the two American political parties: "They have the Republicans, who are rather like our Conservative Party, and the Democrats, who are rather like our Conservative Party."
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
I don’t even know how to respond.
It shows. Saying that a steep progressive income is not socialist when Karl Marx himself advocated for it is silly.
So did king george the first. So did tokugawa. Taxes based on wealth that rise proportionally with wealth pre date marx significantly and is a tradition of governance and taxes. Saying emphasizing federal government over local government is not a socialist idea when virtually every socialist in history has instituted a strong federal government is silly.
Funny, thats something monarchies do too. Same with totalitarian military juntas. Same with single party empires. Same with theocracies. Hell, most democracies on earth do that. It's not a socialist "thing". It's a "thing". Saying collectivism does not go hand in hand with socialism which emphasizes the needs and success of the group over the individual is silly.
Go hand in hand? Sure. The same? No. Thats the thing about things being different. They can be similar. They can be friends. But they aren't the same. Comparing Reagan’s medicare reform with socialized medicine when Reagan was one of the biggest opponents of socialized medicine in recent history is silly.
No, it just demonstrates how meaningless and foolish your rhetoric about socialism is. Yes sometimes Republicans support social(ist) programs for various reasons. I don’t usually agree but that’s beside the point. You are the one saying I think socialism is bad, I said no such thing. But Barack’s ideas are textbook socialist thinking. Do what you will with that fact, but it is a fact.
I'm the one stating that you don't know what the term means. That you just use it as en empty label. You use it interchangeably with authoritarian, collectivist, democrat, and bad and you've proven through this conversation that you have absolutely no perspective on historical governance, historical american governance, or dictionary definitions.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Mannahnin wrote:It's like the old joke about the Brit explaining to a fellow Brit about the two American political parties: "They have the Republicans, who are rather like our Conservative Party, and the Democrats, who are rather like our Conservative Party."
Heh. I think I heard that from a Mexican perspective once...
16879
Post by: daedalus-templarius
Mannahnin wrote: It's like the old joke about the Brit explaining to a fellow Brit about the two American political parties: "They have the Republicans, who are rather like our Conservative Party, and the Democrats, who are rather like our Conservative Party."
Lol, so true.
39469
Post by: Sckitzo
Is Mr. a common form of address when referencing the POTUS? Form some reason that was annoying me. But an interesting article
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Haven't there been a load of tax cuts in the past 10 (ish) years in the USA?
Didn't they work?
12313
Post by: Ouze
Kilkrazy wrote:Haven't there been a load of tax cuts in the past 10 (ish) years in the USA?
Didn't they work?
Yes, the Bush tax cuts (and tax reductions on major corporations in general) led to a wave of prosperity in America the likes of which had never seen. The unemployment rate sunk to historic lows, the middle class became broad, our social welfare programs were strengthened, and our increased revenue allowed us to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and turn our education system into the best in the world. Behold our American utopia!
Except, um, mostly the complete opposite. Automatically Appended Next Post: Sckitzo wrote:Is Mr. a common form of address when referencing the POTUS?
Yes, it is the correct style, so to speak.
221
Post by: Frazzled
biccat wrote:Mannahnin wrote:I am sympathetic and friendly to many of the Libertarians, even if I find their economic ideas childishly selfish and badly in conflict with reality.
Well, you've clearly made your opinion clear about people you disagree with. I'm amazed that you somehow made it to be a moderator with such biased views against people of the opposite political persuasion.
Agreed.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Sckitzo wrote:Is Mr. a common form of address when referencing the POTUS? Form some reason that was annoying me. But an interesting article
Mr. President (or Ms./Mrs./Madame President for whenever the first female president gets elected) is the common form of address.
Not just mister. Mister President.
2059
Post by: ArtfcllyFlvrd
Mannahnin wrote:Just because a socialist or communist advocated a thing, does not mean that thing is necessarily socialist. If Karl Marx advocated a nutritious breakfast, that doesn't make breakfast socialist. Socialism as a concept is not synonymous with a federal government over local governments. You could have a locally-based socialist system just as easily.
I agree and disagree. A nutritious breakfast is not a hallmark belief of socialists. Nationalized medicine is. If someone says they are for nationalized medicine it may not be fair to outright call them a socialist, though they share that same belief as a socialist.
