(Reuters) - The Senate defeated President Barack Obama's job-creation package on Tuesday in a sign that Washington is likely too paralyzed to take major steps to spur hiring before the 2012 elections.
The $447 billion package of tax cuts and new spending failed by a vote of 50 to 48, short of the 60 votes it needed to advance in the 100-member Senate. Voting was expected to continue for several hours but would not affect the outcome.
Obama, campaigning in Florida, said the vote was not the end of the fight for the measure. In a statement after the vote, Obama accused Republicans of obstruction and said he would work with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to make sure that individual proposals in the bill would get a vote as soon as possible.
"Ultimately, the American people won't take 'no' for an answer. It's time for Congress to meet their responsibility, put their party politics aside and take action on jobs right now."
Obama had barnstormed around the country to pressure his Republican opponents to back his top legislative priority, but he did not pick up a single Republican vote in the Democratic-controlled Senate.
Two Democrats, facing re-election in conservative states, also voted against the measure.
Obama said earlier on Tuesday he would try to pass components of the bill individually.
Though Obama's top legislative priority is now dead in Congress, it is certain to have a long afterlife on the campaign trail.
Obama's 2012 re-election chances depend on his ability to spur the sluggish economic recovery and revive the nearly stagnant job market.
The U.S. unemployment rate has been above 9 percent since May and almost 45 percent of the 14 million jobless Americans have been out of work for six months or more.
Even Wall Street is feeling the pinch, with a report from the New York State Comptroller showing that banker bonuses are likely to drop for the second year in a row.
Among the elements of the bill which might be salvaged are a payroll tax cut which Obama wants to extend to avoid imposing an effective tax increase at a time when wages have not been rising much. Obama's bill would also extend unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed, another area that could yield bipartisan support.
Other elements, such as increased highway spending and aid for cash-strapped states, aren't likely to pick up Republican support.
POLITICAL FOOTBALL
Democrats say that Republicans are more interested in defeating Obama than helping the country recover from the deepest recession since the 1930s.
"Republicans think if the economy improves it might help President Obama. So they root for the economy to fail, and oppose every effort to improve it," Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said before the vote.
Republicans, who have lined up behind a job-creation agenda centered around relaxing business regulations, say Obama's jobs bill is essentially a warmed-over version of his 2009 stimulus.
That effort helped to ease the impact of the worst recession since the 1930s, but Republicans point out that it did not keep unemployment below 8 percent as the White House had promised.
"Everyone who votes for this second stimulus will have to answer a simple but important question: why on Earth would you support an approach that we already know won't work?" said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell.
Obama's so-called Jobs Council, under the chairmanship of GE Chief Executive Officer Jeffrey Immelt, earlier delivered a report in which they proposed steps to foster U.S. innovation and make the country more attractive to foreign investment.
(Additional reporting by Alister Bull, Matt Spetalnick, Tom Ferraro, Caren Bohan and Lucia Mutikani in Washington and Laura MacInnis in Pittsburgh; editing by Bill Schomberg and Sandra Maler)
This is actually a good deal. Obama is now threatening to break the act into smaller bills. Thats excellent. There were several parts of it that weren't bad.
Honestly, I don't see much of this getting past Congress so long as Obama's name is attached to any of it.
Now if Republicans or Democrats not named Obama were to try and pass the bits and pieces that could be popular/effective, then we could talk about progressing in a meaningful way what with trying to boost the economy and jobs in general.
Frazzled wrote:This is actually a good deal. Obama is now threatening to break the act into smaller bills. Thats excellent. There were several parts of it that weren't bad.
The American Jobs Act that I’m putting forward obviously contains many ideas like infrastructure investment that should be pretty straightforward. And our hope is that we are able to get those passed in the next couple of months. But we’re not going to wait for Congress. So my instruction to Jeff and Gene and Valerie and all the advisors who are sitting around the table is scour this report, identify all those areas in which we can act administratively without additional congressional authorization, and just get it done.
Melissia wrote:Yeah, I dont' see republicans doing anything constructive until/unless they get a person in the presidency.
They think they benefit more from being obstructionists right now than actually helping the country. Kinda like the dems during Bush' reign really.
This...doesn't really matter what's in the bill, as long as Obama is involved in it, Republicans name it as the devils work and claim that it has homosexual trickery engraved in the paper.
Melissia wrote:Yeah, I dont' see republicans doing anything constructive until/unless they get a person in the presidency.
They think they benefit more from being obstructionists right now than actually helping the country. Kinda like the dems during Bush' reign really.
My thoughts exactly. I can't believe we are paying them to not do their job. Didn't they say last year that they were going to totally commit themselves to fighting Obama every chance they got? Could you imagine telling your boss that you was going to undermine him every chance you got? Try that at Wal-Mart and you would be fired within the hour.
Obama is doing whaat Blair did and Brown tried to do.
Spend spend spend, it doesnt matter how much the nation owes, thats for you suckers to pay. I have a re-election looming.
Blair sold our gold reserves, at a buyers price simply to buy a tax cut and spending rise for the 2001 election. Effectively sold the family silver for a frolic. Brown squandered what was left of our economy in a lunatic plot to tax cut while spending and put us into monsterous debt.
The US could do well to see through Obama's mad spending plans. Short term = spend, longer term = save.
Now is the time for keen cuts not ambitious projects.
Orlanth wrote:Obama is doing whaat Blair did and Brown tried to do.
Spend spend spend, it doesnt matter how much the nation owes, thats for you suckers to pay. I have a re-election looming.
Blair sold our gold reserves, at a buyers price simply to buy a tax cut and spending rise for the 2001 election. Effectively sold the family silver for a frolic. Brown squandered what was left of our economy in a lunatic plot to tax cut while spending and put us into monsterous debt.
The US could do well to see through Obama's mad spending plans. Short term = spend, longer term = save.
Now is the time for keen cuts not ambitious projects.
Orlanth wrote:The US could do well to see through Obama's mad spending plans. Short term = spend, longer term = save.
Now is the time for keen cuts not ambitious projects.
Cuts during a recession just lengthen the recession. Austerity measures are best done during good economic times-- sure, we should plan for them, but steep cuts don't help an economy recover.
It's like if the fed decided to use measures to cut down on inflation if we were actuall suffering deflation.
*looks to Europe* Not that that is at all a realistic scenario. Nope.
Squander when tghe economy is worse than it looks = UK (under Brown)
Get away with it long enough to make the fake good times roll = Greece.
The difference between UK under Brown and the Greek economy is that Brown was not in power long enough to really feth us up. That was because his squander while sticking head in sand policy was largely working, he was deeply unpopular for other reasons.
Tony Blair is an international role model for hoodwinking a nation on the backs of spin and a false economy. His first term will be looked at for many years to come as a model for successful self centered political gain. While Blair was immediately detrimental, his ability to mask the balance between economic input and output was not crippling over the course of a single term in office, and pretty much guaranteed reelection.
Obama is the US's Tony Blair, he wants to follow the model and attain the same goal. Obama is was and always will be a chancer, his only real political asset is his ability to grab an opportunity quickly and run with it.
Unfortunately for Obama the global recession means the US cannot afford a 'Blair term' right now. This wont stop Obama from trying to cash in though, and that will be very costly for the American tax payer, not just for the current generation, but also for the next.
Yeah, I still don't see the comparison, no matter how hard you strain to make it. There's no actual substance explaining the comparison in the post above, which is telling.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Why is reelection the driving force here instead of what they think is best for the nation?
If you are not elected the rest doesn't matter as much; not saying it is right or wrong, but the reality of it. You have to be in the Senate to vote in the Senate.
There's also the possibility that some of those people in the Senate might actually not think that some aspects of the spending bill are in the nation's best interest.
It is a shame the Republicans are so arrogant that they automatically disagree with anything Obama says :( They should at least co-operate and try to make decisions that benefit both sides, and not trying to hold onto their ideals so tightly.
Battle Brother Ambrosius wrote:It is a shame the Republicans are so arrogant that they automatically disagree with anything Obama says :( They should at least co-operate and try to make decisions that benefit both sides, and not trying to hold onto their ideals so tightly.
They don't, but don't worry about that facts thing.
See, this is why an absolute monarch or a dictator is way better than the pretence of fething diplomacy we have in the US/UK. The older and wiser I get, the more and more I loathe our systems of government.
Basically all the politicians take the fething piss. I would rather just have one guy in charge at the top who decides everything, it has to be far more effective, and I'm good at following orders. If he passes a law I don't like, i think id just quietly follow it, better that than the current pretence of harmony, and we basically lie, back-stab, scheme, and argue about anything and everything and nothing ever gets done.
In the UK they have a £500,000, 6 month court case when a guy wants to get his tree chopped down. I'd rather just have some slightly crazed bloke in charge make all the decisions once a week. You know how they used to petition the king?
And I'm not just saying this because I'm a Royalist, I am deadly serious! I would much rather have The Queen have absolute aauthority and scrap all of parliament, but I think id even rather have Kim Jong in charge than continue with all these stinking fething bureaucrat's!
mattyrm wrote: See, this is why an absolute monarch or a dictator is way better than the pretence of fething diplomacy we have in the US/UK. The older and wiser I get, the more and more I loathe our systems of government.
Basically all the politicians take the fething piss. I would rather just have one guy in charge at the top who decides everything, it has to be far more effective, and I'm good at following orders. If he passes a law I don't like, i think id just quietly follow it, better that than the current pretence of harmony, and we basically lie, back-stab, scheme, and argue about anything and everything and nothing ever gets done.
In the UK they have a £500,000, 6 month court case when a guy wants to get his tree chopped down. I'd rather just have some slightly crazed bloke in charge make all the decisions once a week. You know how they used to petition the king?
And I'm not just saying this because I'm a Royalist, I am deadly serious! I would much rather have The Queen have absolute aauthority and scrap all of parliament, but I think id even rather have Kim Jong in charge than continue with all these stinking fething bureaucrat's!
Caesar was ace as well.
What if that one guy is Caligula, Stalin, Pol Pot, or even worse - Al Gore?
Automatically Appended Next Post: OT but on what channel was the debate posted? I could not find it last night.
mattyrm wrote: See, this is why an absolute monarch or a dictator is way better than the pretence of fething diplomacy we have in the US/UK. The older and wiser I get, the more and more I loathe our systems of government.
Basically all the politicians take the fething piss. I would rather just have one guy in charge at the top who decides everything, it has to be far more effective, and I'm good at following orders. If he passes a law I don't like, i think id just quietly follow it, better that than the current pretence of harmony, and we basically lie, back-stab, scheme, and argue about anything and everything and nothing ever gets done.
In the UK they have a £500,000, 6 month court case when a guy wants to get his tree chopped down. I'd rather just have some slightly crazed bloke in charge make all the decisions once a week. You know how they used to petition the king?
And I'm not just saying this because I'm a Royalist, I am deadly serious! I would much rather have The Queen have absolute aauthority and scrap all of parliament, but I think id even rather have Kim Jong in charge than continue with all these stinking fething bureaucrat's!
Caesar was ace as well.
What if that one guy is Caligula, Stalin, Pol Pot, or even worse - Al Gore?
There's always Civil War. Give Matty something to do in his spare time
mattyrm wrote: See, this is why an absolute monarch or a dictator is way better than the pretence of fething diplomacy we have in the US/UK. The older and wiser I get, the more and more I loathe our systems of government.
Basically all the politicians take the fething piss. I would rather just have one guy in charge at the top who decides everything, it has to be far more effective, and I'm good at following orders. If he passes a law I don't like, i think id just quietly follow it, better that than the current pretence of harmony, and we basically lie, back-stab, scheme, and argue about anything and everything and nothing ever gets done.
In the UK they have a £500,000, 6 month court case when a guy wants to get his tree chopped down. I'd rather just have some slightly crazed bloke in charge make all the decisions once a week. You know how they used to petition the king?
And I'm not just saying this because I'm a Royalist, I am deadly serious! I would much rather have The Queen have absolute aauthority and scrap all of parliament, but I think id even rather have Kim Jong in charge than continue with all these stinking fething bureaucrat's!
Caesar was ace as well.
