Since the Debt doesn't matter...

[GenSeneca]

every state has it's own representatives to vote on behalf of the people of the local level that elected them.

As I said, so long as you are in the majority, you think its great. When you find yourself in the minority, its not so pleasant. Thats why its so important to respect the rights of the minority, especially when you're part of the majority, so that you'll receive the same respect when the tables are turned.

Of those votes the majority rules. It doesn't mean I don't care about everybody just because I agree with changes... it just means we disagree on the best policy.

The problem I have is that the ONLY policies they give us to choose from are statist. For example, the gay marriage ban in California... One side wants the state to recognize it as legal, the other wants the state to ban it as illegal, I want the state to end the practice of granting permission to individuals to get married. I don't know exactly when we gave government the job of issuing marriage licenses but they didn't always have that job and I'd like to see that power returned to the people.

I don't know if you're a racist or not.

You may or may not be a racist as well....

We just see things differently. I don't know your exact political position... maybe Libertarian? But being as you often speak up for the Pubbies over the Dems I just feel it's important to note from my side of the fence I and I think a lot of people right now were much more afraid of the Republicans taking power away from the people... or at the very least giving extra power to the rich & powerful.

My position is CaLiCo, Capitalist, Libertarian, Conservative. I disagree all forms of statist policy. The problem you have is thinking that anytime I speak up against the Democrats, its done in support of Republicans... Thats just not the case. I don't like the Progressives ideology in either party because of its statist positions, that includes the Progressive wing of the Republican party (they are the Neoconservatives). I get along just fine with the Classical Liberals on the Left, most Libertarians, and the Conservatives on the Right with the only caveat being that they hold non-statist views.

Can't we possibly wait and see how things progress in this new year before we get too upset? Just see if it's not really as bad as you project..

No. Sorry but I know bad policy, its all I've seen from both parties my entire life and its time for real change, to Non-Statist pro-Capitalist policy, that's change I can believe in. I've watched the two parties play tug-o-war on top of a mesa and both directions lead us over the cliff or they do the bi-partisan thing and build the mesa higher. I'm trying to dismantle the mesa and get us back down to our constitutional roots.

See this is why I come down on you sometimes. You go over the top.

The poison is a promise that you don't have to pay for your own healthcare, that you don't have to work for a living but it will be provided to you, that you don't have to be able to afford a home to own one, that no matter what need you have, a politician will provide it at someone else's expense in trade for your vote.

I have no idea where you get this at but you are mistaken. But regardless of that I'm not against a regulated Capitalist system. Like I posted and historian will confirm completely unchecked Capitalism is not a good thing and was proven not a good thing right here in America with the Robber Barons and monopolies..

You need to brush up on your history and my position. First of all, I support Capitalism that's only regulated by protecting the rights of individuals as called for in our constitution. Government picking winners and losers, as they are doing now, doesn't lead to innovation, it leads to stagnation because government has taken away the incentive to improve the product in order for it to be competitive. I don't support corporate welfare, you do. I don't think any corporation is too big to fail, you do. I don't support corporate subsidies, you do. I don't support government owning or controlling corporations, you do.

As for history, the robber barons are often cited, as are the monopolies of the time, as a case against "unregulated" capitalism but if you bother learning about the government regulation leading up to that point... It was government that put their competition out of business through regulation, it was government that created the circumstances for the monopolies to rise and it was corrupt politicians who oversaw and implemented all of it to increase their own personal fortunes as they, and their robber baron buddies, got rich through the power of government.

When a corrupt corporation like Enron comes around, you blame capitalism and push to punish all corporations... Yet when a corrupt politician like Blagoyavich comes around, you DON'T blame democracy and demand that all politicians be punished. Capitalism has become a whipping boy because its popular to denounce it as a "failed" system yet you don't seem to notice, or you completely ignore, all the failures of government regulation over the free market and never argue to remove the regulations that lead to failures. Instead you see ANY deregulation as a bad thing and ALL regulation as good.

Dude I'm tired of talking about it... it was all wrong. The good thing is we will now see rapid improvements & changes in policy that I think will be extremely helpful for a plethora of reasons.