But when someone shares many ideas with, or the majority of ideas with those of a socialist then yes I do think it is fair to call that person a socialist no matter what they would like to call themselves.
And pure socialism is synonymous with centralized government. It is fundamental to that way of the thinking. The more disbursed the government, the more freedom each region has, the more inequality will develop between the regions. Socialism can’t allow people, towns, counties, or states to rule themselves because if they become successful they will opt out of the socialist system and it will collapse. Socialism requires an absolute government over all people in the system. Virtually every socialist writer in history has been an advocate for national or world government, because it is central to how the system has to work.
@ Shuma
Again, if someone disagrees or has a different perspective it must automatically mean they have no clue about history, philosophy, or anything at all. You really should tame that down or you run a serious risk of never learning anything again, but it appears you haven’t learned much to this point anyway.
Socialism shares a lot of beliefs with authoritarian governments because socialism is by nature authoritarian. If the president or the Democratic party only had one or two ideas in common with socialists I would say they have some socialist ideas. But like I said above, when you have a healthy majority of your beliefs in common with socialist I think the label because appropriate.
38744
Post by: Brushfire
Socialism shares a lot of beliefs with authoritarian governments because socialism is by nature authoritarian.
True, but all governments are authoritarian by nature. Nothing gets done without the threat of force. Socialism is just one flavor. Between both parties, I'd say we have a bit of socialism, fascism, and corporatism all mixed together.
2059
Post by: ArtfcllyFlvrd
Brushfire wrote:True, but all governments are authoritarian by nature. Nothing gets done without the threat of force.
By authoriation I mean no checks (or very checks) on power that is extremly centralized. So a dictatorship, a traditional monarchy, some theocracies, communism and socialism. As opposed to our government where power is (relative to the rest of the world) decentralized with many checks on power.
Of course all governments have "authority" and all governments use police to enforce their rules, that's not really what I'm talking about.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Socialism isn't depedant on unchecked power. A socialist country can easily have lots of checks and balances.
2059
Post by: ArtfcllyFlvrd
Melissia wrote:Socialism isn't depedant on unchecked power. A socialist country can easily have lots of checks and balances.
The socialism in Europe isn’t completely unchecked. Pure socialism is, and any socialism requires more unchecked power than capitalism.
A few examples:
Moderately Socialist Countries
The government has the right to limit your income (not just through taxes but income caps)
The government has the right to redistribute the money you earn to other citizens as they see fit
The government has a greater influence in how you are able to operate your business
The government has a greater influence in the products and services you can and cannot purchase
Pure/Extremely Socialist Countries
The government has the right to determine where you live
The government has the right to determine if you go to school
The government has the right to determine what you go to school for
The government has the right to determine how much, or whether you eat
The government has the right to determine whether you get medical treatment
The government has the right to determine your access to transportation
The government has the right to determine whether you can or cannot leave the country (and it usually is cannot because they can’t have their successful/producing citizens skipping town)
In some instances in history the government decided whether you could procreate or not
In the worst instances the government had the right to determine whether your life was beneficial to society or not
Maybe you don’t think the government getting involved in some of these areas is bad. But these are the areas that socialism requires, and getting involved in them in a constitutional government with enumerated powers is tricky. Getting involved in a government with few or no restraints is easy. Socialism fundamentally needs few or no checks on the power that a government can wield.
2548
Post by: jmurph
ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:By authoriation I mean no checks (or very checks) on power that is extremly centralized. So a dictatorship, a traditional monarchy, some theocracies, communism and socialism. As opposed to our government where power is (relative to the rest of the world) decentralized with many checks on power.
Of course all governments have "authority" and all governments use police to enforce their rules, that's not really what I'm talking about.
Yep, that's why all those socialist democracies were busy invading the communists and fascists in WW2- their absolute power led to horrific abuse.
Socialism does not necessitate control by force- basic democracy usually works on a socialistic premise. And it can range from altruistic to oppressive. Authority can be limited in many forms of government. And tyrants can arise from many forms of government. People often forget that democracy produced the fascists states of the 20th century.
Basically, the quality of your country is determined by *gasp* the people who live there, not an arbitrary label!
BTW, pure "capitalism" doesn't usually last long. Read some Adam Smith. It's kind of the same reason anarchies don't work for long- the strong start pushing everybody around. Social control is a basic premise of civilization.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
and any socialism requires more unchecked power than capitalism.
