Jump to content
  • entries
    62
  • comments
    464
  • views
    86,902

I hope I'm 100% wrong about Obama


supercat

3,342 views

Really, I do. Because if I'm not 100% wrong about him, one of the world's largest nuclear arsenals will within a few years be in the hands of a third-world nation.

 

I'll readily admit that McCain was a pretty feeble candidate, but at least he would have let the country tread water until someone better came along in 2012. I believe Obama hates this country and will waste little time running it into the ground.

 

As I said, I hope I'm wrong.

69 Comments


Recommended Comments



I fail to see what it has to do with selling off nuclear arsenals to third world countries though.

 

The point isn't that the U.S. would sell of weapons to third-world countries. The point is that the U.S. is in very real danger of becoming a third-world nation. Unless steps are taken to deal with the issue, what do you think will happen if people stop wanting to lend money to the U.S. government except as 30-day notes with 25% interest?

 

A major factor in assigning credit risk is evaluating the ratio of an entity's interest payments to its income. If the ratio gets too high, the entity will be deemed a credit risk and interest rates will be increased. This in turn will push the ratio higher, quickly creating a death spiral. We are dangerously close to that point. If we get there, this will quickly become a third-world nation.

Link to comment
We've just had 8 years of class warfare (i.e. trickle down economics). It's time for a correction back to the mean.

 

Letting people keep what they earn is class warfare. Got it.

 

Communism was tried at Plymouth Colony centuries before Karl Marx was even born. It failed miserably. The only reason the colony survived is that Governor Bradford decided to go against the colony's charter and subdivide the land to individual families and tell each family that it could eat its own harvest. The colonists were moral and industrious people. If communism could work with any group, it should have worked with them.

Link to comment
The U.S. government is in a very tenuous situation financially. As soon as it appears that it might be unable to pay off its existing creditors, nobody will lend it money except at higher interest rates. If the government does not immediately cut spending (within a month or two at max), the rates will skyrocket to the point where tax revenues can no longer pay the interest.

So you are predicting a major, catastrophical crash within the next few months? Well, let's come back to this thread in 6 months and see what happened. Ok?

 

At that point the government will have no choice but to either stop spending abruptly (telling people with no advance notice that they're simply not going to get paid) or hyper-inflate the currency. What do you suppose is going to happen when government employees are told without warning that they're not going to get paid, or if the currency gets devalued 25% or more?

There are a lot more options:

- selling governmental properties

- increasing taxes

- more intelligent spending

- a new war

- ...

 

So Obama has a lot of options to choose from. And it is not one option versus another.

 

BTW: The dollar already has lost ~50% of its value compared to the Euro since 2000.

 

...what I expect from Obama is a cycle of higher tax rates and lower tax revenues. Such a cycle would be bad under any circumstances, but with a government that is on the brink of total insolvency it would be an absolute unmitigated disaster.

Higher taxes do not result into lower revenues. There is not logic into this broad statement, just prejudice. Too high taxes will eventually result into this, yes. But not even then in short terms.

 

So if you have an evident situation (as you predict), increasing taxes might help you to survive it. Of course this is no long term solution.

 

I see no such chance with Obama.

So you already know the financial experts which he will choose? Or do you just have generally no faith into Obama as a leader? Which would be a solely subjective impression then.

 

I agree, that there are very hard economic times for the USA coming, no matter who is in charge. The deficit is way too high in almost all areas, the infrastructure is pretty rotten and a lot of money is wasted for inefficient or even counter-productive military adventures worldwide.

Link to comment

In my opinion, based on what I have observed...

 

Best possible outcome:

 

Obama continues to make his most loyal supporters content with his charm, political wit, and eye-watering speeches involving the words "Hope", "Future", and "Change".

 

...taxes will slightly raise in order to "distribue the wealth", alternative energies will be found, ending interest for our presence in the middle east, and the welfare collectors along with "the middle class" will all be thrilled with their new fat checks.

 

We'll all be glad the Bush administration is gone, and proceed to celebrate with paper party hats and noisemakers with the words "Yes we CAN" written on them.

 

...though eventually, the Obama administration will probably run out of things to keep the audience glued to their seats, so everything will return to "normal".

 

Worst possible outcome:

 

Tax hikes on the major "corporations that ship jobs overseas" will become so brutal, due to the lowered income taxes on the "middle class" workers, that these companies will start laying off everyone and their brother as an excuse to take more money for themselves. Even if the wages go up, and the workers tax goes down, fact remains, these ruthless bastards are rich for a reason, and they can lay off whoever the hell they want, when they want, for whatever reason they wish... that is unless socialism really does get involved in all of this.

 

We will also "End the war in Iraq" as stated, so that we may place more troops into Afghanistan, or maybe even Pakistan [even if they don't want us, they'll get us], as outlined, in order to prevent this so-called "War on Terror". Lord knows where that will eventually lead us...

 

Bottom line... I personally foresee a large group of disappointed and downright ticked-off citizens and supporters, regardless of the outcome. I only say this because too many people are acting like this man is some sort of heaven-sent savior, when anyone could plainly tell that he's just another politician.