Finally a person who has opened his eyes. Democracy has never worked, and never will work. It is a fact of life that the human race needs a strong leader. People just can't pull it off and settle their differences for one single minute.
mattyrm wrote: See, this is why an absolute monarch or a dictator is way better than the pretence of fething diplomacy we have in the US/UK. The older and wiser I get, the more and more I loathe our systems of government.
Basically all the politicians take the fething piss. I would rather just have one guy in charge at the top who decides everything, it has to be far more effective, and I'm good at following orders. If he passes a law I don't like, i think id just quietly follow it, better that than the current pretence of harmony, and we basically lie, back-stab, scheme, and argue about anything and everything and nothing ever gets done.
In the UK they have a £500,000, 6 month court case when a guy wants to get his tree chopped down. I'd rather just have some slightly crazed bloke in charge make all the decisions once a week. You know how they used to petition the king?
And I'm not just saying this because I'm a Royalist, I am deadly serious! I would much rather have The Queen have absolute aauthority and scrap all of parliament, but I think id even rather have Kim Jong in charge than continue with all these stinking fething bureaucrat's!
Caesar was ace as well.
What if that one guy is Caligula, Stalin, Pol Pot, or even worse - Al Gore?
There's always Civil War. Give Matty something to do in his spare time
This is true. And now for no particular reason:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Battle Brother Ambrosius wrote:
mattyrm wrote: See, this is why an absolute monarch or a dictator is way better than the pretence of fething diplomacy we have in the US/UK. The older and wiser I get, the more and more I loathe our systems of government.
Basically all the politicians take the fething piss. I would rather just have one guy in charge at the top who decides everything, it has to be far more effective, and I'm good at following orders. If he passes a law I don't like, i think id just quietly follow it, better that than the current pretence of harmony, and we basically lie, back-stab, scheme, and argue about anything and everything and nothing ever gets done.
In the UK they have a £500,000, 6 month court case when a guy wants to get his tree chopped down. I'd rather just have some slightly crazed bloke in charge make all the decisions once a week. You know how they used to petition the king?
And I'm not just saying this because I'm a Royalist, I am deadly serious! I would much rather have The Queen have absolute aauthority and scrap all of parliament, but I think id even rather have Kim Jong in charge than continue with all these stinking fething bureaucrat's!
Caesar was ace as well.
Finally a person who has opened his eyes. Democracy has never worked, and never will work. It is a fact of life that the human race needs a strong leader. People just can't pull it off and settle their differences for one single minute.
the world needs a "firm hand" eh? Careful what you wish for. The first against the wall might be you.
Battle Brother Ambrosius wrote:It is a shame the Republicans are so arrogant that they automatically disagree with anything Obama says :( They should at least co-operate and try to make decisions that benefit both sides, and not trying to hold onto their ideals so tightly.
Whereas, the meek and mild democrats line up to cooperate with a Republican president? Uh, I don't think so. It's not the responsibility of the opposition party to simply roll-over to the demands of the majority party.
The so-called Jobs bill is a load of crap. It's just another payoff to unions, who will turn around and give some of the money back to obama/the democrats. A lot of people would call that using taxpayer money to engage in money laundering.
If this bill were so sweet that obama could walk on water while declaring it's benefits to mankind, the democrats have a MAJORITY in the Senate. They don't need a single republican vote to pass it. The republicans didn't filibuster it. If it's such a good deal, why didn't enough democrats vote for it to pass?
mattyrm wrote:In the UK they have a £500,000, 6 month court case when a guy wants to get his tree chopped down. I'd rather just have some slightly crazed bloke in charge make all the decisions once a week. You know how they used to petition the king?
If I'm reading this right, you don't mind the fact that the guy needs permission to chop down a tree on his own property, your objection is that the Tree Chopping Bureaucracy is too expensive and time consuming?
How about let the guy decide for himself whether he wants to chop down his own damn tree?
biccat wrote:I assume you're familiar with private torts.
I didn't realize that torts were not governed by law, or that the state did not promulgate law.
You're smart enough to know that torts are compensatory rather than proscriptive. And that in the American system the trespass tort is not a function of statutory law.
biccat wrote:
You're smart enough to know that torts are compensatory rather than proscriptive. And that in the American system the trespass tort is not a function of statutory law.
Compensation, when administered punitively, is necessarily proscriptive.
In any case, I wasn't speaking of statute so much as precedent.
mattyrm wrote: See, this is why an absolute monarch or a dictator is way better than the pretence of fething diplomacy we have in the US/UK. The older and wiser I get, the more and more I loathe our systems of government.
Basically all the politicians take the fething piss. I would rather just have one guy in charge at the top who decides everything, it has to be far more effective, and I'm good at following orders. If he passes a law I don't like, i think id just quietly follow it, better that than the current pretence of harmony, and we basically lie, back-stab, scheme, and argue about anything and everything and nothing ever gets done.
In the UK they have a £500,000, 6 month court case when a guy wants to get his tree chopped down. I'd rather just have some slightly crazed bloke in charge make all the decisions once a week. You know how they used to petition the king?
And I'm not just saying this because I'm a Royalist, I am deadly serious! I would much rather have The Queen have absolute aauthority and scrap all of parliament, but I think id even rather have Kim Jong in charge than continue with all these stinking fething bureaucrat's!
Caesar was ace as well.
What if that one guy is Caligula, Stalin, Pol Pot, or even worse - Al Gore?
Yeah as I said Fraz, i'd be happy with any of the above. Id just follow orders, do as I'm told. Im just so sick of people whinging, whine whine whine, complain complain strike stike whinge whine.. God. Its enough to make a man go nuts with rage!
And no more politicians, then I think id be happier with a Pol Pot.
As long as there is less fething complaining (they would kill people that whinged) I think I would be much happier. Id make sure my family didn't do any fething complaining as well, and Matty would follow orders and go places!
mattyrm wrote:. Im just so sick of people whinging, whine whine whine, complain complain strike stike whinge whine..
I like you, Matty, but this is one of those sentences that sticks in the craw. Whining about the whining whiners, as it were.
I suppose so...
But, you know, it wasn't just whinging for whinging's sake, it was part of my long winded explanation for possibly preferring to live in a dictatorship.
I honestly think I would prefer it, If we just werent allowed to complain or we got slotted. You know, like when your on a long military deploymeny and you just get into a routine after you have been there a while?
I like the idea of just doing what I'm told and going to work and maybe not having as much personal freedom, but I didnt have that in the military and I was happy. I think that "freedom" is definately an overrated concept, and lets be honest, we dont really have "freedom" anyways.
A loss of personal choice and freedom for a stable routine and not having to put up with politics and weirdo's and ....
Orlanth wrote:...his only real political asset is his ability to grab an opportunity quickly and run with it.
That's pretty much the only political asset that exists.
Not always true, genuine statesmanship beyond opportunism exists. Also many many politicians dither and drop fleeting opportunities, Obama can be relied upon not to make that mistake. My comment was intended as a partial compliment.
dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Ask Obama that question about his bill, sending something designed to fail so he could then complain about it.
Sound strategy.
It is sound if you have the media firmly on your side. You can set yourself up to fail on the oppositions 'bloody hands'; but it can either appear as the opposition saving the nation from poor policy, or its the opposition scuppering good policy for partisan gain.
While there will be favoured elements in the press reliably crowing both sides, sometimes and on some issues the pulse tends to beat one way over time. I think that on the balance the US media is against Obama at the moment, and with the focus now on who will lead the Republicans into the election their opinion is getting the highlight.
Thus while setting yourself up to be seen to be scuppered by 'self interested' opposition politicians is potentially a good ploy, I dont think it will work well here.
Orlanth wrote:
Not always true, genuine statesmanship beyond opportunism exists.
I would argue that statesmen are nothing more than successful opportunists.
Orlanth wrote:
My comment was intended as a partial compliment.
I didn't mean to suggest that it wasn't.
Orlanth wrote:
Thus while setting yourself up to be seen to be scuppered by 'self interested' opposition politicians is potentially a good ploy, I dont think it will work well here.
Maybe, but you have to remember that elections aren't generally, in the US, decided by the supposed independents. Rather, the real issue is getting enough of the faithful to go vote, and the faithful are always willing to believe the opposition is to blame.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:
I like the idea of just doing what I'm told and going to work and maybe not having as much personal freedom, but I didnt have that in the military and I was happy. I think that "freedom" is definately an overrated concept, and lets be honest, we dont really have "freedom" anyways.
Orlanth wrote:
Not always true, genuine statesmanship beyond opportunism exists.
I would argue that statesmen are nothing more than successful opportunists.
Point understood and acknowledged. However I considered a true statesman is seperated from a politician by for want of a better term 'vision'. A statesman has an agenda beyond get elected and stay elected. However as a statesman also requires initiative to deal with changing political circumstances I can see how this skill be be consisdered the deciding factor between a competent and a non competent leader.
dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
Thus while setting yourself up to be seen to be scuppered by 'self interested' opposition politicians is potentially a good ploy, I dont think it will work well here.
Maybe, but you have to remember that elections aren't generally, in the US, decided by the supposed independents. Rather, the real issue is getting enough of the faithful to go vote, and the faithful are always willing to believe the opposition is to blame.
Fair point, but largely academic. However in this I dont think the US and UK are much different. According to somke sources approx 80% of people never change their voting habits in terms of party support ovedr their lifetime. The floating voter, the tactical voter and the disillusioned/apathetic voter are the three keys. The US differs here in that there is a two party system so there is little tactical voting, wheras the UK elections are broadly challenged by is two and a half parties, regional differences aside.
All in all motivating the faithful and shaking up the undecided is the key, Always has been always will be. So should it not be assumed that all the poltical ploys take this into account in the first place. So therefore whatever political tactics are played its always playing to roughly the same numbers, ignoring the bulk party faithful as a given.
Orlanth wrote:While there will be favoured elements in the press reliably crowing both sides, sometimes and on some issues the pulse tends to beat one way over time. I think that on the balance the US media is against Obama at the moment, and with the focus now on who will lead the Republicans into the election their opinion is getting the highlight.
I don't think so. The media is starting to turn against Obama, the fawning support of '08-early '10 has started to fade but the media is still generally pro-Obama. At least, measuring by the standard they treated Clinton and Bush (pick one).
The focus now is on the Republican nomination because there really hasn't been a lot to capture the national attention recently.
As things refuse to get better and the main storyline is the economy and politics, the media will continue to turn more and more from Obama. They'll never run stories like in '06 ("How can Democrats Win the Senate?") or '10 ("How can Democrats Hold the House?") from a Republican angle, but their audiences will recognize the shift in coverage.
The best thing that could happen for President Obama right now is another Natalie Holloway or Elian Gonzalez human-interest story that deflects media coverage onto an unrelated issue.
Orlanth wrote:While there will be favoured elements in the press reliably crowing both sides, sometimes and on some issues the pulse tends to beat one way over time. I think that on the balance the US media is against Obama at the moment, and with the focus now on who will lead the Republicans into the election their opinion is getting the highlight.
I don't think so. The media is starting to turn against Obama, the fawning support of '08-early '10 has started to fade but the media is still generally pro-Obama. At least, measuring by the standard they treated Clinton and Bush (pick one).
The focus now is on the Republican nomination because there really hasn't been a lot to capture the national attention recently.
As things refuse to get better and the main storyline is the economy and politics, the media will continue to turn more and more from Obama. They'll never run stories like in '06 ("How can Democrats Win the Senate?") or '10 ("How can Democrats Hold the House?") from a Republican angle, but their audiences will recognize the shift in coverage.
The best thing that could happen for President Obama right now is another Natalie Holloway or Elian Gonzalez human-interest story that deflects media coverage onto an unrelated issue.
Funnily enough this was my point, though without the topical details added. Obama is not currently in favour with the pulse of the media, and thus should not try media ploys that are not secure wins, as any sway of balance is not unlikely to tip in favour of the Republicans.
Orlanth wrote:
All in all motivating the faithful and shaking up the undecided is the key, Always has been always will be.
My contention is that undecided "voters" are few and far between, and generally don't vote.