 Socialism and capitalism aren't mutually exclusive terms. Capitalism isn't even a form of government. Socialism fundamentally needs few or no checks on the power that a government can wield.
 Screw it, I'm tagging someone else in. Someone else deal with this.
2059
Post by: ArtfcllyFlvrd
jmurph wrote:Yep, that's why all those socialist democracies were busy invading the communists and fascists in WW2- their absolute power led to horrific abuse.
If I recall my history correctly the Axis powers were made up of one monarchy (Japan), one fascist (Itally), and one socialist nation (Nazis). That's one point that they don't teach in history anymore, the Nazi's were some of the purest socialists around. About the only way they deviated from traditional extreme socialism (or communism) was in their national vs international focus. In virtually every other way the Nazis were the logical conclusion of most socialist thinking.
And socialist democracies do have some checks within the branches/areas of the government, but they have considerably fewer checks than US on what the government can and cannot get involved in. And the US has been ignoring most of our own checks for the past 80 years. Automatically Appended Next Post: ShumaGorath wrote:Socialism and capitalism aren't mutually exclusive terms. Capitalism isn't even a form of government.
Except that they polar opposite and fundamentally opposed to one another. Socialism is not technically a form of government either. There are socialist democracies, dictaroships, and everything in between. Pretty much the same as capitalism. But capitalism lends itself to one type of government (free, decentralized, small government), socialism another (large, centralize, with less individual freedom). And like the two economic systems the types of government that are the logical fits are also fundamentally opposed to one another. Not that it always works out so perfectly, but I think if you pay attention to what's going on the world things typicall drift in those directions.
38744
Post by: Brushfire
As opposed to our government where power is (relative to the rest of the world) decentralized with many checks on power.
Which is becoming more in name only as time goes by, as the executive branch under several administrations, both Republican and Democrats, garnered more power unto themselves. Obama's intervention in Libya without consulting Congress is one example.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Except that they polar opposite and fundamentally opposed to one another.
No, thats collectivist communist economics.
Socialism is not technically a form of government either.
Nope, it's a method of governance. Which capitalism is not.
There are socialist democracies, dictaroships, and everything in between. Pretty much the same as capitalism.
Nope. Economic and governmental systems are not inherently intrinsically linked unless the government is the regulating and controlling factor in the economy.
But capitalism lends itself to one type of government (free, decentralized, small government)
No. It doesn't. Considering virtually every country on earth is capitalist it doesn't lend itself to any form of government. You just wish it did because it would legitimize you're contradictory and nonsense views on socialism and capitalism.
socialism another (large, centralize, with less individual freedom).
Is that why the freest countries on the planet are capitalist democracies with wide ranging socialist policies? Or do you mean individual freedom in the way that some dude in sub saharan africa can do anything he wants in the absence of functioning governance.
And like the two economic systems the types of government that are the logical fits are also fundamentally opposed to one another.
SOCIALISM IS NOT A FORM OF ECONOMY. THE MOST POWERFUL ECONOMIES ON EARTH UTILIZE SOCIALIST SOCIAL POLICIES.
Not that it always works out so perfectly, but I think if you pay attention to what's going on the world things typicall drift in those directions.
5534
Post by: dogma
Frazzled wrote:
1. Its not trolling if its true.
So, if I say something like "I think Texas is a terrible state!" I'm not trolling? After all, it may well be a true statement about what I think.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled wrote:
Incorrect. Obama won because he wasn't Bush. The Democrats could have run a complete nobody and he would have beaten the Republican candidate ...oh wait!....
And yet, until the financial crisis, poll numbers put Obama neck-and-neck with McCain.
2548
Post by: jmurph
ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:
If I recall my history correctly the Axis powers were made up of one monarchy (Japan), one fascist (Itally), and one socialist nation (Nazis). That's one point that they don't teach in history anymore, the Nazi's were some of the purest socialists around. About the only way they deviated from traditional extreme socialism (or communism) was in their national vs international focus. In virtually every other way the Nazis were the logical conclusion of most socialist thinking.
You do not recall correctly. The National Socialist German Workers Party Party was largely a nationalist party that was socialist only to the degree that necessary that a popular, centrist nationalist-oriented workers movement might be created that could challenge the rise of Communism, as well as the internationalist left and right in general. The original founders (German Worker's Party- DAP) even objected to it being labelled a socialist movement and supported profit sharing, not socialism, like many populist movements at the time! A young corporal named Adolph Hitler was sent to infiltrate and investigate for subversive tendencies.