 

...with that being said, I do think it's awesome that an African-American individual has triumphed over the norm, in order to make his way to the highest executive position this country has to offer :3

Link to comment
Bottom line... I personally foresee a large group of disappointed and downright ticked-off citizens and supporters, regardless of the outcome. I only say this because too many people are acting like this man is some sort of heaven-sent savior, when anyone could plainly tell that he's just another politician.

100% agreed.

Link to comment
So you are predicting a major, catastrophical crash within the next few months? Well, let's come back to this thread in 6 months and see what happened. Ok?

 

I'm predicting a major crash, within probably the next four years, which will give less than six months of warning between the time things get bad and the time things get very very bad.

 

There are a lot more options:

- selling governmental properties

- increasing taxes

- more intelligent spending

- a new war

- ...

 

Selling government properties could help allay the total crash, but unless it's done as part of a plan to actually regain solvency it would end up making the crash worse, not better. There's a limit to how much tax revenue can be raised. Avoiding unwise spending is clearly what's necessary, but I perceive Obama as being even less likely to really go down that route than McCain. War doesn't really work if there's no money to pay for it.

 

BTW: The dollar already has lost ~50% of its value compared to the Euro since 2000.

 

Huh? Jan 1, 2000, the dollar was Eur0.98. Now it's Eur0.78. By what sort of math is that 50%? More like 20%. BTW, 25% yearly inflation would translate into an 83% loss of value over eight years. That's not what we've had lately.

 

Higher taxes do not result into lower revenues. There is not logic into this broad statement, just prejudice. Too high taxes will eventually result into this, yes. But not even then in short terms.

 

It really doesn't take long for changes in tax policy to start affecting companies' behavior. Under Reagan and GWB, tax cuts have resulted in increasing revenues. Of course, the government then proceeded in each case to take advantage of the increased revenues by going on a reckless spending binge, but that doesn't discount the fact that revenues increased.

 

So if you have an evident situation (as you predict), increasing taxes might help you to survive it. Of course this is no long term solution.

 

Any revenue increase resulting from increasing taxes will be very short-lived. It is not a realistic solution.

 

So you already know the financial experts which he will choose? Or do you just have generally no faith into Obama as a leader? Which would be a solely subjective impression then.

 

Obama is more interested in promoting a world in which the upper middle class is brought down to the standards of everyone below him, than a world in which more people can aspire to have themselves or their children achieve unlimited potential. Nineteenth-Century America didn't have anything like today's social welfare state, and yet a telegraph operator making $2.20/week was able to elevate himself to becoming one of the richest people in the world. Most people of course can't accomplish that in their lifetime, but historically the usual goal--which was achievable--was for parents to give their children a better start in the world than they themselves had achieved. It would take generations for families to grow to greatness, but it was nonetheless a realistic goal.

 

Today there seems to be a perception that if not everybody can become a Bill Gates that the world isn't fair. Well, there are a lot of ways the world has never been fair, but the fact that rising through the ranks of society was achievable but slow wasn't one of them. Such a system was far superior to the alternative, which is to rule that people born into a class, and all their descendants, will forever remain in the class they were born.

Link to comment
Huh? Jan 1, 2000, the dollar was Eur0.98. Now it's Eur0.78. By what sort of math is that 50%? More like 20%. BTW, 25% yearly inflation would translate into an 83% loss of value over eight years. That's not what we've had lately.

It was up to 1.17 in late 2000 and went down to 0.63 earlier this year. That's 46% at max.

Link to comment
It really doesn't take long for changes in tax policy to start affecting companies' behavior. Under Reagan and GWB, tax cuts have resulted in increasing revenues. Of course, the government then proceeded in each case to take advantage of the increased revenues by going on a reckless spending binge, but that doesn't discount the fact that revenues increased.

The crash we are experiencing now, is the direct result of the new economy started by Reagan. The whole US economy, including private households, was based on spending money that did not exist. With a huge local market this of course lets the economy grow (until the cardhouse collapses) and tax revenues increase then too.

 

But we all know, this all was only virtual (incl. the taxes increasing).

Link to comment

I think Obama will be drawn too far to the left and will over-reach, at least in most American's opinions. This will cause public opinion to shift back to the right. I find it sad that a true war hero, like McCain ends up losing, because of a economic downturn suspiciously timed, an election that he should have won.

Link to comment
I think Obama will be drawn too far to the left and will over-reach, at least in most American's opinions. This will cause public opinion to shift back to the right.

Only if he fails. And your opinion is based on prejudice. Maybe in a year or so, we should talk again.

 

I hope Obama will go as far as possible towards the center in a country which was centered pretty much to the right lately.

 

I find it sad that a true war hero, like McCain ends up losing, because of a economic downturn suspiciously timed, an election that he should have won.

Maybe that's because your country is sick of wars and heroes?

 

BTW: IMO true heroes are created solely in peace, where noone forces you to become a so called "hero".

Link to comment

Greets all!

 

Re: Class Warfare.

 

Letting people keep what they earn -vs- we've just lived through 8 years of class warfare.

 

One thing missing from that "my money is mine" bit, is one's obligation to abide by the social contract. A significant fraction of that earned money was earned in an environment where a lot of risk was pushed down onto ordinary people, and that's the middle class and lower class, bottom 75 percent of people, combined with significant downward wage pressure and devaluation of the national currency.