I didn't want to go into Iraq either but we did. We couldn't just leave once we got there so your complaints about staying amount to nothing more than crying over spilled milk. Whats the Obama exit strategy for Afghanistan again? Oh, he doesn't have one - Same as Bush. What is his plan for Iraq? We'll leave as conditions on the ground permits - same as Bush. Obama says he'll cross the boarder into Pakistan to go after terrorists - Bush policy since '04. Obama's plans to gut the military, slash spending on future combat weapons and have a "civilian defense force" that's "just as large, well armed, equipped and trained as the regular military" will cost a fortune and nobody has any idea what he'll actually use such a defense force for once he has it.

Give it a chance. We need to be more energy independent and we know pollution is not a good thing. We can find compromises and still move forward for the long term betterment.

Please stop with this "give it a chance" garbage... I said his policies would cause the cost of electricity to skyrocket, you denied it but all the evidence goes against you. It doesn't take a crystal ball to understand this and even he admitted it. Cap & Trade alone will be expensive to the consumer. We do need to become energy independent and I'm not arguing for pollution, what I'm arguing against is the taxation of cheaper products in order to subsidize the more expensive ones so they can compete in the market place. We won't get innovation in the Alternative energy industry if we subsidize their mediocrity.

Smoking has not one redeeming feature. It's merely an unhealthy habit that feeds it's own unhealthy habit. So I could care less about the tax they put on it.

People enjoy it, thats enough for me to care. Pursuit of happiness means something to me and just because I disagree with someones actions isn't grounds for me to force them into changing those actions. Attempts at using taxation to regulate behavior amounts to social engineering, something I'm no fan of.

If our elected representatives vote to spend it then we have to pay for it. I could go in and easily cut things that from my perspective are over expenditures that you might want to keep and visa versa.

Problem is, you're not the one paying for it... so what do you care how much it costs? You don't... The bottom 50% pay 3% of the tax bill... All a politician has to do is pander to the "poor and middle class" with promises paid for by the tax money of the upper 50% and he can get elected, and he's no better than a hired thug who uses legislation and tax policy to mug the other half of society.

Sure I do... Provide for the common defence and promote the general Welfare.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare etc are being provided when they should only be promoted. Add Healthcare and 75% or more of our national budget will be eaten by just those programs. And BTW, I don't like nation building either.

Lastly, I'd like to apologize for calling you a political hack... You don't hold a candle to your good buddy Shaman in that department.

 

[top gun]

GenSeneca;82099]As I said, so long as you are in the majority, you think its great. When you find yourself in the minority, its not so pleasant. Thats why its so important to respect the rights of the minority, especially when you're part of the majority, so that you'll receive the same respect when the tables are turned.

Gen I do not disagree with what you said we should all do. I don't really see a future where the hard Right or the hard Left are not confrontational however. It's easy to see how the Colter's, Limbaugh's, Savage's, Beck's & Hannity's of this world have everybody hardening up their stances.

So if that's the game... it's only fair everybody get their hits in. However I do agree with you... it would be very nice for the extremes on both sides to moderate and work together more.

The problem I have is that the ONLY policies they give us to choose from are statist. For example, the gay marriage ban in California... One side wants the state to recognize it as legal, the other wants the state to ban it as illegal, I want the state to end the practice of granting permission to individuals to get married. I don't know exactly when we gave government the job of issuing marriage licenses but they didn't always have that job and I'd like to see that power returned to the people.

I would take from that you are more than even a "states rights" guy then. I think there is a case to be made for that but there's also the problems that come up with too small a fish bowl. I'm just discussing & not being insulting here... but the problem we had without some across the board rights & responsibilities was that some small town major could really enforce way to much of his own agenda on things that didn't effect everyone equally.

You may or may not be a racist as well....

Well I try hard not to ever be thought of in that way. As a coach I look at all my kids and people in general as to how good are they at their task and as a person in general... race matters not to me.