For example, ANES reports that only 48% of independents voted in 2008. This is relatively high, but as with all studies of voting over-representative (the aggregate number is 78%, which we know didn't happen, people lie in voting surveys all the time). If we consider that the real turnout in 2008 was 57%, we can determine that Independents likely came out at about 66% of their reported rate so ~35% voted, much lower than the equivalent ~55% of partisans.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
The focus now is on the Republican nomination because there really hasn't been a lot to capture the national attention recently.
And because its the Republican nomination.
National primaries tend to be things that get a lot of media attention. Go figure.
mattyrm wrote: But, you know, it wasn't just whinging for whinging's sake, it was part of my long winded explanation for possibly preferring to live in a dictatorship.
I honestly think I would prefer it, If we just werent allowed to complain or we got slotted. You know, like when your on a long military deploymeny and you just get into a routine after you have been there a while?
I like the idea of just doing what I'm told and going to work and maybe not having as much personal freedom, but I didnt have that in the military and I was happy. I think that "freedom" is definately an overrated concept, and lets be honest, we dont really have "freedom" anyways.
A loss of personal choice and freedom for a stable routine and not having to put up with politics and weirdo's and ....
First, I believe that "whinging" is a suburban residence area in the Harry Potter series; [though I see it's from the Middle English - so learn something new each day, eh?]
Second, it sounds like you might be happiest being sentenced to prison. You would have people telling you what to do all of the time, so you wouldn't have to think or be responsible for yourself, your meals would be paid for by the taxpayer, you could learn a trade, like making license plates, and the opportunities to make new friends would be boundless.
Prison would be a walk in the park. Proper beds, hot running water, and food not sealed in a MRE. Sounds easy to me. and i thought 6 months in a shellscrape was easy.
However.. there are no women, and being a legendary lover, the guilt of depriving legions of adoring women of my loins would leave me crippled with guilt! ;-)
mattyrm wrote:Prison would be a walk in the park. Proper beds, hot running water, and food not sealed in a MRE. Sounds easy to me. and i thought 6 months in a shellscrape was easy.
However.. there are no women, and being a legendary lover, the guilt of depriving legions of adoring women of my loins would leave me crippled with guilt! ;-)
Phanatik wrote: You would have people telling you what to do all of the time, so you wouldn't have to think or be responsible for yourself...
Even when people tell you what to do, you have to think about doing it or not doing it, and will likely be held responsible for the choice you inevitably make.
Orlanth wrote:Obama is doing whaat Blair did and Brown tried to do.
Spend spend spend, it doesnt matter how much the nation owes, thats for you suckers to pay. I have a re-election looming.
Blair sold our gold reserves, at a buyers price simply to buy a tax cut and spending rise for the 2001 election. Effectively sold the family silver for a frolic. Brown squandered what was left of our economy in a lunatic plot to tax cut while spending and put us into monsterous debt.
The US could do well to see through Obama's mad spending plans. Short term = spend, longer term = save.
Now is the time for keen cuts not ambitious projects.
I agree that Blair's policy to maintain deficit budgets during good economic times was terrible policy. But England in 2001 is not the USA in 2011. Fiscal policy must be determined by the needs of the economy, and right now that need is to stimulate the economy through deficit expenditure.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote:Obama is the US's Tony Blair, he wants to follow the model and attain the same goal. Obama is was and always will be a chancer, his only real political asset is his ability to grab an opportunity quickly and run with it.
Unfortunately for Obama the global recession means the US cannot afford a 'Blair term' right now. This wont stop Obama from trying to cash in though, and that will be very costly for the American tax payer, not just for the current generation, but also for the next.
This is completely and entirely devoid of content. It means literally nothing.
Fiscal policy is not to be decided by incredibly vague personality assessments.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:There's also the possibility that some of those people in the Senate might actually not think that some aspects of the spending bill are in the nation's best interest.
Crazy, I know.
Do you consider that at all likely, given the political rhetoric that's existed in Washington during Obama's presidency? I mean, just think about how much the Republicans freaked out over Obama trying to pass a healthcare reform that was previously a Republican model...
Obama knew this bill was going to fail, it's part of his re-election campaign - "look at all the jobs I was trying to create". Now he can claim the Republicans fillibustered his jobs bill.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote: See, this is why an absolute monarch or a dictator is way better than the pretence of fething diplomacy we have in the US/UK. The older and wiser I get, the more and more I loathe our systems of government.
Basically all the politicians take the fething piss. I would rather just have one guy in charge at the top who decides everything, it has to be far more effective, and I'm good at following orders. If he passes a law I don't like, i think id just quietly follow it, better that than the current pretence of harmony, and we basically lie, back-stab, scheme, and argue about anything and everything and nothing ever gets done.
It takes a very strange combination of cynicism and optimism to believe that democracy is so terrible, and dictatorship so wonderful.
I mean, go look at the dictatorships around the world. Bureacracy sucks, but the nepotism that surrounds a dictator is far, far worse.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:Yes, yes they did. Notice the vote was 50-49 in favor.
The way that was written in the opening article was terrible, as it pretended the Democrats failed to get enough votes to pass the bill, when they simply failed to get enough votes to beat fillibuster.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:You're smart enough to know that torts are compensatory rather than proscriptive. And that in the American system the trespass tort is not a function of statutory law.
And you outght to be smart enough to realise a regulatory environment built entirely around punishment after the fact would be utterly disfunctional.
biccat wrote:You're smart enough to know that torts are compensatory rather than proscriptive. And that in the American system the trespass tort is not a function of statutory law.
And you outght to be smart enough to realise a regulatory environment built entirely around punishment after the fact would be utterly disfunctional.
Are you honestly defending the position that a person needs government permission to chop down a tree on their own property? Such regulations are absurd both facially and usually as applied.
Especially in suburbia, that tree when chopped down could damage another person's property, or it could very well positively-- or negatively-- effect the property values of nearby houses. Nevermind the fact that trees actually have long-term benefit in many cases through soil retention.
Not that I'm saying I support homeowners associations (dear Emperor, no! I'm just playing devil's advocate, not ACTUALLY advocating for the devil...), but there is non-absurd logic behind their decisions.
biccat wrote:You're smart enough to know that torts are compensatory rather than proscriptive. And that in the American system the trespass tort is not a function of statutory law.
And you outght to be smart enough to realise a regulatory environment built entirely around punishment after the fact would be utterly disfunctional.
Are you honestly defending the position that a person needs government permission to chop down a tree on their own property? Such regulations are absurd both facially and usually as applied.
In the UK we have local conservation areas which are designated because of particular concentrations of high quality architecture and environmental amenities such as mature planting.
In such areas a householder often does have to apply for permission to make changes which will affect the area as a whole. This could include preservation of trees, roof lines and so on.
Orlanth wrote:Obama is the US's Tony Blair, he wants to follow the model and attain the same goal. Obama is was and always will be a chancer, his only real political asset is his ability to grab an opportunity quickly and run with it.
Unfortunately for Obama the global recession means the US cannot afford a 'Blair term' right now. This wont stop Obama from trying to cash in though, and that will be very costly for the American tax payer, not just for the current generation, but also for the next.
This is completely and entirely devoid of content. It means literally nothing.
Fiscal policy is not to be decided by incredibly vague personality assessments.
The content is there, you are just not able to read it. Its expected that politicians will go the exta mile in self interest to get elected, then there is the breed who are motivated solely by self interest. Normally the public see through them, but Blair produced a model, now widely emulated on how to spend, look good doing it, not worry about any future but his own but still appear a great statesman in spite of the long term damage done.
There is nothing vague about that, but it yes does have more to do with personality than the economic need of the nation under these peoples charge.
Let me give you just one highly visible and historically provable indicator here. During the Blair-Bush years a sea change occured in US/UK politics. The relationship became between the US and Blair not the US and UK. An example of this was the complete cold shoulder given to William Hague and other opposition politicians at the time. In any prior administration the US would not have done this, even when faced with vocally anti-American leaders like Michael Foot and Arthur Scargill. whether they were also crurrently electable or not would also not be an indicator of welcome. They would be welcome anyway, the UK/US relationship would remain seperate to the party divide. However Blair asked for a personalisation. Bush agreed and I have no problems from the US end because the so called 'special relationship' became one of support the US in return for help for Blair. Not actual national mutual support. As supporting one self interested poltician is cheaper than supporting a nations interests this was a cheap deal, and Bush did well out of it. It was however catestrophic for the UK, as Blair gave much away but asked for very little in turn unless it was directly to his benefit.
I am duly concerned that Obama is such a man as to put his own interests first and second and Americas little at all. I see echos of this in pursuing such a concept as wholesale care reform would normally be attempted in a second term, its a legacy move, yet Obama wanted it implemented pretty much immediately, i.e. to see the benefits while still in office, damn the cost. This is not the best example as there are parts of Obamams health reforms that are laudable, but its an opening move. Move evidently I see it in the mans personal biases heavily driving US foreign policy, pissing off an alarming number of long term trading partners, of which the UK is one.
Such a man cannot be trusted to budget for the US economy and peoples current and future benefit when much can be squandered for his own.
No, it really isn't. It is an assertion with no real substance to back it up.
And it's further amusing that you would claim Obama has "his own interests" solely in mind... I'm fairly certain that one could point out more than a few decisions which were NOT in his political best interest but fit his ideology and his beliefs about what is best for the country.
His attempts to compromise with the Republican party (rebuffed by the reps, for the most part) were loathed by the Democratic party and certainly didn't help him with his political base, and what effect they've had on his appeal to centrists has yet to be seen-- certainly it's likely most Republican voters didn't even notice these across-the-isle attempts so it wouldn't help him there (as if it would even if they did notice due to ideological differences and Republican obstructionism).
Especially in suburbia, that tree when chopped down could damage another person's property, or it could very well positively-- or negatively-- effect the property values of nearby houses. Nevermind the fact that trees actually have long-term benefit in many cases through soil retention.
Not that I'm saying I support homeowners associations (dear Emperor, no! I'm just playing devil's advocate, not ACTUALLY advocating for the devil...), but there is non-absurd logic behind their decisions.
Come on Melissia tell him the truth. We don't cut down trees in Texas. We just let the wildfires take care of them.
in truth, at least in Houston and Austin, there is no approval needed. You just need (if you're smart) to have a bonded service if its a big tree like a 50 ft pine.
Melissia wrote:His attempts to compromise with the Republican party
OK, now you're just making crap up.
Melissia wrote:Why is that absurd?
Especially in suburbia, that tree when chopped down could damage another person's property, or it could very well positively-- or negatively-- effect the property values of nearby houses. Nevermind the fact that trees actually have long-term benefit in many cases through soil retention.
As I said, there are remedies for damage to adjacent property, usually based in trespass but could also be an action based on subjacent support. However, the common law of property presumes that when a person acquires property they are free to do with it what they wish, but they are responsible for the consequences. It wasn't even illegal to burn down your own house (modern statutory law has changed this, largely for the benefit of insurance companies).
Therefore, we can dispense with the actual damage objection to free use of land.
The only remaining objection is that the free use of land (including cutting down trees) creates an injury to someone else's interest other than actual damage, generally fashioned around aesthetics. However, this is based on a faulty assumption that there is a right to a certain aesthetic, or maintaining an aesthetic in a neighborhood. Absent consent from buyers (and this is where homeowner agreements are superior to local ordinances), other people have no right to control your use and enjoyment of land.
Melissia wrote:Not that I'm saying I support homeowners associations (dear Emperor, no! I'm just playing devil's advocate, not ACTUALLY advocating for the devil...), but there is non-absurd logic behind their decisions.
Actually, as I said above, homeowners' associations are preferable to local laws because their enforcement is based on consent from a buyer rather than government use of force. If I don't want to follow a homeowners association policy, I can buy land not governed by it. If all of my neighbors want to make a homeowners association, I don't have to join. The same is not true of government intrusion.
No, it really isn't. It is an assertion with no real substance to back it up.
One cannot teach a ostrich. You have an opposed party political view, lets leave it at that. We can have widely differing opinions on which politicians are 'great' and 'suck', but a flat disagreement with an opposing view is not equal to the opposing view having no merit under its own paradigm.