 

That's an ugly scene for most ordinary Joe and Jane Americans!

 

I've been fortunate and able to make more each year. Those dollars devalued more than my gains though, leaving me with less overall buying power per hour worked, and the push down of risk came home to roost too. Wiped me out totally. Couldn't remain self-employed, forced to work for health care family reasons. That's tough building wealth for somebody else when clearly I could be building it for myself.

 

Funny how that works.

 

Anyway, from where I stand, I'm totally for keeping that money earned, but that can't be combined with over exploitation of those making the wealth in the first place. There must be a balance in this, and that balance was tilted way toward the top.

 

I wouldn't mind getting closer to the top, but that's tough in an environment where we've sent the good jobs overseas, leaving us doing laundry and nails for an economy. Oh yeah, we tell stories and make heavy things like toilets that cost too much to ship.

 

As a nation, we need to be making things, building things, or we are not building wealth for the top to accumulate. When we outsource jobs, we need to be back filling them with the next big thing, and we didn't do either very well. The result was most people selling their future to maintain their standard of living, and that's the financial bubble, housing mess right there. I suppose it didn't help to deregulate the financial, mixing the good money with the speculative money either.

 

This has been the worst 8 years I've seen!

 

Make no mistake either, I want the rich to get richer, but I also want the basics for people to be solid, and risk to be moderate, or they cannot save and handle their affairs and that costs us in the longer term. That's the part of the contract that's been abused.

 

One other thing that's often missing from the keep what you earn deal is that infrastructure and society must be paid for. Those things empower us to do business. Without them, business would be impossible, high risk, low margin, etc...

 

I'm willing to give Obama a chance to bring some discipline to government. Agreed on the savior thing. That's just nuts! The guy is rational, appears to be smart, can hold his own around other people, and he can inspire. Say what you want about warm fuzzies, having one right now is not a bad thing. Motivated people produce better than hopeless people, and Obama knows that and will exploit that. There are far worse things in this world.

 

I'm not opposed to the economic ideas that we've been running under, but I don't think any of it works well, unless there is discipline attached to them. That means regulation and a careful balance so we don't see too many people fall in the cracks and become costs to us later on. Bush didn't grok this. Maybe Obama does. If so, we will be fine over some length of time.

 

Finally, there is Bill Mahar: Bush was so bad that the American people said, "Yeah, a Black guy with a Muslim name sounds good! That's who we want!" --->so true!

Link to comment
One thing missing from that "my money is mine" bit, is one's obligation to abide by the social contract. A significant fraction of that earned money was earned in an environment where a lot of risk was pushed down onto ordinary people, and that's the middle class and lower class, bottom 75 percent of people, combined with significant downward wage pressure and devaluation of the national currency.

 

There are some very rich people who have used the power of government to profit at others' expense. Such people, however, will be immune to any effort to 'soak the rich'. The effect of class warfare is that the people who actually earn their wealth by making things, hiring workers, or risking their own money end up being brought down; this discourages other people from making things, hiring workers, or risking their own money, while it protects the elite from competition.

 

If Republicans were the party of the rich, why are the upper echelons of the elite mostly Democrats or leftist-leaning Republicans?

 

Anyway, from where I stand, I'm totally for keeping that money earned, but that can't be combined with over exploitation of those making the wealth in the first place. There must be a balance in this, and that balance was tilted way toward the top.

 

There is a problem of balance, but it's not the gap between the upper middle class and the lower classes; it's the gap between the upper elite and the upper middle class. Attempts at improving 'social equality' serve to increase, rather than decrease, that gap.

 

As a nation, we need to be making things, building things, or we are not building wealth for the top to accumulate. When we outsource jobs, we need to be back filling them with the next big thing, and we didn't do either very well. The result was most people selling their future to maintain their standard of living, and that's the financial bubble, housing mess right there. I suppose it didn't help to deregulate the financial, mixing the good money with the speculative money either.

 

The biggest 'regulation' that's needed in the financial markets is to have the government stop violating the primary rule of sensible markets: those who make bad investments lose money. To be sure, people who commit fraud need to be prosecuted, but the pressure for prosecution will be much stronger if a fraudster costs 10,000 people $25,000 each than if he costs 250,000,000 people $1 each.

 

I'm willing to give Obama a chance to bring some discipline to government. Agreed on the savior thing. That's just nuts! The guy is rational, appears to be smart, can hold his own around other people, and he can inspire. Say what you want about warm fuzzies, having one right now is not a bad thing. Motivated people produce better than hopeless people, and Obama knows that and will exploit that. There are far worse things in this world.

 

What do you know of Obama's record? By all indications, it's amazingly scant. A lot of people imagine the gaps in Obama's record are filled with whatever they'd like to see. I would consider that naive. I think Obama is deliberately trying to leave as few footprints as possible, and cover his tracks as well as he can. He's claimed himself as a moderate, even though he was radically to the left of everyone else in the Senate.

 

I'm not opposed to the economic ideas that we've been running under, but I don't think any of it works well, unless there is discipline attached to them. That means regulation and a careful balance so we don't see too many people fall in the cracks and become costs to us later on. Bush didn't grok this. Maybe Obama does. If so, we will be fine over some length of time.