Hitler was the one who added the "Socialist" part to increase broad appeal to socialists and nationalists. But his agenda was uninterested in socialism beyond moving authority for social welfare from the church to the state (he didn't want any authority besides the state IE him). He disliked the mass working class of the big cities (viewed them as corrupted by Bolsheviks or minorities), and had no sympathy with the notions of attacking private property or the business class. Indeed, much of Hitler's rhetoric in 21 and 22 focused on anti socialist and anti liberal backlash for the failed Weimar Republic.
The socialist nations at the time stood in direct opposition to both Hitler's anti-Communist fascism and Stalin's Communism. The United States adopted increasingly socialist positions (such as a national welfare program for the elderly and disabled), after the collapse during the Great Depression (largely attributed to free market capitalism).
The fact that you cannot deistinguish from historical fascism, socialism (especially of the liberal democracy flavor) and Communism is telling.
Governance and economic systems are distinct but inter-related as you cannot completely separate a nations economic activity from its governance except in the abstract. But that's okay, because absolute forms (which the uneducated often try to apply to real world hybrids) only exist there, too. It's why those who raise the flag of capitalism while ignoring its excesses, failures, and tendency towards crony-ism are laughable. In the real world, most systems do get subverted to one degree or another- there is no "perfect" system as their are a myriad of different situations. Such dogmatism is understandable in religion, but much less so in an economic policy setting where pesky things like "facts" and "numbers" show up.
But follow your faith of unrestrained capitalism and when the big wigs squeeze you without any accountability, let us know how that works for you. Adam Smith certainly wasn't a fan and foresaw such problems. Not sure why apologists ignore them. Oh yeah, that's how faith, not problem solving, works.
2059
Post by: ArtfcllyFlvrd
ShumaGorath wrote:Except that they polar opposite and fundamentally opposed to one another.
No, thats collectivist communist economics.
So we can at least I agree capitalism and communism are polar opposites. But how is a system that emphasizes success of the group, needs of the group, responsibilities to the group not the polar opposite of a system that emphasizes the need of the individual, the success of the individual, the responsibilities of the individual for themselves? Socialism and communism are not the exact same thing but you seem to ignore the areas where they are similar. They are both collectivist ideologies, and both favor some sort of central administration used to redistribute the resources of the nation. I don’t see how you can argue that.
ShumaGorath wrote: Socialism is not technically a form of government either.
Nope, it's a method of governance. Which capitalism is not.
How is capitalism any less of a “method” of government. They are both economic systems based on ideologies that influence the way people govern. I think you are fighting just to fight on this one.
ShumaGorath wrote: There are socialist democracies, dictaroships, and everything in between. Pretty much the same as capitalism.
Nope. Economic and governmental systems are not inherently intrinsically linked unless the government is the regulating and controlling factor in the economy.
I disagree. Like I said I the base assumptions about life, people, and how they should interact that feed economic systems fit better with the base assumptions about life, people, and how they should interact that shape certain forms of governments. I already said it doesn’t work out perfectly in the real world. We can disagree on if the real world is drifting in a way that the economic systems match the political systems (I think it is), and we can disagree on which one drives the other, but again I think you are fighting just to fight on this point.
ShumaGorath wrote: But capitalism lends itself to one type of government (free, decentralized, small government)
No. It doesn't. Considering virtually every country on earth is capitalist it doesn't lend itself to any form of government. You just wish it did because it would legitimize you're contradictory and nonsense views on socialism and capitalism.
This is pretty much tied to the last point. The base assumptions of capitalism do fit in better with the base assumptions of certain governments. It’s not perfect in real life, but I think the general trend is the that either the economics or the government starts to change so that the underlying beliefs of the government and economy line up over time.
ShumaGorath wrote: socialism another (large, centralize, with less individual freedom).
Is that why the freest countries on the planet are capitalist democracies with wide ranging socialist policies? Or do you mean individual freedom in the way that some dude in sub saharan africa can do anything he wants in the absence of functioning governance.
I think the social policies of the free nations limit our freedom and have been taking the western world towards larger, more centralized, less free governments. Nobody is advocating anarchy, but I find it hard to argue that economic freedom is not diminishing in the US.