Melissia wrote:
And it's further amusing that you would claim Obama has "his own interests" solely in mind... I'm fairly certain that one could point out more than a few decisions which were NOT in his political best interest but fit his ideology and his beliefs about what is best for the country.
Yet while examples were given of his large scale economic self interest, you have followed up with none. Please do point to those decisions.
Melissia wrote:
His attempts to compromise with the Republican party (rebuffed by the reps, for the most part) were loathed by the Democratic party and certainly didn't help him with his political base,
Make up your mind. Appeasing an opposition party can hardly be ideological driven policy making unless the Democrats themselves were not moving with the presidents ideology. But it fits the profile as a sell out to give the illusion of personal achievement.
Melissia wrote:This is true, but I'd still personally prefer the wildfires to stay in okie. I mean nobody likes okie anyway, right?
The only time I like to smell smoke is when we're barbequeuing.
yea. Seriously now when I smell wood smoke I freak out. I called 9-11 last week when I smelled smoke (Houston house) and had to call them back when I traced it to some who started a grill with mesquite wood.
Lord Scythican wrote:
My thoughts exactly. I can't believe we are paying them to not do their job. Didn't they say last year that they were going to totally commit themselves to fighting Obama every chance they got? Could you imagine telling your boss that you was going to undermine him every chance you got? Try that at Wal-Mart and you would be fired within the hour.
Are you implying the President is the Boss of Congress? If so, I strongly recommend you re-read the constitution. Your analogy makes no sense when you consider separate and equal branches of government.
Orlanth wrote:You have an opposed party political view
I don't give a damn about parties, so no, I don't hold the democratic political view. I disagree firmly with many democratic positions, especially on gun control, and I disagree with both parties when it comes to health care reform... not that either party seems to have a coherent position on that topic to begin with.
Orlanth wrote:Yet while examples were given
You gave nothing that supported your positions. No examples at all. The example you gave actually worked against you, because by your own words if he was acting in his own self-interest he'd not have done that in his first turn.
But I guess that means he wasn't acting in his own self-interest, was he?
Orlanth wrote:Appeasing an opposition party can hardly be ideological driven policy making unless the Democrats themselves were not moving with the presidents ideology.
... which was the case, yes? Democrats utterly fethed up and failed to deliver and because of their incompetence they lost their majority-- so Obama tries to make due with what options he has to try to do what's best for the country, which means attempting to broker deals with the Republicans.
I don't know about US property law but in the UK land is often subject to historical conditions called restrictive covenants.
For example, when I lived in Richmond, the property when established in the late 1780s had a covenant that it must be bordered on the front by a wood fence.
Kilkrazy wrote:I don't know about US property law but in the UK land is often subject to historical conditions called restrictive covenants.
For example, when I lived in Richmond, the property when established in the late 1780s had a covenant that it must be bordered on the front by a wood fence.
Depending on the state, we often have those as well. Covenants however, are also impacted by federal/state/county law.
For example: there used to be covenants akin to "This property may not be sold to INSERT ETHNIC GROUP YOU DISLIKE." There were even homeowner association provisions to similar effect. Those have been struck down thankfully. And yes this was a bar question and real estate license exam question (in California).
You gave nothing that supported your positions. No examples at all. The example you gave actually worked against you, because by your own words if he was acting in his own self-interest he'd not have done that in his first turn.
But I guess that means he wasn't acting in his own self-interest, was he?
Ok, lets help you here. Poliicies take time to mature. If you pass a bill now it will probably be implemented in 2015 or so, and that is for something mundane. An entire shake up of public healthcare is anything but mundane. If you speed things up it is usually at extra cost. Legacy moves are usually made in a presidents second term. Here they get the stuff done, and it takes a while for the benefits to mature. Obama wanted Obamacare actioned on quickly and early in his first term. Why? To bask in it, perhaps.
Melissia wrote:
which was the case, yes? Democrats utterly fethed up and failed to deliver and because of their incompetence they lost their majority-- so Obama tries to make due with what options he has to try to do what's best for the country, which means attempting to broker deals with the Republicans.
Dealing with majority opposition in Congress is daily bread and butter for much of the term of most US presidents. Negotiations are inevitable, but if the Democrats are particularly concerned about Obama caving in or selling out then perhaps there is a message there.
Yes, that the democratic party is incompetent becauase it can't accomplish what it wants when it has both the majority AND the president. It's a rather clear message, really.
You gave nothing that supported your positions. No examples at all. The example you gave actually worked against you, because by your own words if he was acting in his own self-interest he'd not have done that in his first turn.
But I guess that means he wasn't acting in his own self-interest, was he?
Ok, lets help you here. Poliicies take time to mature. If you pass a bill now it will probably be implemented in 2015 or so, and that is for something mundane. An entire shake up of public healthcare is anything but mundane. If you speed things up it is usually at extra cost. Legacy moves are usually made in a presidents second term. Here they get the stuff done, and it takes a while for the benefits to mature. Obama wanted Obamacare actioned on quickly and early in his first term. Why? To bask in it, perhaps.
Melissia wrote:
which was the case, yes? Democrats utterly fethed up and failed to deliver and because of their incompetence they lost their majority-- so Obama tries to make due with what options he has to try to do what's best for the country, which means attempting to broker deals with the Republicans.
Dealing with majority opposition in Congress is daily bread and butter for much of the term of most US presidents. Negotiations are inevitable, but if the Democrats are particularly concerned about Obama caving in or selling out then perhaps there is a message there.
Its not all a long term change. The price of chemo that Seniors pay under Medicare jumped directly as a result of the healthcare raid on medicare funds.
2010: $1,400
2011: $3,400
biccat wrote:
As I said, there are remedies for damage to adjacent property, usually based in trespass but could also be an action based on subjacent support. However, the common law of property presumes that when a person acquires property they are free to do with it what they wish, but they are responsible for the consequences.
Even if a permit is required by the government, the property owner would still be free to do with his property as he wished, they would simply be responsible for the consequences of non-compliance with city regulations. The idea that freedom exists even in the face of responsibility for external consequences is farcical, and countermands any practical definition of the term.
biccat wrote:
The only remaining objection is that the free use of land (including cutting down trees) creates an injury to someone else's interest other than actual damage, generally fashioned around aesthetics. However, this is based on a faulty assumption that there is a right to a certain aesthetic, or maintaining an aesthetic in a neighborhood.
If we can regulate obscenity, which is based on an aesthetic determination, then why not the appearance of a neighborhood?
biccat wrote:
If I don't want to follow a homeowners association policy, I can buy land not governed by it.
The same argument applies to municipal law vis a vis choosing to live in another municipality.
biccat wrote:
If all of my neighbors want to make a homeowners association, I don't have to join. The same is not true of government intrusion.
I've never heard of a homeowner association being created following to the initial sale of property by the developer, and very few of them involve voluntary membership as distinct from purchase.
Obama's optimal play is to make it look like the repubs are stonewalling. he can do this by introducing something that goes against republican ideology but sounds juuust nice enough to regular people at the same time. Then when he breaks it up, he can be like "look, I broke it up even, you still don't like ANY of it? What gives?" and make a big show of shrugging about it.
The republicans' optimal play is to act like something huge and radical has been FORCED opon them and they have to HOLD BACK THE TIDE OF SOCIALISM WITH THEIR BARE HANDS RAAAARRRR. They do this by blocking everything and wringing their hands about how they wish they could do things.
Yes, everyone involved is trying to get re-elected. If you don't get re-elected, the things you DID do will get undone, so you might as well not have even done them.
Logically the correct play is to gun for re-election and build your legacies out of tiny incremental victories over a long career rather than make huge changes, flame out, get voted out and get your changes repealed immediately.
I don't LIKE the republicans' position, but I can absolutely respect that what they're doing is their correct play tactically.
TLR, this is normal. Our system is basically designed for slow incremental change that is always positive in the long run but sometimes negative in the short run.
Rented Tritium wrote:Our system is basically designed for slow incremental change that is always positive in the long run but sometimes negative in the short run.
Are you saying that the change is always positive in the long run or that "deadlock" (which I agree is a feature, not a bug of the current system) is positive in the long run?
Its not all a long term change. The price of chemo that Seniors pay under Medicare jumped directly as a result of the healthcare raid on medicare funds.
2010: $1,400
2011: $3,400
Thats a nasty price hike. never said anything about the extra costs take a long time, just the positive benefits of new government programs. Yep, as you indicate the costs are pretty much immediate. Its an indicator of the pricetag for Obama being able to claim to see progress during his term in office. Had the heakthcare reforms beendone over a decent steady timeline, i.e. not quickly enough for Obama to look good from it, then such price hikes could be avoided.
This is exactly the sort of dangerous demogoguery people need to look out for in their leaders. You Yanks should learn from our mistakes, the last thing you need is what we just had.
sebster wrote:Do you consider that at all likely, given the political rhetoric that's existed in Washington during Obama's presidency?
Which is different from the behavior from the Democrats when Bush was in office, how? I thought the point of having different branches of government was to debate things and not have one branch making all of the decisions?
To answer your question directly: Yes, I think that there are some people that actually believe that they are doing the right thing. Forgive me for not being a complete cynic. I mean, I'm getting there, but still. My apotheosis is not yet complete it would appear.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote:Get out of the suburbs.
Agreed. I prefer to actually be in a city or as far away from the city as possible.
Rented Tritium wrote: Our system is basically designed for slow incremental change that is always positive in the long run but sometimes negative in the short run.
It may be designed that way, but in practice it hasn't produced results consistent with that design. The American system tends to produce policy outcomes that are more consistent with punctuated equilibrium, though the "punctuations" (things like healthcare reform, Reagan's tax reform, Great Society, the Louisiana Purchase, the New Deal, etc.) have arguably grown closer to together over time.
Orlanth wrote:Had the heakthcare reforms beendone over a decent steady timeline, i.e. not quickly enough for Obama to look good from it, then such price hikes could be avoided.
Well, ultimately, there are two ways to stretch the time line for any reform project. The first is to simply extend the time line included in the initial piece of legislation. This allows the sitting President to take credit for passing the bill, but also renders the legislation itself more vulnerable to repeal (in general, its easier to repeal legislation, or parts of legislation, that has not taken full effect). The second is to pass the proposed reform package in sections. To some extent this can be politically expedient, allowing for certain agreeable provisions to be passed while others are not, but it also stretches out the time line of legislative action; which can prove intractable in the wrong environment (I would argue that this environment is the wrong one).
In any case, all things being held equal, the only thing stretching the time line for implementation would have accomplished is a slower shift to the present cost of state funded procedures, like chemo. The price may have reached its apogee more slowly, but it would still reach it, which isn't necessarily a key point of contention if the ultimate goal is passing legislation.
Orlanth wrote:
This is exactly the sort of dangerous demogoguery people need to look out for in their leaders. You Yanks should learn from our mistakes, the last thing you need is what we just had.
National politics is all about demagoguery, rational argument is not something you can use to gain the support of a large crowd. It never has been, and it never will be. In fact, that's the reason there is generally a significant between political rhetoric and political action, which is arguably a good thing.
Monster Rain wrote:
To answer your question directly: Yes, I think that there are some people that actually believe that they are doing the right thing. Forgive me for not being a complete cynic. I mean, I'm getting there, but still. My apotheosis is not yet complete it would appear.
I believe that there probably are a significant number of politicians, especially in the House, that believe they are doing the right thing by opposing the Democrats/Republicans, regardless of what the Democrats/Republicans want to do. I think there are significantly fewer people that believe they are doing the right thing in opposing a particular policy, if that policy is divorced from its political origin.
dogma wrote:
In any case, all things being held equal, the only thing stretching the time line for implementation would have accomplished is a slower shift to the present cost of state funded procedures, like chemo. The price may have reached its apogee more slowly, but it would still reach it, which isn't necessarily a key point of contention if the ultimate goal is passing legislation.
Fair point, but when you rush buy those with the ability to action set the price and normally aim higher. Maybe thats not what happens over your side of the pond, but its usually the case here.