 

One thing that severely irks me is the frequency with which horrible leftist ideas are falsely labeled as "conservative", so that their failure can be blamed upon "conservatism". A few years ago, for example, California "deregulated" electrical production and distribution. Well, except for a few regulations that any decent economist would realize would make things unworkable: (1) customer electric rates were pegged, independent of what electricity cost the suppliers; (2) suppliers were forbidden from purchasing advance contracts for electricity. Many of the generators with the lowest marginal production cost take awhile to ramp up and ramp down. If a utility on Monday offers Acme Electric that it will pay a certain amount of money per MWH for 1,000MW of electricity on Friday from 8:00am to 6:00pm, paying 50% for any electricity not actually used, then Acme Electric will likely accept a lower rate than if the utility makes its request at 7:55am on Wednesday. If a utility needs to come up with electricity for which it hasn't made advance arrangements, it may have to pay a considerable premium.

 

The theory behind the no-advance-purchase rule was that without it, some utilities would do much better than others, causing the latter to drop out of the market and removing competition. Unfortunately, the effect of the rule was to eliminate any benefit the "competition" might have offered.

 

Finally, there is Bill Mahar: Bush was so bad that the American people said, "Yeah, a Black guy with a Muslim name sounds good! That's who we want!" --->so true!

 

Bush was pathetic. Not because he was conservative, though, but because he wasn't.

Link to comment

"The effect of class warfare is that the people who actually earn their wealth by making things, hiring workers, or risking their own money end up being brought down; this discourages other people from making things, hiring workers, or risking their own money, while it protects the elite from competition."

 

Not really. (sorry, I don't like managing the quote tags :)

 

The problem we have is that we have opened up too many elements of our own markets to others. When we apply the idea of unrestrained trade between nations (which is often called free trade), we no longer have control over those markets. Corporations then are free to exploit differences in currency, and market rules. Market rules are defined by governments, and in our system of government, the idea is to make sure the worker is not over exploited. Outsourcing puts us at an unfair disadvantage as other nations do not have those same sets of rules! China, for example, has a lower standard of living, and allows considerably more exploitation of it's people for profit than we typically would.

 

I've watched entire industries leave this nation, one by one, as the doors were opened to international labor. This is wasteful, in that fuel for transportation is consumed when it doesn't need to be. It exerts strong wage pressure, in that what used to be a balance in our local economy is suddenly seen as an excess, compared to other economies and rules, and once the door is open, either we are forced to deal with making a whole lot less buying power per hour worked, because those companies producing overseas have a serious cost advantage over those producing here.

 

I don't have a big problem with that, as globally there are some serious advantages to doing that, but only if we are innovating here, investing in people here, so that we are producing better / faster / stronger / unique goods here! There then is a nice effect where known good, stable processes, means and methods are done at the lowest cost possible, while we continue to lead in a lot of things.

 

This was not done. Lots of good paying jobs were lost, and that starts an ugly cycle to the bottom.

 

Those people unable to make the buying power per hour worked they used to, end up depending on the lower cost goods overseas.

 

This ripples out from industry to industry until we really don't offer all that many good paying jobs!

 

We are there now.

 

If, as a nation, we are not building wealth, then we cannot compete and our currency will devalue and we will come to depend on other nations more and more. Where do you think the money comes from? Wealth is labor and innovation applied over time. At some level, we convert sweat into goods and services that have value, and doing that a lot builds wealth in terms of infrastructure, means, methods, processes and understanding.

 

We have sold all of that, leaving us butkis to build wealth with!

 

In the 60's through the late 70's maybe 80's, 70 percent of our GDP was manufacturing based. Now today, 70 percent or more is financials! That makes us extremely vunerable to the kinds of things we are seeing right now. And of course, we are hurting about it too.

 

So we have over valued a lot of things, and done a lot of things on credit, counting on essentially trust in our currency, our global position and control, and ownership of things to "pay" back that debt. There is a problem with this, and it's ugly. If we don't really make anything (and we don't), what exactly do those holders of US dollars buy with them? They can't buy goods and services, because that's only maybe 30 percent of what we make available. That leaves buying us!

 

And they have. Foreign ownership of our land, infrastructure and our corporations is happening at a scary rate. What happens then when we use these things to build wealth? It leaves the nation, and does not stay here. We are literally selling our future, yet we spend and borrow as if we still were a nation where 70 percent of GDP was manufacturing.

 

This cannot continue.

 

Obama has made it clear he understand this. This is why I am going to give him a chance. He's the only one who ran, who got this stuff and got it big.

 

The only way we have out of this financial mess is to double down and build wealth. That means building new infrastructure, investing in new technology development, new manufacturing and making sure that wealth stays here. It does not matter so much that it moves to the top. That happens, and it's fine. What does matter is that we do not outsource those jobs, nor allow foreign ownership of them, so that we are producing goods and services that can pay solid wages, so that the middle class is making enough buying power per hour worked to pay down debt, start small business, invest in their retirement, etc...

 

This isn't about soaking the rich. Nobody really cares how rich the rich are. (ok, so a few of us do, but only because we really, really hope we might be rich too) EVERYBODY cares about making a wage good enough to support a family and take care of it the way we should, without running a credit balance, or draining the value from homes every year to keep up.