My position is CaLiCo, Capitalist, Libertarian, Conservative. I disagree all forms of statist policy. The problem you have is thinking that anytime I speak up against the Democrats, its done in support of Republicans... Thats just not the case. I don't like the Progressives ideology in either party because of its statist positions, that includes the Progressive wing of the Republican party (they are the Neoconservatives). I get along just fine with the Classical Liberals on the Left, most Libertarians, and the Conservatives on the Right with the only caveat being that they hold non-statist views.

You appeared to me to be a Libertarian. And we will often butt heads because I am an Independent turned Clinton Democrat. No ideology is perfect and I have always been most comfortable with my own world and domestic views just a little left of center.

America and democracy is all about each individual voting for what they feel are the right things.

No. Sorry but I know bad policy, its all I've seen from both parties my entire life and its time for real change, to Non-Statist pro-Capitalist policy, that's change I can believe in. I've watched the two parties play tug-o-war on top of a mesa and both directions lead us over the cliff or they do the bi-partisan thing and build the mesa higher. I'm trying to dismantle the mesa and get us back down to our constitutional roots.

Well I've heard talk that maybe the ultra Conservatives might break from the Republican Party and go their own way. It certainly wouldn't be for me but maybe for some.

You also have to remember that those "Constitutional roots" often talked about were never perfect in the first place (slavery for one glaring example) and times do change. The entire way America is now has very little resemblance to 1776. But I do understand your point.

The poison is a promise that you don't have to pay for your own healthcare, that you don't have to work for a living but it will be provided to you, that you don't have to be able to afford a home to own one, that no matter what need you have, a politician will provide it at someone else's expense in trade for your vote.

The problem on many things you raise is a monopolized system. You can't really go out and get heathcare companies or oil companies to compete against each other to offer better deals. They just go together with a going rate and then increase that rate together as well. So that's a problem

As far as loans I think there obviously should be regulations and standards where people can reasonably afford what they try to buy.

As far as things like ADC (Aid to Dependent Children) That has been tightened up A LOT by both Welfare reform and much, MUCH tougher child support laws. I don't really want to see babies and little children going hungry and without shelter here in the United States of America. I just think we are better than that.

You need to brush up on your history and my position. First of all, I support Capitalism that's only regulated by protecting the rights of individuals as called for in our constitution. Government picking winners and losers, as they are doing now, doesn't lead to innovation, it leads to stagnation because government has taken away the incentive to improve the product in order for it to be competitive. I don't support corporate welfare, you do. I don't think any corporation is too big to fail, you do. I don't support corporate subsidies, you do. I don't support government owning or controlling corporations, you do.

Well I'm pretty sure I don't agree with all those many things you say I do. In fact except in extraordinary cases I don't agree with many of the things you've cited.

But there have been times in our history when government was needed to stop or turn around major economic collapse and the actual pain caused to everyday people. I don't agree 100% with the way every dollar is being spent... but I do think we are in such a time right now.

I didn't want to go into Iraq either but we did. We couldn't just leave once we got there so your complaints about staying amount to nothing more than crying over spilled milk. Whats the Obama exit strategy for Afghanistan again? Oh, he doesn't have one - Same as Bush. What is his plan for Iraq? We'll leave as conditions on the ground permits - same as Bush. Obama says he'll cross the boarder into Pakistan to go after terrorists - Bush policy since '04. Obama's plans to gut the military, slash spending on future combat weapons and have a "civilian defense force" that's "just as large, well armed, equipped and trained as the regular military" will cost a fortune and nobody has any idea what he'll actually use such a defense force for once he has it.

Well you are right about one thing... we should have never went in.

As far as all the Obama bashing before he even moves into the White House. I have little doubt you will be proven wrong with your doom & gloom prophecy. He's a very good man and I think his intelligent calm way of doing things will be very helpful.

Please stop with this "give it a chance" garbage...

I can't... I honestly think it's of the utmost importance. I see our situation so bad right now that it's like Ohio State Buckeyes (of which I'm one) and Michigan Wolverines... HATED RIVALS. But in a fox hole together they defend each other and America.

Yes we can...