Even if this is not the case and costs eve out the cost spike has to be accounted for. Often this means national debt and thus interest, at other times it means a sudden and harsh cost change elsewhere suddenly occurs with little warning for those who have to cope with it. So even if a project costs the same whether over one year or ten, rushing it costs more indirectly.
dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
This is exactly the sort of dangerous demogoguery people need to look out for in their leaders. You Yanks should learn from our mistakes, the last thing you need is what we just had.
National politics is all about demagoguery, rational argument is not something you can use to gain the support of a large crowd. It never has been, and it never will be. In fact, that's the reason there is generally a significant between political rhetoric and political action, which is arguably a good thing.
Like your comments earlier we are agreeing just on a different scale. Every politician has access to the same toolkit, but some stick the screwdriver in harder than others. in the same manner that all men are liars and hypocrites, we still reserve those epithets to those who cross various thresholds. Yes I do believe that some stoop lower than others, and some few are to all intents and purposes honest servants of the people (applying previous caveat about humans and lying/hypocrasy in general).
Rented Tritium wrote:Our system is basically designed for slow incremental change that is always positive in the long run but sometimes negative in the short run.
Are you saying that the change is always positive in the long run or that "deadlock" (which I agree is a feature, not a bug of the current system) is positive in the long run?
Orlanth wrote:
Fair point, but when you rush buy those with the ability to action set the price and normally aim higher. Maybe thats not what happens over your side of the pond, but its usually the case here. Even if this is not the case and costs eve out the cost spike has to be accounted for.
Well, setting the price isn't something legislators generally do. Rather, that gets handled by bureaucracy, and to a lesser extent by the policy community; who actually have a pretty easy time of it given that they are working with what they're given rather than trying to get something different (as is the case with politicians).
Orlanth wrote:
Often this means national debt and thus interest, at other times it means a sudden and harsh cost change elsewhere suddenly occurs with little warning for those who have to cope with it. So even if a project costs the same whether over one year or ten, rushing it costs more indirectly.
My contention would be that either there as in increase in the deficit, and increase in personal cost, or an increase in both. When you're altering the underlying funding of any state program the money has to come from somewhere. In the case of Medicare it is the recipient of benefits, but if it hadn't been them it would have been the state. If the cost adjustment, in this case, would have been extended the state would simply have paid more (provided all other variables are held equal).
In general, the time line of implementation for any program doesn't affect how much is paid, so much as who pays it.
Orlanth wrote:
Like your comments earlier we are agreeing just on a different scale. Every politician has access to the same toolkit, but some stick the screwdriver in harder than others. in the same manner that all men are liars and hypocrites, we still reserve those epithets to those who cross various thresholds. Yes I do believe that some stoop lower than others, and some few are to all intents and purposes honest servants of the people (applying previous caveat about humans and lying/hypocrasy in general).
I suppose the distinction (outside my natural reservations about the word "hypocrite") between our views would be my belief that lying, even when the lies our large ones, does not preclude being a faithful public servant.
biccat wrote:Are you honestly defending the position that a person needs government permission to chop down a tree on their own property? Such regulations are absurd both facially and usually as applied.
You're ignoring the possibility that the tree might be important to native wildlife. I know in the suburbs of Queensland they tightly control the removal of Eucaplyptus trees, because the native koala population is dependant on them. There's also the possiblity that a person might have purchased a property knowing full well that local neighbourhood agreements required those trees. And in some places, particularly houses built on steep downward slopes, the roots of trees can be very important to hold soil in place and stop everyone's houses sliding away.
I don't know anything about the case mentioned above, and certainly accept there's plenty of cases where people have attempted to stop trees being cut down when they had no sensible claim... but the argument that any such regulation is absurd is entirely a product of your particularly extreme political views, and has little to do with the reality of why these laws exist.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote:The content is there, you are just not able to read it. Its expected that politicians will go the exta mile in self interest to get elected, then there is the breed who are motivated solely by self interest. Normally the public see through them, but Blair produced a model, now widely emulated on how to spend, look good doing it, not worry about any future but his own but still appear a great statesman in spite of the long term damage done.
You keep talking about Blair in a thread about Obama's fiscal policy. Talking about Obama would be one point removed from the actual point (as any claims about Obama's would always be made irrelevant by an observation of the policies needed and whether he applying those policies), and talking about some other politician that someone thinks is like Obama is a whole other point removed, and almost certainly entirely irrelevant.
Think about it like we were talking about the success of English cricket. You might comment that the English cricket team is playing a wonderfully disciplined game, this work ethic is responsible for much of their success. I might start commenting that the coach Andy Flower was tactically simplistic and too rigid. I may be right, I may be wrong, but I would be focussing on the personality of one guy and any point I made could be dismissed by going back to the actual topic for discussion - the success of the current team. If I was instead to start talking about a former coach from another team, say John Buchanan, and start talking about how he was too rigid a coach and therefore so is Andy Flower, I would be two points of remove from the actual topic and almost certainly no longer making a relevant point.
There is nothing vague about that, but it yes does have more to do with personality than the economic need of the nation under these peoples charge.
But the thing in discussion here is a jobs bill getting blocked in the senate. The issue begins and ends with 'will the jobs bill promote economic recovery?' It really doesn't matter how much the guy behind the bill proposes reminds us of some other guy we didn't like.
Let me give you just one highly visible and historically provable indicator here. During the Blair-Bush years a sea change occured in US/UK politics. The relationship became between the US and Blair not the US and UK. An example of this was the complete cold shoulder given to William Hague and other opposition politicians at the time. In any prior administration the US would not have done this, even when faced with vocally anti-American leaders like Michael Foot and Arthur Scargill. whether they were also crurrently electable or not would also not be an indicator of welcome. They would be welcome anyway, the UK/US relationship would remain seperate to the party divide. However Blair asked for a personalisation. Bush agreed and I have no problems from the US end because the so called 'special relationship' became one of support the US in return for help for Blair. Not actual national mutual support. As supporting one self interested poltician is cheaper than supporting a nations interests this was a cheap deal, and Bush did well out of it. It was however catestrophic for the UK, as Blair gave much away but asked for very little in turn unless it was directly to his benefit.
I agree, more or less, but it just doesn't have anything to do Obama, and even less with the jobs bill.
I am duly concerned that Obama is such a man as to put his own interests first and second and Americas little at all. I see echos of this in pursuing such a concept as wholesale care reform would normally be attempted in a second term, its a legacy move, yet Obama wanted it implemented pretty much immediately, i.e. to see the benefits while still in office, damn the cost. This is not the best example as there are parts of Obamams health reforms that are laudable, but its an opening move.
You've missed the politics of that situation. Obama came to power with control of the House of Reps, and (sort of) supermajority control in the Senate. This level of power gave the party a once in a generation to pass legislation on a highly contentious issue that the Republicans could not sink, as they had done previously.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote:Ok, lets help you here. Poliicies take time to mature. If you pass a bill now it will probably be implemented in 2015 or so, and that is for something mundane. An entire shake up of public healthcare is anything but mundane. If you speed things up it is usually at extra cost. Legacy moves are usually made in a presidents second term. Here they get the stuff done, and it takes a while for the benefits to mature. Obama wanted Obamacare actioned on quickly and early in his first term. Why? To bask in it, perhaps.
Actually, the various reforms under healthcare are to be brought in slowly over several years.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote:Thats a nasty price hike. never said anything about the extra costs take a long time, just the positive benefits of new government programs. Yep, as you indicate the costs are pretty much immediate. Its an indicator of the pricetag for Obama being able to claim to see progress during his term in office. Had the heakthcare reforms beendone over a decent steady timeline, i.e. not quickly enough for Obama to look good from it, then such price hikes could be avoided.
But the changes are being brought in over a number of years. And everyone involved recognised this is one step of many that need to be taken. The scale of this first step is merely the product of US healthcare reform being at least three decades overdue, resulting in a system that's paying out twice as much money for results poorer than most developed nations.
sebster wrote:Talking about Obama would be one point removed from the actual point (as any claims about Obama's would always be made irrelevant by an observation of the policies needed and whether he applying those policies), and talking about some other politician that someone thinks is like Obama is a whole other point removed, and almost certainly entirely irrelevant.
I'm also wondering how Obama and Blair can be considered at all alike given that their terms of service, and relative positions within their own parties, are entirely different. Not to mention the massive differences between a federal and unitary government.
sebster wrote:
You've missed the politics of that situation. Obama came to power with control of the House of Reps, and (sort of) supermajority control in the Senate. This level of power gave the party a once in a generation to pass legislation on a highly contentious issue that the Republicans could not sink, as they had done previously.
Its also important to note that Obama isn't the head of the Democratic Party, or even clearly the most powerful member of it given Pelosi, Reid, both Clintons, and arguably Kaine and Wasserman-Schultz.
sebster wrote:Do you consider that at all likely, given the political rhetoric that's existed in Washington during Obama's presidency?
Which is different from the behavior from the Democrats when Bush was in office, how?
The extent of opposition is really not the same. This is the product of a far nastier ideological drive among the Republicans and straight up better organisation and party discipline than the Democrats exhibit.
To compare, Obama attempted to bring in healthcare reform that was decades overdue, and his proposal was basically a market centred reform, very close to what the Republicans were proposing a decade or so earlier. This was treated with almost universal condemnation by the Republicans, who marched in lockstep in voting against it every step of the way. On the other hand, a lot Democrats voted in support of the invasion of Iraq, surely a far more contraversial act.
It would be a mistake to claim 'therefore the Democrats always cave and the Republicans always steadfastly oppose everything', because the nature of political parties change. Right now we have a Republican party which is hardcore unified around absolute opposition to the Democrats (did read the article I posted recently about the Republican insider who left the party after thirty years?). I suspect the Democrats will respond when Republicans control the senate and/or the presidency, and their culture will shift to be just as obstinate.
I do not think any of that is a good thing.
I thought the point of having different branches of government was to debate things and not have one branch making all of the decisions?
To answer your question directly: Yes, I think that there are some people that actually believe that they are doing the right thing. Forgive me for not being a complete cynic. I mean, I'm getting there, but still. My apotheosis is not yet complete it would appear.
It gets complicated quickly, because a person can't do any good in government unless they win office. So winning office becomes a necessary step to doing something good. So playing cynical political games inevitably become necessary to win office, even for people who only really want to help...
Think of any politician you think was pretty good, and go read about them. Guaranteed they pulled some tricks that were pretty damn ugly.
sebster wrote:This was treated with almost universal condemnation by the Republicans, who marched in lockstep in voting against it every step of the way.
To be fair, today's GOP is not the GOP of a decade ago, as you noted. And, as you note below...
sebster wrote:
I suspect the Democrats will respond when Republicans control the senate and/or the presidency, and their culture will shift to be just as obstinate.
...it will only get worse (or, continue along the line it is going), for now anyway.
sebster wrote:
It gets complicated quickly, because a person can't do any good in government unless they win office. So winning office becomes a necessary step to doing something good. So playing cynical political games inevitably become necessary to win office, even for people who only really want to help...
Think of any politician you think was pretty good, and go read about them. Guaranteed they pulled some tricks that were pretty damn ugly.
dogma wrote:To be fair, today's GOP is not the GOP of a decade ago, as you noted. And, as you note below...
Definitely. And the GOP of a decade ago was much worse than the one a decade before that, and that GOP was much worse than the one a decade before that. It's really been a steady slide for multiple decades, and at each point you think would be rock bottom, they've just kept digging.
...it will only get worse (or, continue along the line it is going), for now anyway.
Unfortunately the mindset the GOP has developed in its supporters has ended up trapping them in being opposed to Obama and Democrat policy simply because it is Obama and Democrat policy. The inevitable response that we're seeing more and more is for the Democrats and their supporters to adopt the same mindset.
If any piece of governmental stupidity were to shake the general population out of this and realise 'hang on, this is stupid' I would have thought it would have been the entirely self-created 'debt crisis'. But that only seem to convince both sides to dig their heels in even harder.
They made sausage, as it were.
That's pretty much it, except the process has been producing pretty crappy sausage for a fair while now.
sebster wrote:
Definitely. And the GOP of a decade ago was much worse than the one a decade before that, and that GOP was much worse than the one a decade before that. It's really been a steady slide for multiple decades, and at each point you think would be rock bottom, they've just kept digging.