 

This isn't a spend out of it scenario. It isn't a military scenario. It isn't a bust the unions, or labor is out of control scenario. None of that matters. What does matter is how we compete as a nation and how that impacts our worth. 70 percent of GDP on financials means we are not carrying our weight globally, and that will continue to bring us pain, or force us to surrender ownership of our lands, infrastructure, and future until we either have nothing left, or it hurts enough to force some change back to building a good national economy again.

 

"The biggest 'regulation' that's needed.." Is a return to conservative financial policy. That means banks act like banks and are very secure, stable, and moderate investment devices that are insured. Investment banks need to avoid complex derivative devices where we leverage the same asset only a very conservative number of times, not so many times that one lost mortgage costs us millions in these bizarre credit default swaps. These complex and questionable financial devices have allowed us to present the illusion of wealth and growth, when the reality is our "growth" is largely paper growth, not real growth in wealth, in terms of our GDP and how it is valued. (lack of manufacturing)

 

We can't have rich people getting richer, unless we have a good, solid source of new wealth being generated. That means people working, building things, etc... and those people deserve a living wage for their efforts. So long as we are forced to compete with nations where that is not the case, we won't accomplish that goal.

 

 

"What do you know of Obama's record? By all indications, it's amazingly scant."

 

Absolutely it is! And this is a great reason to support him. Of the things we know, we know he is a great organizer, is capable of acting rationally and intelligently in pinch situations, knows how to work with people, and has lived a modest life. More importantly, he really doesn't owe anybody but the people. This is notable as we have a lot of bad money in politics. Obama won with minor donations from the people that wanted to see him get his chance. This means we are highly likely to not have to suffer as we have major industry interests writing laws and applying pressure to give us more of the same crap that got us here in this mess in the first place.

 

Frankly, the trickle down economic ideas gestated about the time of Nixon and popularized with Reagan, have done nothing but devalue us and weaken us for about 30 years. I've had enough of it, having had to change career three times to keep ahead of the outsourcing waves, finally reduced to sales, consulting and other people to people oriented jobs that are very difficult to outsource. I would much rather be making things, but we've sold that overseas.

 

It's getting to the point now where I don't have anybody to sell to or consult with. (I work with engineering software and am focused on improving or empowering the product design and manufacturing process) We don't design all that much, and we don't make much, leaving me with a few aerospace, automotive and defense customers, where we used to have a robust field of manufacturing companies combined with product design companies all providing good, solid work for people to retire on.

 

I am so done with that! I'm not sure where I would jump next, other than to finally have to break down, learn a language and help the overseas people better consume us. Really don't want to go there, and I'm sure nobody else does either.

 

He taught law, and that's better than our current President who appears to not fully understand what being President means, nor how our government is supposed to function. We don't elect kings here, but nobody told him that. Obama knows that, and additionally has the unlimited power handed to him. Betcha they didn't really think that through did they?

 

(which is why we don't pull that crap)

 

Now that it's done, we just have to trust Obama now don't we. Thank the Republican party for that dilemma. Hope Obama does us right, because we don't have the outs we used to, largely because of how this administration just ignored the checks and balances that are supposed to marginalize these worries for us.

 

"radically left"

 

I was a Republican for 20 years, until I realized that they were no longer conservative. I like conservative where fiscal policy is concerned. I'm a centrist on foreign policy, socially left big time, and kind of all over the map domestically. (Believe we need a mix of things to get rocking again, and have no ideological exceptions getting in the way of evaluating rational proposals.)

 

Again, we wouldn't have to worry about how left we go, if we didn't have the Republicans handing all the power to the President. They really didn't think that through did they?

 

Oh well. The New Deal was a kick ass time. That was a lefty move, and I think it's time for a New, New Deal, so let's see how it goes. It can't possibly be worse than the Right has brought us.

 

That's a Republican economy, Republican war, Republican corruption, Republican Torture, Republican abuse and bastardization of the law. Man, that's a lot of Republican boiling to down to a lot of bad. Left isn't a dirty word. Progressive, Liberal, Left, all good. Again why?

 

Because we know what passes for the right just sucks. And that's coming from a 20 year Republican, who can't even recognize the party anymore, now Democrat and proud of it. Just think of it as the Bush legacy. You are welcome!

 

"Bush wasn't a conservative"

 

Absolutely agreed. He didn't realize any conservative spending policy at all, embraced a lot of questionable social policy, trounced states rights repeatedly, expanded government to a large size, borrowed more dollars than all the other Presidents combined, etc...

 

So, perhaps this is a referendum on Bush, and conservative got taken for a ride. I think that's fair, but here's the deal:

 

If we have that many real conservatives, who understand how American government is supposed to function, then where were they? Why didn't they stand? I thought about this a lot, and have come to the realization that we just don't have that many real conservatives, and what we do have passing for conservative is harmful. Very harmful, so they are out.

 

Rather than worry about how far left we are gonna go, why not focus on building an actually conservative Republican party, that we all can have some respect for, and get it done sooner rather than later, so we can fix the law, restore the balance of powers and once again govern largely from the center, with the occasional jaunt left or right when it makes the best sense?