ShumaGorath wrote: And like the two economic systems the types of government that are the logical fits are also fundamentally opposed to one another.
SOCIALISM IS NOT A FORM OF ECONOMY. THE MOST POWERFUL ECONOMIES ON EARTH UTILIZE SOCIALIST SOCIAL POLICIES.
Socialism is a form of economy. Most western nations are blended economies, not nearly as capitalist and they used to be and are drifting towards a pure socialist economy. Will that drift reserve, get worse, stall, who knows. Social policies are all economic in nature, because socialism an economic ideology.
ShumaGorath wrote: Not that it always works out so perfectly, but I think if you pay attention to what's going on the world things typicall drift in those directions.
Pictures venting your frustration are not helpful. I came into the thread calm and expressing an educated opinion. You are the one who, not liking my opinion, has blown off the handle. If you don’t like what other people have to say, don’t post stuff in public forums.
39469
Post by: Sckitzo
Melissia wrote:Sckitzo wrote:Is Mr. a common form of address when referencing the POTUS? Form some reason that was annoying me. But an interesting article
Mr. President (or Ms./Mrs./Madame President for whenever the first female president gets elected) is the common form of address.
Not just mister. Mister President.
See this I'm used to, but Mr. Obama just seemed...off.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:ShumaGorath wrote:Except that they polar opposite and fundamentally opposed to one another.
No, thats collectivist communist economics.
So we can at least I agree capitalism and communism are polar opposites. But how is a system that emphasizes success of the group, needs of the group, responsibilities to the group not the polar opposite of a system that emphasizes the need of the individual, the success of the individual, the responsibilities of the individual for themselves? Socialism and communism are not the exact same thing but you seem to ignore the areas where they are similar. They are both collectivist ideologies, and both favor some sort of central administration used to redistribute the resources of the nation. I don’t see how you can argue that. ShumaGorath wrote: Socialism is not technically a form of government either.
Nope, it's a method of governance. Which capitalism is not.
How is capitalism any less of a “method” of government. They are both economic systems based on ideologies that influence the way people govern. I think you are fighting just to fight on this one. ShumaGorath wrote: There are socialist democracies, dictaroships, and everything in between. Pretty much the same as capitalism.
Nope. Economic and governmental systems are not inherently intrinsically linked unless the government is the regulating and controlling factor in the economy.
I disagree. Like I said I the base assumptions about life, people, and how they should interact that feed economic systems fit better with the base assumptions about life, people, and how they should interact that shape certain forms of governments. I already said it doesn’t work out perfectly in the real world. We can disagree on if the real world is drifting in a way that the economic systems match the political systems (I think it is), and we can disagree on which one drives the other, but again I think you are fighting just to fight on this point. ShumaGorath wrote: But capitalism lends itself to one type of government (free, decentralized, small government)
No. It doesn't. Considering virtually every country on earth is capitalist it doesn't lend itself to any form of government. You just wish it did because it would legitimize you're contradictory and nonsense views on socialism and capitalism.
This is pretty much tied to the last point. The base assumptions of capitalism do fit in better with the base assumptions of certain governments. It’s not perfect in real life, but I think the general trend is the that either the economics or the government starts to change so that the underlying beliefs of the government and economy line up over time. ShumaGorath wrote: socialism another (large, centralize, with less individual freedom).
Is that why the freest countries on the planet are capitalist democracies with wide ranging socialist policies? Or do you mean individual freedom in the way that some dude in sub saharan africa can do anything he wants in the absence of functioning governance.
I think the social policies of the free nations limit our freedom and have been taking the western world towards larger, more centralized, less free governments. Nobody is advocating anarchy, but I find it hard to argue that economic freedom is not diminishing in the US. ShumaGorath wrote: And like the two economic systems the types of government that are the logical fits are also fundamentally opposed to one another.
SOCIALISM IS NOT A FORM OF ECONOMY. THE MOST POWERFUL ECONOMIES ON EARTH UTILIZE SOCIALIST SOCIAL POLICIES.
Socialism is a form of economy. Most western nations are blended economies, not nearly as capitalist and they used to be and are drifting towards a pure socialist economy. Will that drift reserve, get worse, stall, who knows. Social policies are all economic in nature, because socialism an economic ideology. ShumaGorath wrote: Not that it always works out so perfectly, but I think if you pay attention to what's going on the world things typicall drift in those directions.