That's been true of the Democrats as well, though not to the same extent.
sebster wrote:
Unfortunately the mindset the GOP has developed in its supporters has ended up trapping them in being opposed to Obama and Democrat policy simply because it is Obama and Democrat policy. The inevitable response that we're seeing more and more is for the Democrats and their supporters to adopt the same mindset.
The hilarious part is that the debate is often focused on who did it first, or who also did it.
Granted, its only hilarious because I can't really lose either way, my parents, however, are less amused.
sebster wrote:
If any piece of governmental stupidity were to shake the general population out of this and realise 'hang on, this is stupid' I would have thought it would have been the entirely self-created 'debt crisis'. But that only seem to convince both sides to dig their heels in even harder.
We are a nation founded by religious fanatics, after all.
dogma wrote:That's been true of the Democrats as well, though not to the same extent.
In totally different ways, though.
The Democrats are, more or less, still built around triangulation, and their politics seem to built around promising as little as possible, delivering on those promises as little as possible, all to achieve government where upon they can continue to serve their vested interests. As a result, following the entirely humiliating defeat of Gore by Bush in 2000, their response was to abandon what leftwing policy they had, and move more to the centre.
In contrast, the Republicans are built around a core list of beliefs that each person must adhere lest they be declared RINO. In a sense this would be admirable, if these beliefs weren't nasty and really pretty damn crazy. As a result, following the emphatic defeat they suffered in the house, senate and presidency in 2008, they didn't consider moving back towards the centre, but decided the problem was that they'd been too moderate in their politics, re-branded with the Tea Party and moved even further right wing.
The hilarious part is that the debate is often focused on who did it first, or who also did it.
True. Or that after pointing out this is happening, any conversation on it will last for about three minutes before someone comes in and starts sounding off about socialists or theocrats, completely unaware that they're demonstrating the exact behaviour that's being discussed (I can only assume biccat's internet is down today).
We are a nation founded by religious fanatics, after all.
I've read a few pieces that have said that's exaggerated. That the Puritan were only a single early settlement, and that they were given prominance by certain groups wanting to focus on the US early religious heritage. I'm certainly no expert on the subject, mind.
Looked at from the other side, you were the first nation founded with a direct, legal seperation between government and church. To some extent, it seems the rest of the world has slowly gotten less religious, and a lot less inclined to talk publically about their religion, while the US has continued to have surges in religious importance.
sebster wrote:
The Democrats are, more or less, still built around triangulation, and their politics seem to built around promising as little as possible, delivering on those promises as little as possible, all to achieve government where upon they can continue to serve their vested interests. As a result, following the entirely humiliating defeat of Gore by Bush in 2000, their response was to abandon what leftwing policy they had, and move more to the centre.
Eh, I would say the center move was a Clinton thing, and that Gore repeated it, but was trumped by Bush via personality (ugh) and a stronger centrist bent (in campaign).
sebster wrote:
In contrast, the Republicans are built around a core list of beliefs that each person must adhere lest they be declared RINO.
Their House is, their Senate isn't so much, and their Pres. is a battle ground. But that's new to this cycle, in terms of intensity.
sebster wrote:
I can only assume biccat's internet is down today.
Nah, he just got annoyed because I got snarky and started questioning his legal philosophy on logical grounds, same as always.
We may not be a nation founded by religious fanatics, but we sure are one inhabited by them. We're lucky our government was already so secular...
And the business owners whom are making record profits (something Republicans seem to be blind to despite every single news source I've read about from FOX to CNN to Economist to the more obscure stuff reporting it...) are using those fanatics as a political tool to maximize their profits even more, all the while refusing to start hiring.
Supply-side economics doesn't work when there's no demand (like right now, with high unemployment and inflation exceeding the national average payroll increases), and Republican politicians either don't know jack about demand-side economics or just don't care. Assuming government-supported supply-side economics ever worked at all, which I've yet to be convinced of.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As an unrelated aside, we now have Cain arguing he's more black and has more street cred than Obama.
Melissia wrote:And the business owners whom are making record profits (something Republicans seem to be blind to despite every single news source I've read about from FOX to CNN to Economist to the more obscure stuff reporting it...) are using those fanatics as a political tool to maximize their profits even more, all the while refusing to start hiring.
Supply-side economics doesn't work when there's no demand (like right now, with high unemployment and inflation exceeding the national average payroll increases), and Republican politicians either don't know jack about demand-side economics or just don't care. Assuming government-supported supply-side economics ever worked at all, which I've yet to be convinced of.
As an unrelated aside, we now have Cain arguing he's more black and has more street cred than Obama.
1. Businesses exist to make a profit for their owners/shareowners. They don't exist to fund government social engineering, or provide a "living" wage or various benefits to it's employees.
2. Maximizing profits is good.
3. Democrat Keynesian economics is a big pile of dog poop sitting in a lovely bouquet of flowers. (aka it's still poop) The american economy would be fine right now if it weren't for government tinkering. Just go back to the Community Reinvestment Act to discern the heart of our current problems.
4. Since you brought up a racial issue, apparently Cain IS more black than Obama. I think Obama is black/arab/white, while Cain is "just" black. Also, I think it was Al Sharpeton? that said Obama hadn't been around for the struggle, as Obama was brought up in a madrasa (learning to hate whites/america/england/israel). At the same time, Cain was making himself an american success story.
Phanatik wrote:1. Businesses exist to make a profit for their owners/shareowners. They don't exist to fund government social engineering, or provide a "living" wage or various benefits to it's employees.
But w/o government business wouldn't be able to operate nearly as easily. No patent law or enforcement means anyone can steal your ideas. No law enforcement means competition can literally firebomb your business and laugh. Have fun finding a place with a good power grid that you could afford to set up shop and won't kill you with faulty systems. But who is going to want to come to your shop, what with the crappy road system and you can't do mail order becuase there is no centralized mail system. You could hand deliver packages to places within walking distance. Government is far more than 'social engineering'. Business and Government exist becuase of each other, not in spite of each other.
Phanatik wrote:2. Maximizing profits is good.
We increased our profits by dumping our industrial waste behind the school! Or how about, we maximized out profits by cooking the books and taking our employees benefits! Maximizing profits isn't good in and of itself; how one does it matters as well.
Phanatik wrote:4. Since you brought up a racial issue, apparently Cain IS more black than Obama. I think Obama is black/arab/white, while Cain is "just" black. Also, I think it was Al Sharpeton? that said Obama hadn't been around for the struggle, as Obama was brought up in a madrasa (learning to hate whites/america/england/israel). At the same time, Cain was making himself an american success story.
1. Businesses exist to make a profit for their owners/shareowners. They don't exist to fund government social engineering, or provide a "living" wage or various benefits to it's employees.
2. Maximizing profits is good.
3. Democrat Keynesian economics is a big pile of dog poop sitting in a lovely bouquet of flowers. (aka it's still poop) The american economy would be fine right now if it weren't for government tinkering. Just go back to the Community Reinvestment Act to discern the heart of our current problems.
4. Since you brought up a racial issue, apparently Cain IS more black than Obama. I think Obama is black/arab/white, while Cain is "just" black. Also, I think it was Al Sharpeton? that said Obama hadn't been around for the struggle, as Obama was brought up in a madrasa (learning to hate whites/america/england/israel). At the same time, Cain was making himself an american success story.
Phanatik wrote:4. Since you brought up a racial issue, apparently Cain IS more black than Obama. I think Obama is black/arab/white, while Cain is "just" black. Also, I think it was Al Sharpeton? that said Obama hadn't been around for the struggle, as Obama was brought up in a madrasa (learning to hate whites/america/england/israel). At the same time, Cain was making himself an american success story.
Yeah...that is kind of an odd statement. I don't think Obama's opinions were formed much from the madrasa so much as they were due to his growing up around political radicals.
I think Sharpton had a point (although he didn't make it very well) that Obama really was separated from the "black experience" (as Cain put it). He lived a fairly secluded life and was exposed to a lot of higher-ed. types thanks to his parents' connections. Whether due to superior intelligence or affirmative action, his higher-education experience was pretty secluded as well.
Herman Cain, on the other hand, exemplifies what we think of as "black culture" (except for voting Democrat). He grew up poor, went to a small school (Morehouse), then worked his way up through various companies to become incredibly successful.
The contrast between President Obama and Mr. Cain is, in my opinion, staggering. But the case shouldn't be made based on tearing Obama down, rather by building Cain up.
Phanatik wrote:
4. Since you brought up a racial issue, apparently Cain IS more black than Obama. I think Obama is black/arab/white, while Cain is "just" black. Also, I think it was Al Sharpeton? that said Obama hadn't been around for the struggle, as Obama was brought up in a madrasa (learning to hate whites/america/england/israel). At the same time, Cain was making himself an american success story.
So, you really are a liberal plant?
Phanatik wrote:
A constitutional government is just fine.
Why? Because its the Constitution, or because you're using "Constitutional" the same way you use "socialist"?
Phanatik wrote:
Notice that the golden age of america was before the progressives started tinkering...
Whut? The height of American power was basically right after WWII, long after progressives started tinkering.
Phanatik wrote:
...because of course they knew/know more than the founders.
Because, of course, the Founders knew more than the progressives, and were a monolithic group that did not include views that laid the foundation for American progressive thought.
biccat wrote:I think Sharpton had a point (although he didn't make it very well) that Obama really was separated from the "black experience" (as Cain put it). He lived a fairly secluded life and was exposed to a lot of higher-ed. types thanks to his parents' connections. Whether due to superior intelligence or affirmative action, his higher-education experience was pretty secluded as well.
Wait, so someone can be excluded from the "black experience" and potentially benefit from affirmative action?
Its also telling that you didn't consider Cain's potential benefit from affirmative action.
dogma wrote:Wait, so someone can be excluded from the "black experience" and potentially benefit from affirmative action?
Yes, that's kind of the point of affirmative action. AA says we don't care what your background is, how much money you have, or how privileged your life has been. All we care about is what color your skin is. If it's the right color, YOU WIN! Otherwise, off.
It's what the more enlightened among us would call "racism."
dogma wrote:Its also telling that you didn't consider Cain's potential benefit from affirmative action.
You'll note that I didn't consider Obama's potential benefit from affirmative action either. Had you read my post closer, you would have noticed that.
biccat wrote:
Yes, that's kind of the point of affirmative action. AA says we don't care what your background is, how much money you have, or how privileged your life has been. All we care about is what color your skin is. If it's the right color, YOU WIN! Otherwise, off.
It's what the more enlightened among us would call "racism."
Wait, so affirmative action is not a necessary component of the black experience, but is based on racism?
Did you not think about what you intended to write?
Edit: Also, saying that affirmative action is based solely on skin color tells me that you have no idea how affirmative action works.
biccat wrote:
You'll note that I didn't consider Obama's potential benefit from affirmative action either. Had you read my post closer, you would have noticed that.
Really?
biccat wrote:
Whether due to superior intelligence or affirmative action, his higher-education experience was pretty secluded as well.
Should I infer that you biases so cloud your judgment that you cannot be relied upon to recall what you, yourself, wrote? I mean, I guess you could be implying that being isolated by affirmative action, or intelligence, is not an advantage, but generally isolation is the result of being accepted to prestigious institutions; which is something nearly everyone would call an advantage.
Who advocated getting rid of government completely?
I certainly didn't. Pointing out that business doesn't exist outside of government, and vice-versa, is not the same thing as saying there is no government. When I stated "w/o government" I was talking about the relationship between the two, as your statement seemed to admonished government for even daring glance in the direction of business and that it is holding businesses down when in reality they have benefited from each other.
I like this idea that Affirmative Action is the standard by which the "black experience" is measured. Oh, and Al Sharpton can go feth himself. He doesn't now nor has he ever spoken for all African Americans nor is he the arbiter of what constitutes "blackness".
The optimal application of affirmative action is where it drops slightly each generation until gone. Basically a huge population started with nothing 300 years after everyone else got established. There's undeniably a systemic bias because the inheritance rate was so much lower in that population.