 

Until then, it's the lefties turn. Right leaning people gave it their shot, had the keys the kingdom and hosed it so badly that Republican might be a dirty word for the next 20 years.

 

(and that's not personal supercat. Always liked your posts, always will, but man, you are talking to one very frustrated American, who has very little confidence in the established pool of ideas that have been running us for 30 years. Time to change way up and see where that leads.)

Link to comment
The problem we have is that we have opened up too many elements of our own markets to others. When we apply the idea of unrestrained trade between nations (which is often called free trade), we no longer have control over those markets. Corporations then are free to exploit differences in currency, and market rules. Market rules are defined by governments, and in our system of government, the idea is to make sure the worker is not over exploited. Outsourcing puts us at an unfair disadvantage as other nations do not have those same sets of rules! China, for example, has a lower standard of living, and allows considerably more exploitation of it's people for profit than we typically would.

 

If a shopping mall is going broke because it's losing tenants (stores), will it be better served by raising rents or reducing them? It is truly astounding the extent to which the government on the one hand gives companies billions of dollars in handouts to encourage them to maintain operations in the U.S., while on the other hand it imposes billions of dollars in taxes and regulatory costs. Some regulations are useful, of course, but some industries are burdened down with a lot of useless regulations (in addition to some useful ones). Rather than giving businesses money, the government should figure out how not to be a burden.

 

"The biggest 'regulation' that's needed.." Is a return to conservative financial policy. That means banks act like banks and are very secure, stable, and moderate investment devices that are insured. Investment banks need to avoid complex derivative devices where we leverage the same asset only a very conservative number of times, not so many times that one lost mortgage costs us millions in these bizarre credit default swaps. These complex and questionable financial devices have allowed us to present the illusion of wealth and growth, when the reality is our "growth" is largely paper growth, not real growth in wealth, in terms of our GDP and how it is valued. (lack of manufacturing)

 

The government has promoted a level of confidence in certain markets which is grossly unwarranted. It should hardly be surprising that people make financial decisions which would otherwise be irrational (and which may or may not be made rational by government bailouts).

 

Suppose someone ("the dealer") offers the following deal: a person picks a card at random from a standard deck; if it's ten or higher, he win $100. Otherwise he loses $100. How many customers do you suppose the dealer would get, offering those odds?

 

Now suppose the deal was changed slightly: if a card is ten or higher, the player wins $100. Otherwise the dealer collects $100 (as above) but U.S. taxpayers pick up half the tab, so the player only loses $50. How many customers do you suppose the dealer would get under those rules?

 

Absolutely it is! And this is a great reason to support him. Of the things we know, we know he is a great organizer, is capable of acting rationally and intelligently in pinch situations, knows how to work with people, and has lived a modest life. More importantly, he really doesn't owe anybody but the people.

 

How do you know to whom he owes what favors?

 

Obama won with minor donations from the people that wanted to see him get his chance.

 

A very large portion of his money was in donations of less than $200 each. Given that--unlike other politicians--Obama accepted anonymous gift cards, there's no telling whether each donation represents a distinct individual. If someone wanted to donate $3,000 to Obama's general election campaign ($800 over the legal limit) it would be a simple matter to buy fifteen $200 gift cards. If bought singly at various places, one could easily do so without arousing any suspicion and donate completely untraceably. If one wanted to donate $30,000 it would be a little harder, but hardly impractical.

 

This means we are highly likely to not have to suffer as we have major industry interests writing laws and applying pressure to give us more of the same crap that got us here in this mess in the first place.

 

Believe what you will about to whom Obama owes favors. I suspect it will be obvious within six months who's right.

 

He taught law, and that's better than our current President who appears to not fully understand what being President means, nor how our government is supposed to function. We don't elect kings here, but nobody told him that. Obama knows that, and additionally has the unlimited power handed to him. Betcha they didn't really think that through did they?

 

Obama taught "Constitutional Law", or more precisely, how to convince people that the Constitution says things it really doesn't. Not a positive in my book.

 

I was a Republican for 20 years, until I realized that they were no longer conservative. I like conservative where fiscal policy is concerned. I'm a centrist on foreign policy, socially left big time, and kind of all over the map domestically. (Believe we need a mix of things to get rocking again, and have no ideological exceptions getting in the way of evaluating rational proposals.)

 

I consider myself a Constitutionalist first and foremost. To the extent that the government fails to abide by the Constitution, it is illegitimate. I wish that were more widely realized.

 

Again, we wouldn't have to worry about how left we go, if we didn't have the Republicans handing all the power to the President. They really didn't think that through did they?

 

Republicans. Not conservatives. Recognize that there are many in the GOP who view conservatives as the enemy, and seek to destroy the party from within. Not sure how best to counteract that.

 

Oh well. The New Deal was a kick ass time. That was a lefty move, and I think it's time for a New, New Deal, so let's see how it goes. It can't possibly be worse than the Right has brought us.

 

The New Deal prolonged the depression by quite a few years. I don't want another one on top of it.

 

That's a Republican economy, Republican war, Republican corruption, Republican Torture, Republican abuse and bastardization of the law. Man, that's a lot of Republican boiling to down to a lot of bad. Left isn't a dirty word. Progressive, Liberal, Left, all good. Again why?