 

[GenSeneca]

So if that's the game... it's only fair everybody get their hits in. However I do agree with you... it would be very nice for the extremes on both sides to moderate and work together more.

Partisanship is not a game I want to play, its unproductive and irrational, both parties are following the same statist path. While I'd like to see both parties work together, I don't want them working together to create more statist policies or drive us further into debt.

I would take from that you are more than even a "states rights" guy then.

I believe the American people, not our government, serve as the only moral, rational and ethical repository of our rights. Government exists to protect those rights, period. Not to coddle us from cradle to grave or be the "decider" of who can exercise what rights and how.

but the problem we had without some across the board rights & responsibilities was that some small town major could really enforce way to much of his own agenda on things that didn't effect everyone equally.

Your stance on the progressive tax is not based on equality, it doesn't treat everyone equally. Again, you seem to be fine with inequality so long as your among the majority that's disrespecting the rights of some minority.

If government would limit itself to doing as I propose and only protect our rights, you're hypothetical example would not be possible. Protection of our rights is an "across the board" responsibility of government.

Well I try hard not to ever be thought of in that way. As a coach I look at all my kids and people in general as to how good are they at their task and as a person in general... race matters not to me.

How about bigotry? You don't seem to have any feelings of fairness where the wealthy are concerned, that or you're operating on an incredibly distorted notion of fairness - the "new" definition of fairness as used by the Progressives.

You appeared to me to be a Libertarian. And we will often butt heads because I am an Independent turned Clinton Democrat. No ideology is perfect and I have always been most comfortable with my own world and domestic views just a little left of center.

Independent, turned Clintonite, turned Obama cheerleader... What do you really believe in? Have you ever looked at the different ideologies, or do you just go along with whoever makes your leg tingle? If we but heads, its because you support Statist policies, you believe our constitution is outdated, and have a general disrespect for individual rights.

America and democracy is all about each individual voting for what they feel are the right things.

That's the biggest problem we have, too many feelers and not enough thinkers. Emotions are a poor substitute for rationality.

Well I've heard talk that maybe the ultra Conservatives might break from the Republican Party and go their own way.

I'd love to see a Non-Statist party emerge that peels the Non-Statists away from the Left, Right and Libertarian "Center". A party that, unlike your statist parties, actually cares about the Constitution, our rights and the proper role of government as a protector of both.

You also have to remember that those "Constitutional roots" often talked about were never perfect in the first place (slavery for one glaring example) and times do change. The entire way America is now has very little resemblance to 1776. But I do understand your point.

More propaganda garbage.... Our Constitution has nothing in it that advocates, institutionalizes or otherwise promotes slavery. I also don't think you do understand my point. You recognize, and rightly so, that we shouldn't trade our freedoms for physical security where terrorism is concerned but you either don't recognize, or don't care about, trading our freedoms for economic security.

The problem on many things you raise is a monopolized system. You can't really go out and get heathcare companies or oil companies to compete against each other to offer better deals. They just go together with a going rate and then increase that rate together as well. So that's a problem

Government is a monopoly and you want that monopoly, one that cannot balance its own books, one that doesn't care about individuals but only the "common good", to be in charge of administering healthcare. That's not rational, nor is it moral or ethical to give government so much power over our lives.

As far as loans I think there obviously should be regulations and standards where people can reasonably afford what they try to buy.

There doesn't have to be any such regulation. Prior to the CRA (Government regulation), banks didn't loan to high risk individuals because it wasn't good business practice and wasn't in their rational self interest to take such unwise fiscal risks. Political activist groups (with ACORN in the lead role) said not giving high risk loans was discriminatory, they got pandering politicians to pass the CRA and government mandated that the government institutions of Fannie and Freddie create a "market" for high risk loans by offering to buy them from private banks.

I don't really want to see babies and little children going hungry and without shelter here in the United States of America. I just think we are better than that.

Save your emotional arguments for someone who can be swayed by such irrationality. If you don't want to see babies and little children going hungry and without shelter... Don't just stand there, spend your own money to feed them and provide them with shelter! There is no shortage of private charities that do those things and you are not limited in your contributions. While others may think its "compassionate" of you to demand food and shelter be provided by government on someone elses dime, I find it incredibly parasitic and shallow.