Affirmative action as something that just stays forever is obviously dumb and defeats the purpose. Affirmative action that slowly decreases over time fulfills the original purpose.
1: I never said they weren't. That's the government's job, because you can't trust corporations to be upstanding citizens despite the fact that they practically have citizenship. Only actual people who have the same rights as corporations but less power can be trusted to be upstanding citizens.
You know how ti is. Corporations want all the rights of being a citizen without any of the responsibiltiy that comes with the social contract.
2: Bam, bullet to your head. I maximized my profits by eliminating my opposition, Mexican-style. This is good.
3: Supply-side economics is a lie, and always has been. It doesn't work, it never has, it never will.
4: Yeah, I think I'll ignore this little rant of yours claiming that Obama hates white people and Israel. Reading such inanities is intellectually painful.
Melissia wrote:
4: Yeah, I think I'll ignore this little rant of yours claiming that Obama hates white people and Israel. Reading such inanities is intellectually painful.
I thought that saying he "hated" America, which is his own country, and England, for some bizarre reason is even more odd than mentioning Israel personally.
Nobody hates England! We have bowler hats and crumpets and tea and everything!
Frankly, I strongly dislike smug, dishonest Obama and infinitely preferred McCain, and if it wasn't for the Jesus juice I would be a republican over a dem any day of the week, but some of the gak that I read on here, and hear from the mouths of Republicans when Im in the States is embarrassingly silly. It really is schoolboy stuff. If your going to slag people off, at least use some facts.
Be it biccat saying you were "ridiculous" when you claimed BO was compromising with the dem's (he clearly is because I keep reading about how his own party is pissed off with him being a wet blanket in negotiations) the birth certificate or Muslim or "hates" America/Isreal/Britain gak, or the never ending tripe the tea party spew, I'm genuinely starting to feel embarrassed for sensible educated Republicans.
Just who the hell are you going to vote for?!
But alas, I must crawl into my scratcher for the night..
Who advocated getting rid of government completely?
A constitutional government is just fine.
Notice that the golden age of america was before the progressives started tinkering, because of course they knew/know more than the founders.
Regards,
What is your definition of the golden age of america and what is your definition of what the founding fathers believed. Because there is a big fething difference between Hamilton and Jefferson.
youbedead wrote:
What is your definition of the golden age of america and what is your definition of what the founding fathers believed. Because there is a big fething difference between Hamilton and Jefferson.
For example, Hamilton was STRONGLY opposed to the Bill of Rights, while Jefferson was a strong supporter.
Their debate? Hamilton feared that the bill of rights would become an exclusive list of rights, while Jefferson argued it would be considered expansive, that is, the rights of the people extended far beyond the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
As an aside (he was an important period philosopher), it's kinda sad that people only remember Adam Smith for The Wealth of Nations. His first book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments was essentially the basis for his theories as presented in The Wealth of Nations and afterwards, and indeed because of this one could actually make the argument that many corporations are acting immoral according to Adam Smith because corporations do not collectively feel sympathy even if their individual members do, yet theyr'e granted individual rights.
In fact, I'm fairly certain the founders would have been horrified by corporations today... they absolutely HATED the corporations of their time, to be sure. Heck, that very tea party that a certain modern movement is named after was a protest agaisnt corporations-- not against the British government. One of the first things they did after the founding of the federal government was to plant more and more restrictions on corporations, including, for example, making political contributions from a corporation a criminal offense.
Thomas Jefferson wrote:I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
John Adams wrote:Banks have done more injury to the religion, morality, tranquility, prosperity, and even wealth of the nation than they can have done or ever will do good.
Even Lincoln joined in.
Abraham Lincoln wrote:The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. The banking powers are more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. They denounce as public enemies all who question their methods or throw light upon their crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.
[In a different letter]
As a result of war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless.
They didn't prove groundless.
So honestly? If you think the opinions of the founding fathers matter much in how we should govern the US, you should probably be campaigning for a DRAMATIC restriction in the rights and powers of corporations.
Melissia wrote:1:Only actual people who have the same rights as corporations but less power can be trusted to be upstanding citizens.
This gave me a creepy feeling. It made me think of "nothing is better than a big juicy steak."
Melissia wrote:2: Bam, bullet to your head. I maximized my profits by eliminating my opposition, Mexican-style. This is good].
Sure, we see Big Oil and Big Pharma blowing away people in the streets every day. No one could ever say that you exaggerate.
Melissia wrote:3: Supply-side economics is a lie, and always has been. It doesn't work, it never has, it never will.
Wish-thinking of the Looney-Left. I'd suggest you go live in Cuba or N. Korea for a while. After a couple of weeks, you'll love capitalism.
Melissia wrote:4: Yeah, I think I'll ignore this little rant of yours claiming that Obama hates white people and Israel. Reading such inanities is intellectually painful.
You are the one that brought up race. I was referring to what is often taught in madrasahs. And, you apparently don't follow the news, or must simply watch the lamestream media which doesn't report all the news, or the facts, or the truth. Obama has done a lot of things that raise reasonable person's eyebrows since he got into office; starting with sending back Churchill's bust, all the way to ordering Israel to return to the borders from the 60's, which would be a nail in the coffin.
Ah, there it is. I was wondering when you'd forfeit even the pretenses of intelligent debate and accuse me of being a communist (as well as calling me a "loony").
Melissia wrote:In fact, I'm fairly certain the founders would have been horrified by corporations today... they absolutely HATED the corporations of their time, to be sure. Heck, that very tea party that a certain modern movement is named after was a protest agaisnt corporations-- not against the British government.
Really, where do you get your information? The Boston Tea Party was a protest against the Tea Act (the last straw), the 1765 Stamp Act, and the Coercive Acts.
If you truly hate corporations, I'd suggest you put your money where your mouth is, and don't work for any corporation, buy their goods, or use their services. That would pretty much leave you with living in new mexico, sitting on the ground indian-style, manifesting your dolphin aspect.
Because the entire incident was essentially caused by the East India Trading Company and its political sway over British parliament, resulting in a string of laws that allowed it to undercut all competitors and sell its tea directly to the American colonies while continuing to have them be taxed (the Townshend tax, which paid for colonial officials so theyd' be loyal to the crown rather than the colonies).
Melissia wrote:Ah, there it is. I was wondering when you'd forfeit even the pretenses of intelligent debate and accuse me of being a communist (as well as calling me a "loony").
I never used the pronoun "you", so if you are feeling insulted then you must identify with them. That's something for you to work out.
Also, I suppose I'm engaging in unintelligent debate because I suggest that people that hate capitalism are socialists?
I'd suggest looking up the "it looks like a duck" inductive reasoning theory.
I'm not stupid enough to believe you weren't referring to me.
Also, I firmly support capitalism. Capitalism and corporations are not intrinsically linked no matter what you might claim.
Though you cherry pick which parts of my posts you're responding to, you're still doing a poor job of debating them...
Automatically Appended Next Post: To make it even more amusing, I'm merely taking the same stance against corporations that the foundign fathers took. If my position is that of the "loony lefties" then our country was founded by "loony lefties", our constitution was written by "loony lefties", the course of our nation was directed in large part due to the actions of "loony lefties".
To prove this, I quote said fathers themselves:
Thomas Jefferson wrote:I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
James Madison wrote:There is an evil which ought to be guarded against[ in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by corporations. The power of all corporations ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses.
John Adams wrote:Banks have done more injury to the religion, morality, tranquility, prosperity, and even wealth of the nation than they can have done or ever will do good.
Their opposition to the power of corporations and banks would make them decried as crazy in today's world. But there it is.
Phanatik wrote:
I never used the pronoun "you", so if you are feeling insulted then you must identify with them.
Not only did you use the pronoun "you" (5 times in the relevant post), you also quoted her and used the pronoun "this".
Phanatik wrote:
Also, I suppose I'm engaging in unintelligent debate because I suggest that people that hate capitalism are socialists?
I'd suggest looking up the "it looks like a duck" inductive reasoning theory.
The duck test only applies in situations where the opposing argument is based on abstract grounds. For example, "He can't have killed that person, he's a Christian." might be countered by "That may be so, but his appearance and behavior are similar to that of a killer."
However, even in that situation, the following question is "What does a killer look like, and do besides kill?" Which, when applied to your line of argument, would be equivalent to "What is a person that hates capitalism?" You might contend that such a person is socialist (you would be wrong, but you might contend) but contending that such a person can only be socialist is flatly wrong given that hatred has no necessary bearing on the system of economics said person prefers.
Phanatik wrote:
Wish-thinking of the Looney-Left. I'd suggest you go live in Cuba or N. Korea for a while. After a couple of weeks, you'll love capitalism.
You're equivocating by equating capitalism with supply-side economics.
Melissia wrote:Supply-side economics doesn't work when there's no demand (like right now, with high unemployment and inflation exceeding the national average payroll increases), and Republican politicians either don't know jack about demand-side economics or just don't care. Assuming government-supported supply-side economics ever worked at all, which I've yet to be convinced of.
More to the point, supply side economics just plain do not work in any situation. They were a collection of whacky nonsense held by economic nobodies, supported by incredibly dubious research, that just happened to have the ear of a guy with no economic knowledge, who happened to be about to win the presidency. "Voodoo economics" is among the greatest catchphrases ever used to sum up everything that's stupid about someone else's beliefs, and in this case it was given by Reagan's primary opponent, George HW Bush.
They've since proceeded to not work for 30 years, and achieve little more than drive the US into an unsustainably low level of taxation.
That it has become a standard of Republican policy and continues to be well thought of speaks volumes about the collapse of rationalism within the American right wing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phanatik wrote:1. Businesses exist to make a profit for their owners/shareowners. They don't exist to fund government social engineering, or provide a "living" wage or various benefits to it's employees.
Of course. But businesses exist within the greater system created by society through its government. To grant them free reign to act in society as they please, and then not bother to check if they're actually producing the economic outcomes we desire is madness.
3. Democrat Keynesian economics is a big pile of dog poop sitting in a lovely bouquet of flowers. (aka it's still poop)
This thing where you pretend Keynesian economics is somehow an idea that just happens to have been embraced by the Democrats, instead of being an absolute fundamental of macroeconomic management is a thing that needs to stop. It is ridiculous. Stop being ridiculous.
The american economy would be fine right now if it weren't for government tinkering. Just go back to the Community Reinvestment Act to discern the heart of our current problems.
The US suffered a debt crisis. This debt crisis was the result of excessive leveraging of private companies, driven at it's core by borrowing on a housing bubble, which in turn was driven by the private market innovation of bundling up mortgage securities for on-sale, to free up more capital for lending to more homebuyers.
The idea that a minority of homebuyers are somehow responsible for the debt crisis is pretty crazy - there had been foreclosures before and there'll be foreclosures again - what made this different was how little reserve equity the private sector held. The idea that government is responsible because they relaxed homeloan regulations to allow private companies to lend to those people, if those private companies wanted to, is straight from Republicanland.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phanatik wrote:Notice that the golden age of america was before the progressives started tinkering, because of course they knew/know more than the founders.
The golden age of US power was after WWII, following the most overt use of government power in controlling economics in the nation's history.
Not that I or many other people would recommend such overt government influence, that was only justified by the needs of the war, but to pretend that government influence is a new thing that's coincided with a decline in US prosperity is complete and utter nonsense.
They're both children next to the greatness that is Jackson, the first true Amurican President. He probably really did walk around shouting "AMURIKA HURR!!!"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phanatik wrote:
Melissia wrote:In fact, I'm fairly certain the founders would have been horrified by corporations today... they absolutely HATED the corporations of their time, to be sure. Heck, that very tea party that a certain modern movement is named after was a protest agaisnt corporations-- not against the British government.
Really, where do you get your information? The Boston Tea Party was a protest against the Tea Act (the last straw), the 1765 Stamp Act, and the Coercive Acts.
If you truly hate corporations, I'd suggest you put your money where your mouth is, and don't work for any corporation, buy their goods, or use their services. That would pretty much leave you with living in new mexico, sitting on the ground indian-style, manifesting your dolphin aspect.