 

Because the things that were bad with leftist Republicans will be even worse with leftist Democrats. The problem isn't conservatism--it's the lack of it.

 

Because we know what passes for the right just sucks. And that's coming from a 20 year Republican, who can't even recognize the party anymore, now Democrat and proud of it. Just think of it as the Bush legacy. You are welcome!

 

What "passes for" the right is bad. Largely because it has little to do with actual conservatism.

 

If we have that many real conservatives, who understand how American government is supposed to function, then where were they? Why didn't they stand? I thought about this a lot, and have come to the realization that we just don't have that many real conservatives, and what we do have passing for conservative is harmful. Very harmful, so they are out.

 

Rather than worry about how far left we are gonna go, why not focus on building an actually conservative Republican party, that we all can have some respect for, and get it done sooner rather than later, so we can fix the law, restore the balance of powers and once again govern largely from the center, with the occasional jaunt left or right when it makes the best sense?

 

The leftists in the GOP will oppose any effort by conservatives. So where should they go?

 

Until then, it's the lefties turn. Right leaning people gave it their shot, had the keys the kingdom and hosed it so badly that Republican might be a dirty word for the next 20 years.

 

Leftists in the GOP had their shot. Nothing to do with conservatives.

 

(and that's not personal supercat. Always liked your posts, always will, but man, you are talking to one very frustrated American, who has very little confidence in the established pool of ideas that have been running us for 30 years. Time to change way up and see where that leads.)

 

I think we need a change to. Governor Palin seemed a lot better than any of the other candidates.

Link to comment
Governor Palin seemed a lot better than any of the other candidates.

100% agreed. I her short candidate time she even gave better laughs worldwide than GW ever did. :)

 

Elect here next time and no other country will be able to take your country serious anymore. Which is great, because nobody will be able to hate the USA anymore. Instead they will be ROTFL whenever they spot an US American. Problem solved!

Link to comment
100% agreed. I her short candidate time she even gave better laughs worldwide than GW ever did. :)

 

I know the promotion of ridicule is often used as a means of diminishing one's opponents politically, but many of the complaints about Palin seem to apply just as well, if not moreso, to Obama.

 

I consider her character to be far superior to that of any of the other top-three candidates. She may not match Obama's pure intelligence, but common sense and character trump intelligence any day in my book. As governor of Alaska, she has managed the highest approval rating of any governor anywhere. Are the people of Alaska stupid?

 

The ethics stuff was a partisan witchhunt: A police officer threatened to kill her father-in-law before she was governor. While she was governor, she sought to bring police attention to some further misconduct by that person (including snowmobiling while 'disabled' from a workman's comp injury). After the head of the state police went on a trip to lobby for a program that she had vetoed, she had him reassigned. As that particular person was an at-will political appointment, she was entitled to dismiss him for any reason whatsoever or no reason at all. The complaint is that she might have been motivated to fire him because of a personal vendetta related to his earlier threats against her father-in-law (who, incidentally, is still employed as a police officer). What sort of ethics charge is that!?

 

IMHO, the real reason for the visceral hatred of Sarah Palin is simple: in circumstances where many women would have had one abortion and encouraged another, she did neither. Worse, she seems happy with those choices. That does not compute. Therefore, she must be destroyed.

Link to comment
IMHO, the real reason for the visceral hatred of Sarah Palin is simple: in circumstances where many women would have had one abortion and encouraged another, she did neither. Worse, she seems happy with those choices. That does not compute. Therefore, she must be destroyed.
Were you meaning to be ironic with your use of the word choice?
Link to comment
Were you meaning to be ironic with your use of the word choice?

Did the italics give it away?

 

BTW, I'm curious: Given that Barack Obama received $200,000,000 worth of contributions of $200 or less that he hasn't individually reported, having an average value of $86, do people believe that those contributions came from a 2.3 million different people each contributing less than $200? Or did some people make multiple contributions totaling over $200 without being reported?

Link to comment
Were you meaning to be ironic with your use of the word choice?

Did the italics give it away?

 

BTW, I'm curious: Given that Barack Obama received $200,000,000 worth of contributions of $200 or less that he hasn't individually reported, having an average value of $86, do people believe that those contributions came from a 2.3 million different people each contributing less than $200? Or did some people make multiple contributions totaling over $200 without being reported?

I dunno. But I can tell you that the DNC volunteers were canvassing my city for donations. They knocked on my door several times until I gave them $40. Hope it's tax-deductible...

 

Anyway, I edited the previous post too slowly. Regardless of Palin's fiscal ideals (whatever they are, and they may indeed be conservative) I think the nation was much more frightened of electing another evangelical. If the GOP wants to reinvent itself, I think they would be wise to purge themselves of all of these polarizing social issues.

Link to comment

We clearly will see where things go. I personally am giving Obama the exact same consideration I gave Bush, and that was not easy. So it's his show and perhaps it will go well. I'm hoping it does, and am not going to entertain trouble at this point.

 

That's the donation bit, character, unknown, all of it.

 

A year from now will tell all, and it's a smart wager, IMHO.

 

I did want to comment on where are the real conservatives supposed to go?