You know the saying... When your only tool is a hammer, all problems look like nails.... well, your only tool is government, so you use it to pound on everything. You should expand your toolbox

Well I'm pretty sure I don't agree with all those many things you say I do. In fact except in extraordinary cases I don't agree with many of the things you've cited.

The party and president you support agree with all the positions I credited to you. As their biggest cheerleader on the board, I've never heard you speak out against those things. They support subsidies, tax breaks, corporate welfare, bailouts, too big to fail policies and worst of all, the takeover of private corporations by government. Exactly where do you break with Obama on those policies?

But there have been times in our history when government was needed to stop or turn around major economic collapse and the actual pain caused to everyday people. I don't agree 100% with the way every dollar is being spent... but I do think we are in such a time right now.

You didn't pay any attention to the charts Pidgey posted about the law of diminishing returns, the state of our currency, or any of the other relevant information he provided, did you?

Lower taxes for ALL individuals (95% isn't good enough), lower corporate taxes and expanded, targeted, legal immigration... Now that would be a recovery plan... Instead we get a "stimulus" plan of government giveaways as rewards to special interest groups for their political support.

As far as all the Obama bashing before he even moves into the White House.

This is what I'm talking about... I criticize his policies and you characterize it as "bashing" the man.

I have little doubt you will be proven wrong with your doom & gloom prophecy.

Right... because Obama's policies can defy the laws of economics. If we do recover, it will be despite his policies, not because of them.

He's a very good man and I think his intelligent calm way of doing things will be very helpful.

Pure Hearsay. Perhaps now that the election is over, you can give me a link to a copy of his thesis from college.... Have you read it?

I can't... I honestly think it's of the utmost importance. I see our situation so bad right now that it's like Ohio State Buckeyes (of which I'm one) and Michigan Wolverines... HATED RIVALS. But in a fox hole together they defend each other and America.

I don't believe for a minute that you'd have the same "give him a chance" attitude had McCain won... You'd be screaming about racism, failed Bush policies and preaching your own doom and gloom.

Yes we can...

I just threw up in my mouth...

 

[Pidgey]

Gen I do not disagree with what you said we should all do. I don't really see a future where the hard Right or the hard Left are not confrontational however. It's easy to see how the Colter's, Limbaugh's, Savage's, Beck's & Hannity's of this world have everybody hardening up their stances.

So if that's the game... it's only fair everybody get their hits in. However I do agree with you... it would be very nice for the extremes on both sides to moderate and work together more.

It's been said many times and in many ways but this one's my favorite:

"Make Love, Not War!"

And therein lies the problem.

A word about rocket scientists: their job is to deliver a payload from Point A to Point B. As such, they have to identify all the forces at work, define their relationships in an equation and then set about solving for all the "x-es" required to construct the conveyance. We have plenty of examples of what happens when they fail. In short, their equation MUST be predictive.

Since we humans have been around for awhile, we have a lot of history to demonstrate what does and what doesn't work. Never for a moment imagine that we can't mathematically predict what the endgame is going to be with enough givens defined.

The USSR was a great experiment and it succeeded wonderfully... for its high party officials. It was a pretty dismal failure for The Proletariat, though, right? So what did they do wrong? Started out good... seeing as how they virtually killed off the bulk of the rich and took their stuff. Shoot, with such a magnificent beginning, you'd think it would have become The Workers' Paradise.

Funny how it didn't... I wonder why that was? Can you help me out there, Top Gun?

 

[top gun]

GenSeneca;82474]Partisanship is not a game I want to play, its unproductive and irrational, both parties are following the same statist path. While I'd like to see both parties work together, I don't want them working together to create more statist policies or drive us further into debt.

But everyone in politics shows some partisanship... just as you would show partisanship to your Libertarian ways.

I believe the American people, not our government, serve as the only moral, rational and ethical repository of our rights. Government exists to protect those rights, period. Not to coddle us from cradle to grave or be the "decider" of who can exercise what rights and how.