Have a nice day.
New Mexico. Thats harsh. With the exception of a few regions of paradise, Its like the donkey-cave of the universe.
Frazzled wrote:They're both children next to the greatness that is Jackson, the first true Amurican President. He probably really did walk around shouting "AMURIKA HURR!!!
"I have only two regrets: I didn't shoot Henry Clay and I didn't hang John C. Calhoun."
I lived in El Paso for a while, and worked in an area that covered TX and NM (Ft Bliss up through White Sands Missile Range). Trust me, in that area, TX = NM. One was not better thsn the other.
CptJake wrote:I lived in El Paso for a while, and worked in an area that covered TX and NM (Ft Bliss up through White Sands Missile Range). Trust me, in that area, TX = NM. One was not better thsn the other.
Thats because you were in the Permian Basin. Evidently you had many sins to atone for.
Frazzled wrote:Ask Obama that question about his bill, sending something designed to fail so he could then complain about it.
Meanwhile back at the Hall of Justice, polling continues the American people's continuing desire to fire all of them.
Exactly. Why not just run our government like a smart business.
"Hey, So-n-so isn't doing his job"
"Fine, he's fired, get me another one."
"Hey, now this guy isn't doing his job."
"Fired, next one."
And so on. Just keep doing it til we find the right one.
Our best bet would be to outsource government jobs overseas. I would suggest India. This would immediately remove politicians from directly profiting from laws they pass themselves. We'd save taxpayer money on both ends.
We should put military contractors in the U.S. in charge of arming the military, for a cost savings as well. No more bribes, and the companies would have to do it efficiently or it'd affect their stock values.
The Political Elite running the federal government is already mostly unresponsive to the wishes of the public, and people from India are more polite in any case.
Phanatik wrote:
We should put military contractors in the U.S. in charge of arming the military, for a cost savings as well. No more bribes, and the companies would have to do it efficiently or it'd affect their stock values.
I know this is supposed to be a joke, but if military contractors are arming the military, and producing the weapons used to arm it, who is making the decision to buy said weapons, and where is that money coming from?
As jokes go, this was poorly conceived.
Phanatik wrote:
The Political Elite running the federal government is already mostly unresponsive to the wishes of the public...
That's arguable, given that the direct election of Senators was not mandated until 1913, the 14th amendment did not pass until 1868 (specifically, Section 2 is what I'm referencing), and there is no federal law governing faithless electors.
Additionally, the electoral college itself renders the only national election one which is not based on the people alone.
Many of the Founders weren't exactly populists, either.
Phanatik wrote:Our best bet would be to outsource government jobs overseas. I would suggest India....
So is this going to be another thread where you come in and throw all kinds of ill-informed talking points, people explain to you why you're wrong, only for you to ignore that and carry on with some other kind of nonsense?
If so, is that how you intend to continue posting in the future?
If so, why are you bothering with coming onto discussion boards at all?
Phanatik wrote:Our best bet would be to outsource government jobs overseas. I would suggest India....
So is this going to be another thread where you come in and throw all kinds of ill-informed talking points, people explain to you why you're wrong, only for you to ignore that and carry on with some other kind of nonsense?
If so, is that how you intend to continue posting in the future?
If so, why are you bothering with coming onto discussion boards at all?
How dare you question him, you dirty socialist/communist/Marxist/fascist/liberal/democrat!
Phanatik wrote:Our best bet would be to outsource government jobs overseas. I would suggest India....
So is this going to be another thread where you come in and throw all kinds of ill-informed talking points, people explain to you why you're wrong, only for you to ignore that and carry on with some other kind of nonsense?
If so, is that how you intend to continue posting in the future?
If so, why are you bothering with coming onto discussion boards at all?
Who died and made you a mod?
Who died and made you the arbiter of what people can post?
Frazzled wrote:This is actually a good deal. Obama is now threatening to break the act into smaller bills. Thats excellent. There were several parts of it that weren't bad.
My thoughts too. I knew it was going to fail. Everyone did, I think
Phanatik wrote:Who died and made you a mod?
Who died and made you the arbiter of what people can post?
Have a nice day!
Given I didn't threaten any kind of sanction, or even suggest such a thing were needed, your claim that I was acting like a mod is ridiculous.
Instead, I noted a pattern - you post far right talking points, the board dismisses your far right talking points, you ignore this and repeat different talking points or after a while repeat the old ones again. Given this is a discussion board, it seems very strange you've shown so little interest in discussion.
I'm not saying you can't keep posting your non-thought, I'm just wondering why you're bothering.
Phanatik wrote:Who died and made you a mod?
Who died and made you the arbiter of what people can post?
Have a nice day!
Given I didn't threaten any kind of sanction, or even suggest such a thing were needed, your claim that I was acting like a mod is ridiculous.
Instead, I noted a pattern - you post far right talking points, the board dismisses your far right talking points, you ignore this and repeat different talking points or after a while repeat the old ones again. Given this is a discussion board, it seems very strange you've shown so little interest in discussion.
I'm not saying you can't keep posting your non-thought, I'm just wondering why you're bothering.
Fascinating.
So, when I post far right talking points and you post far left talking posts in response, of course YOU are correct and I should just change my opinion?
So, a "discussion" is where I change my opinion to agree with you?
So, if I continue to support my position, I'm no longer interested in discussion?
I didn't use the word sanction. I suggested that you seemed to be judging the content of my posts to be unworthy of being posted, as if you have some kind of control over the thread. Note that in this case, "unworthy" is defined as I don't agree with you, so you want to shut me down, by overusing the word "ridiculous." If I succumbed to such censorship, it would be ridiculous.
Phanatik wrote:
So, a "discussion" is where I change my opinion to agree with you?
So, if I continue to support my position, I'm no longer interested in discussion?
No, a discussion involves engaging the points made against you, or your position. You don't do this, you engage in what is essentially a highly transparent, and heavy-handed attempt to produce strawmen that are vaguely related to the point made by the person you happen to be quoting at the time.
I could even appreciate this approach, as I use it myself in certain circumstances, but you do it with so little skill that I really just have to shake my head and wonder if the heavy-handedness is simple flamebait.
Phanatik wrote:
I suggested that you seemed to be judging the content of my posts to be unworthy of being posted, as if you have some kind of control over the thread.
You also claimed he was acting as a Mod by doing so, but that would entail a threat of sanction, which was not made. This is an example of the process I described above.
The department of treasury enters the fray, with an article discussing what is causing the current slump, namely, accusations that regulations are causing poor performance.
Is Regulatory Uncertainty a Major Impediment to Job Growth? By: Dr. Jan Eberly 10/24/2011
Last week at a Senate hearing Secretary Geithner said, “I'm very sympathetic to the argument you want to be careful to get the rules better and smarter, but I don’t think there's good evidence in support of the proposition that it's regulatory burden or uncertainty that's causing the economy to grow more slowly than any of us would like.”
Economists from across the political spectrum have also weighed into this debate and reached the same conclusion. Bruce Bartlett, a senior advisor in both the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, said that “no hard evidence” has been offered for claims that regulation is the “principal factor holding back employment.” And in a recent Wall Street Journal survey of economists, 65 percent of respondents concluded that a lack of demand, not government policy, was the main impediment to increased hiring.
Nonetheless, two commonly repeated misconceptions are that uncertainty created by proposed regulations is holding back business investment and hiring and that the overall burden of existing regulations is so high that firms have reduced their hiring.
If regulatory uncertainty was a major impediment to hiring right now, we would expect to see indications of this in one or more of the following: business profits; trends in the workforce, capacity utilization, and business investment; differences between industries undergoing significant regulatory changes and those that are not; differences between the United States and other countries that are not undergoing the same changes; or surveys of business owners and economists. As discussed in a detailed review of the evidence below, none of these data support the claim that regulatory uncertainty is holding back hiring.
Business Profits
If regulation was a significant drag on business today, we would expect to see profits constrained after recent regulatory reforms were passed into law. However, corporate profits as a share of gross domestic income have about recovered their pre-recession peak, and earnings per share in industries most affected by recent regulatory changes, such as energy and health care, have among the highest earnings per share of those in the S&P 500. This growth is inconsistent with a corporate sector held back by regulation.
Trends in Workforce, Capacity Utilization, and Business Investment
If regulatory uncertainty was the primary problem facing businesses, firms would prefer to use their existing capacity and current workers as much as possible, while avoiding building additional capacity until they are more certain about the contours of future regulation.
Specifically, if demand was strong but businesses were concerned about future regulations, they would increase the hours of the workers they already employ rather than hiring additional workers. We have seen no evidence of this in the data: the average work week for private employees has been roughly flat for the past year. Similarly, if demand were strong, firms could easily expand using existing capacity without taking on the cost and risk of added capacity. However, the share of total potential industrial output in use remains 3 percent below its long-run average. Low capacity utilization is inconsistent with concerns about future regulatory risk, but aligns with weak demand holding back current production.
At the same time, business investment has led economic growth over the last few years. Since the end of the first quarter of 2009, real investment in equipment and software has grown by 26 percent – about five times as fast as the economy as a whole. However, businesses would not increase investment if they thought that future regulation posed a threat to their ability to operate profitably.
Financial Indicators
If regulatory uncertainty were having a significant impact on business performance, we would expect this to be reflected in capital markets. However, financial indicators do not provide any evidence in favor of this hypothesis.
As shown in the chart below, corporate bond yields are low across a range of industries, suggesting that firms in industries facing greater regulatory risk, such as insurance and energy, are not being priced out of the market.[1]
Bond Yields for Selected Industries
Spoiler:
Source: Barclays investment grade corporate subindices, measured as yield to worst at the end of the month.
One commonly cited measure of uncertainty is the Chicago Board Options Exchange Market Volatility Index (known as the VIX), which measures the implied volatility of S&P 500 index options. For most of the past year or so, the VIX has stood only a bit higher than in the pre-crisis period, and while it rose significantly in early August, it has come down somewhat in recent weeks (see chart below). However, as can be seen, the sharp increase in the VIX in August and previous sharp increases in late 2008 correspond to virtually identical movements in the VDAX, a similar measure calculated for the German stock market. The correlation between these two indicators suggests that uncertainty in both countries primarily reflects global financial and economic conditions, rather than conditions specific to the United States, such as regulatory changes.
Stock Market Volatility in the United States and Germany
Spoiler:
Source: VIX: Wall Street Journal/Haver Analytics; VDAX; Handelsblatt/Haver Analytics
What Business Owners and Economists are Saying
In recent surveys, business owners and economists do not list regulation as the main problem facing their business, nor do they blame regulation for job cuts: * In the September survey of small business owners by the National Federation of Independent Businesses, more than twice as many respondents cited poor sales (29.6 percent) as their largest problem than cite regulation (13.9 percent). *In an August survey of economists by the National Association for Business Economics, 80 percent of respondents described the current regulatory environment as “good” for American businesses and the overall economy. *As noted above, in a recent Wall Street Journal survey of economists, 65 percent of respondents concluded that a lack demand, not government policy, was the main impediment to increased hiring. *According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, less than three-tenths of 1 percent of mass lay-offs in the second quarter of this year were due to government regulations or intervention. [2]
A Sensible Path Forward
As Secretary Geithner noted during his recent Senate hearing, we should always be looking for ways to improve our regulatory system. That is why the President has ordered a government-wide review of existing federal regulations to create a 21st century regulatory system that protects public health and safety while also promoting economic growth and saving Americans billions of dollars. That review is ongoing and has already made substantial progress toward these goals.
These reforms will enhance the functioning of the economy and complement the increase in aggregate demand required to spur hiring and bring down the unemployment rate. Policy makers in the United States must address these fundamental concerns by putting in place a set of powerful measures to provide near-term support to the economy while restoring fiscal sustainability over the medium-term.
Dr. Eberly is the Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy. __________________________________ [1] Similarly, recent work by Jay Livingston has shown that the unemployment rates in sectors where regulation has been increasing are actually below the national average. [2] An extended mass layoff event is defined as “the filing of 50 or more initial claims for unemployment insurance benefits from an employer during a 5-week period, with at least 50 workers separated for more than 30 days.”
off.