 

Sadly, we have a two party system. I really support the idea of changing that. Here are the options:

 

1. do exactly what progressive democrats did. Get into the party, and move to elect more and better democrats. That move is very successful. The party has seen lots of new blood, and so far has changed significantly. I'm highlighting that because that's the primary move that a well organized group of conservatives could do to get established.

 

2. run aggressive primary politics. This speaks to third parties. At any given time there are weak and lame office holders. Libertarians, for example, need to fundraise and get some seats, instead of taking pot shots at the Presidency. The latter is political theatre and sometimes costs us. The former means forcing a third party discussion. Clearly that's got a lot more potential.

Link to comment
Regardless of Palin's fiscal ideals (whatever they are, and they may indeed be conservative) I think the nation was much more frightened of electing another evangelical. If the GOP wants to reinvent itself, I think they would be wise to purge themselves of all of these polarizing social issues.

 

One of the things I've thought Gov. Palin should do would be to make a campaign ad showing her supposed "mission from God" quote in its proper context. I wonder how many people have any idea what she was actually saying, or the way that Charlie Gibson and the liars at ABC have misrepresented it?

Link to comment
Regardless of Palin's fiscal ideals (whatever they are, and they may indeed be conservative) I think the nation was much more frightened of electing another evangelical. If the GOP wants to reinvent itself, I think they would be wise to purge themselves of all of these polarizing social issues.

 

One of the things I've thought Gov. Palin should do would be to make a campaign ad showing her supposed "mission from God" quote in its proper context. I wonder how many people have any idea what she was actually saying, or the way that Charlie Gibson and the liars at ABC have misrepresented it?

 

Agreed on the wedge issues. Don't need 'em, can't afford them.

 

If those were not represented properly, seems to me she has plenty of room now to clear that all up. I would be very interested in that. I want to know why she fanned the fires of hate and bigotry and how she justifies that, given her stated religious position.

 

I don't think that's defensible.

 

Her mission from god is her deal, not ours. Frankly, I don't care how good, or defensible that mission is, if it's a running point, that's a no vote from me. Religion governs our private lives, and government governs our public lives. One of the core things behind this is our freedom of religion. We have that freedom so that people can allow their religion to govern their private lives. This is good and healthy. This also means we just don't legislate these choices for others.

 

I used to be very religious. I'm pretty much not religious today, and it's because of this issue. We can't have the freedom of religion, and with it the freedom to follow god as we see fit, if we go and try to make other peoples choices for them. We also can't have these things if we embrace bigotry, hate, theocracy, and a bunch of other social matters. None of those are defensible.

 

When I got told who to hate, and what values to support in government, that was IT. I abandoned the whole mess, and that's what I see Palin doing. Can't support it.

Link to comment
I consider her character to be far superior to that of any of the other top-three candidates. She may not match Obama's pure intelligence, but common sense and character trump intelligence any day in my book. As governor of Alaska, she has managed the highest approval rating of any governor anywhere. Are the people of Alaska stupid?

Were the people of Texas stupid? I am sure Bush wasn't elected for his intelligence either and we have seen the result. I am afraid of another "common sense and character" US president.

 

IMHO, the real reason for the visceral hatred of Sarah Palin is simple: in circumstances where many women would have had one abortion and encouraged another, she did neither. Worse, she seems happy with those choices. That does not compute. Therefore, she must be destroyed.

Well, I didn't even know that. Now I must start hating her. :)

 

It seems that you imagine that there are many people out there, who want to force women into abortion and who adore women who do abortion. Do you really believe that? And if yes, what's the supposed motivation behind this?

 

I can respect both, woman who decide to get a child and women who don't. Why can't you and, even worse, automatically assume that it must be vice versa on the other side?

Link to comment
BTW, I'm curious: Given that Barack Obama received $200,000,000 worth of contributions of $200 or less that he hasn't individually reported, having an average value of $86, do people believe that those contributions came from a 2.3 million different people each contributing less than $200? Or did some people make multiple contributions totaling over $200 without being reported?

Logic tells us, that of course between 2.3 million chances there must have been people who donated more than once and more than allowed without being caught.

 

But the number of those is pure speculation. Based on speculations one can assume each and everything.

Link to comment
I want to know why she fanned the fires of hate and bigotry...

 

Clarify exactly what you mean by 'fanned the fires of hate and bigotry'.

 

Her mission from god is her deal, not ours.

 

She asked fellow members of her congregation to pray that the troops were on a mission from God. She didn't say that they were--she asked members of her congregation to pray that they were. Of course, if you only heard the portion of her quote that Charlie Gibson and company aired, you may not be aware of that.

 

This also means we just don't legislate these choices for others.

 

What choices has she said she wants to legislate for others?

 

I used to be very religious. I'm pretty much not religious today, and it's because of this issue. We can't have the freedom of religion, and with it the freedom to follow god as we see fit, if we go and try to make other peoples choices for them. We also can't have these things if we embrace bigotry, hate, theocracy, and a bunch of other social matters. None of those are defensible.

 

Palin has five children who give her a lot of joy and whom, as far as I can tell, she loves very much. Some people who see that may feel some envy and self-hatred as a result of their own personal decisions, but I don't sense any hatred from Gov. Palin directed at those people. What signs of hatred are you seeing?

Link to comment

Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...