Pictures venting your frustration are not helpful. I came into the thread calm and expressing an educated opinion. You are the one who, not liking my opinion, has blown off the handle. If you don’t like what other people have to say, don’t post stuff in public forums.
In 2012, Kanya West will reunite with the Three Lost Kanyes (north, south, east) and the world will be cleansed in fire. After reading this I can't fething wait to die. I don't want to live on this planet any more.
2059
Post by: ArtfcllyFlvrd
jmurph wrote:
You do not recall correctly.
A couple of things about that. I think we can all agree Hitler had an insane, confused, and contradictory way of looking at the world. And I am not saying 100% of what the Nazi’s believed was what a socialist would believe. I am saying that there was a socialist mentality (you yourself said it was used to sell the Nazi agenda) that went hand in hand with the Nazi way of thinking, and a lot of the horrible things they did were justified because of their overall good for the society.
Would a socialist come to the same conclusions and make the same decisions? No. Is it easy to see how socialist values can be abused to do some pretty awful things? Yes. Is a lot of what the Nazis did examples of that? Yes. Are some of the things Nazis did advocated for on a smaller by leading socialist thinkers? Yes.
On a side note, hurling insults and questioning people’s intelligence does not make you right.
Automatically Appended Next Post: ShumaGorath wrote:After reading this I can't fething wait to die. I don't want to live on this planet any more.
Feel free to do so anytime.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
On a side note, hurling insults and questioning people’s intelligence does not make you right.
No, but when you're as wrong as you are it's the only recourse seemingly left. Most of your posts are supported with "I think". Thats not a logical argumentative basis upon which to believe anything. You don't have reasons for believing what you do. What you believe makes no sense logically, it's circular and contradictory in ways that are as vexing as they are confusing. You make up definitions to suit arguments and then you base arguments on those definitions. Economies are governments, socialism is collectivism, socialism is "authoritarian", capitalism is "freeing", taxes are "progressive", "socialisms" need to have few "checks and balances". These are baseless, meaningless, hyperbolic inferences and you refuse to examine them in even the most simple of ways, instead redoubling the insistence of one by stating another and equivocating them. It's what a five year old would do.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Gentlemen,
Please keep the discussion courteous. Let me remind you that attacking an argument is fine. Attacking a poster is not.
Thanks!
2059
Post by: ArtfcllyFlvrd
ShumaGorath wrote:On a side note, hurling insults and questioning people’s intelligence does not make you right.
No, but when you're as wrong as you are it's the only recourse seemingly left. Most of your posts are supported with "I think". Thats not a logical argumentative basis upon which to believe anything. You don't have reasons for believing what you do. What you believe makes no sense logically, it's circular and contradictory in ways that are as vexing as they are confusing. You make up definitions to suit arguments and then you base arguments on those definitions. Economies are governments, socialism is collectivism, socialism is "authoritarian", capitalism is "freeing", taxes are "progressive", "socialisms" need to have few "checks and balances". These are baseless, meaningless, hyperbolic inferences and you refuse to examine them in even the most simple of ways, instead redoubling the insistence of one by stating another and equivocating them. It's what a five year old would do.
I use “I think” as a way to shorten what would be 5 pages worth of dialogue into something appropriate for an internet gaming forum. If you showed genuine interest in understanding a differing opinion I would be happy to elaborate. But your method shuts down communication, makes yourself look silly, and is generally childish and unscholarly.
If jargon is really what has gotten you so worked up, please provide me with your definitions of socialism, communism, collectivism, government, economies, authoritarian, and any other concept where you may not have understood what I meant and I would be happy to rephrase my arguments for you.
But all indications would point to the fact that you don't want to have a real discussion, you want to shut down someone who is saying something that might make a politician you like look bad.
5394
Post by: reds8n
the Nazi's were some of the purest socialists around
hence why they got on so well with the Soviet Union and Hitler's many, many speeches saying what a great idea socialism is.
Oh.. hang on..
Well, it must have been two, maybe even three days since that rascally old Hitler reared his head in the OT board, but fret not I'm sure he and his goosestepping chums will be back soon enough, in a thread that you'd think was even less likely than this one to feature him. But, bless it and all who post therein, I have every faith the OT board will find a way.
|
|