The problem is those same people "all good Americans" don't agree on the same path. That's what elections are for.

Your stance on the progressive tax is not based on equality, it doesn't treat everyone equally. Again, you seem to be fine with inequality so long as your among the majority that's disrespecting the rights of some minority.

Not at all. It's not like we haven't been in the minority! But when there we obviously try to work harder to gain more public support.

As far as taxes... We have to have a progressive tax system if we want to have the things the people in this country want & need. Without it you'd in essence be raising taxes TREMENDOUSLY on those who could least afford it.

Independent, turned Clintonite, turned Obama cheerleader... What do you really believe in? Have you ever looked at the different ideologies, or do you just go along with whoever makes your leg tingle? If we but heads, its because you support Statist policies, you believe our constitution is outdated, and have a general disrespect for individual rights.

Well good people can disagree. I liked being an Independent because I felt I was just voting for who I thought was the best person... but I found that can be tricky because best person often becomes most popular person. So I started also looking seriously at Party platform. That's when I became a Clinton Democrat. Since then I knew as we all know now Bush would be a train wreck. And yes I liked Obama, his policies and the way he changes the tone very much and supported him heavily.

I don't believe the Constitution is necessarily outdated... I just know it was never perfect. And individual rights is many times a perspective thing. People would didn't want to serve blacks at their lunch counter thought that was their individual right... some would wish to take away a woman's own reproductive rights. You have to find balances in situations of such diversity of opinion.

That's the biggest problem we have, too many feelers and not enough thinkers. Emotions are a poor substitute for rationality.

Exactly! That's why Bush sucked so bad and President Obama should do much better. No one doubts he's much more intellegent.

I'd love to see a Non-Statist party emerge that peels the Non-Statists away from the Left, Right and Libertarian "Center". A party that, unlike your statist parties, actually cares about the Constitution...

Well get out there and do your best to form one. I don't see you getting very far without moderate Republicans. I mean it's pretty obvious the country is moving in the opposite direction but you're free to try.

More propaganda garbage.... Our Constitution has nothing in it that advocates, institutionalizes or otherwise promotes slavery.

The Constitution and Slavery:
Provisions in the Original Constitution

Article I, Section. 2 [Slaves count as 3/5 persons]
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons [i.e., slaves].
Article I, Section. 9, clause 1. [No power to ban slavery until 1808]
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person. Article IV, Section. 2. [Free states cannot protect slaves]
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
Article V [No Constitutional Amendment to Ban Slavery Until 1808]
...No Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article.

Government is a monopoly and you want that monopoly, one that cannot balance its own books, one that doesn't care about individuals but only the "common good", to be in charge of administering healthcare. That's not rational, nor is it moral or ethical to give government so much power over our lives.

But government is elected and can be changed by the will of it's people... that's a HUGE difference my friend.

There doesn't have to be any such regulation. Prior to the CRA (Government regulation), banks didn't loan to high risk individuals because it wasn't good business practice and wasn't in their rational self interest to take such unwise fiscal risks. Political activist groups (with ACORN in the lead role) said not giving high risk loans was discriminatory, they got pandering politicians to pass the CRA and government mandated that the government institutions of Fannie and Freddie create a "market" for high risk loans by offering to buy them from private banks.

Again you're talking about a bipartisan attempt to promote both home ownership and business gains. Which by the way was only slightly more than a tenth of the bad mortgage paper.

Regardless had the regulation arms not been cut off for whatever reasons previously the regulators would have had the oversight & power to limit the damages by stepping in.

Save your emotional arguments for someone who can be swayed by such irrationality. If you don't want to see babies and little children going hungry and without shelter... Don't just stand there, spend your own money to feed them and provide them with shelter! There is no shortage of private charities that do those things and you are not limited in your contributions. While others may think its "compassionate" of you to demand food and shelter be provided by government on someone elses dime, I find it incredibly parasitic and shallow.

Well that's very sad. I'm sorry to say it doesn't speak highly of you. And just as an FYI the Churches & Charities can't keep up with the need as is is.

The party and president you support agree with all the positions I credited to you. As their biggest cheerleader on the board, I've never heard you speak out against those things. They support subsidies, tax breaks, corporate welfare, bailouts, too big to fail policies and worst of all, the takeover of private corporations by government. Exactly where do you break with Obama on those policies?

Well some of these policies are actually Bush policies but I'll make a few points. First... you'll get nowhere condemning me for supporting our new President because I do believe he'll do a very good job. I support SOME subsidies, don't like corporate welfare and as soon as we level off this Bush Recession I think the corporations should lose many of their tax breaks & loopholes.

This is what I'm talking about... I criticize his policies and you characterize it as "bashing" the man.

Dude... you ranted about character assassinating the guy all through the election and even said it was because people did it to Bush... give me a break!

Right... because Obama's policies can defy the laws of economics. If we do recover, it will be despite his policies, not because of them.

Well that's a convenient little caveat ya got going there. No... actually there is more than one way to skin a cat and to stimulate and economy. We will see whether President Obama does well or whether he doesn't.

Pure Hearsay. Perhaps now that the election is over, you can give me a link to a copy of his thesis from college.... Have you read it?

Well let's see. He is very calm (No Drama Obama). And I've heard even the hardest people on the Right say how intelligent he is. He worked his way with his grades through Harvard... first Black editor of the Harvard Law Review... Constitutional Law Professor... State Senator... US Senator... oh, and first Black PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA!

That seems a somewhat "smart guy" resume to me... but that's just me.

I don't believe for a minute that you'd have the same "give him a chance" attitude had McCain won...

I just threw up in my mouth...

I know talking about McCain will make one do that sometimes. But give this new President a chance. Sometimes when the country loves somebody things actually get done... let's just see...

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Since the debt is only a number, deficit spending is no big deal, and there are no repercussions in the government spending money it doesn't have... Why don't we try a more radical "Change" for our beloved Welfare State?

It appears that's already happened.​

"In an article published on Townhall today, RNC Chairman candidate and former Ohio governor Secretary of State Ken Blackwell urges congressional conservatives to oppose the reinvestment and recovery stimulus plan promoted by President-elect Obama. Though he offers standard conservative arguments against the plan — including a screed against the growth of “big government” — Blackwell seemed most concerned about the political benefit Democrats might see from successfully boosting the economy."

 

[GenSeneca]

But everyone in politics shows some partisanship... just as you would show partisanship to your Libertarian ways.

Ok, I'll give you that I'm partisan about CaLiCo principles and proudly so, but you need to stop accusing me of cheerleading for Republicans when I point out the failures, lies, hypocrisy and corruption of the Democrats. I see it all on both sides and hold them to the same standard, you hold Democrats to a different standard than Republicans and don't seem to hold Democrats accountable for anything. Your only criticism of them so far has been "they didn't complain enough" but you don't see that as a double standard, or even a problem.

The problem is those same people "all good Americans" don't agree on the same path. That's what elections are for.

The two parties offer one path, statism, just two different speeds.

Not at all. It's not like we haven't been in the minority! But when there we obviously try to work harder to gain more public support.

When Republicans took over the House in '96, they passed rules to protect the rights of the minority party (Democrats) and now that the Democrats have used those protections to their benefit and become the majority in Congress, they revoked the rules meant to protect the minority party... If you really gave a crap, you'd demand that the Democrats reinstate the rules that protect the rights of the minority party and hold them to account for abusing their power.

As far as taxes... We have to have a progressive tax system if we want to have the things the people in this country want & need.

The "wants and needs" of the bottom 50% outstrip the ability of the top 50% to pay... Thats the reality. You're party is in power because they promise the bottom 50% goodies paid for by the top 50%. A flat tax or Fair tax is a better way, everyone pays because everyone gets huge benefits just for living in America.... and unlike a Progressive tax, the Flat Tax and Fair tax are actually fair (you may need that dictionary to see what the meaning of the word "fair" is before you try to apply that term to the Progressive tax).

Without it you'd in essence be raising taxes TREMENDOUSLY on those who could least afford it.

First off, you're wrong... as usual. A flat tax, or fair tax, would LOWER the tax bill for all Americans. (one side effect of this is an explosion in GDP growth, which brings in more revenue on a lower percentage)

Secondly... You have lost any right to cry about raising taxes on the poor. You were the one wanting to raise the tax on cigarettes to $10 a pack with full knowledge that such a tax hits poor and minorities hardest.

I don't believe the Constitution is necessarily outdated... I just know it was never perfect.

It wasn't perfect because it limited government to being the protector of our rights rather than the provider of our every want and need... Isn't that what you mean?

And individual rights is many times a perspective thing.

That's why we have courts.

People would didn't want to serve blacks at their lunch counter thought that was their individual right...

But in doing so they were violating someone elses rights. You do not have the right to violate my rights and vice versa.

some would wish to take away a woman's own reproductive rights.

Its a good thing for her that the human life inside her has no rights, huh?

You have to find balances in situations of such diversity of opinion.

Like compromise on Slavery? You're a big fan of hardliners taking a "moderate" position... well you got pro-slavery on one side and equal rights on the other... how would you compromise? What is the "moderate" position there? When it comes to the protection of our rights, I'll remain a "hardliner", whether its popular or not.

Exactly! That's why Bush sucked so bad and President Obama should do much better. No one doubts he's much more intellegent.

Obama is certainly intelligent enough to understand that pandering to the bottom 50% with emotional arguments, vague generalities and promises of goodies paid for by the top 50% is a winning combination... just also happens to be a recipe for disaster. What will you do when the people who foot the bill get tired of being your slaves and stop letting you leach off them? Its time Atlas Shrugged.

Well get out there and do your best to form one.

I already have... You must have missed my repeated references to CaLiCo.

I don't see you getting very far without moderate Republicans.

The Progressives on the Right, call them moderates, Neocons or whatever, are your statist allies. I'll gladly continue peeling the non-statists out of both parties to join me.

I mean it's pretty obvious the country is moving in the opposite direction but you're free to try.

What is the "opposite direction" of Capitalism?
What is the "opposite direction" of Individual Rights?
What is the "opposite direction" of our Constitution?
Whatever that "opposite direction" is, I want NO part of it.

The Constitution and Slavery:
Provisions in the Original Constitution

The same source you copied and pasted that from has this to say:

Delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 hotly debated the issue of slavery. George Mason of Virginia argued eloquently against slavery, warning his fellow delegates:
"Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgment of heaven on a country. As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, providence punishes national sins by national calamities."
Southern delegates, on the other hand, argued strenuously that the new government should not be allowed to interfere with the institution of slavery. Delegate John Rutledge of South Carolina, for example, told delegates that "religion and humanity have nothing to do with the questions" of whether the Constitution should protect slavery--it was simply a question of property rights.

The Constitution that the delegates proposed included several provisions that explicity recognized and protected slavery. Without these provisions, southern delegates would not support the new Constitution--and without the southern states on board, the Constitution had no chance of being ratified. Provisions allowed southern states to count slaves as 3/5 persons for purposes of apportionment in Congress (even though the slaves could not, of course, vote), expressly denied to Congress the power to prohibit importation of new slaves until 1808, and prevented free states from enacting laws protecting fugitive slaves.

You're the big fan of compromise... Well, they compromised on slavery... doesn't that make you feel all warm and fuzzy? Now my statement was: Our Constitution has nothing in it that advocates, institutionalizes or otherwise promotes slavery.
So I was correct in my statement. Lets ignore for now that we have the 13th Amendment (which is part of our Constitution if you didn't know), and focus on what your source says the Constitution did do: recognized and protected slavery. Now I know you're definitionally challenged but recognizing/protecting slavery was not a promotion (encouragement) of slavery, it didn't institutionalize slavery (non slave states were not forced to adopt slavery as the law of the land) and it didn't advocate (speak in favor of) slavery.

Now your attack was over my wanting to return to our "constitutional roots"... which I've said repeatedly is a return to limited government with only one role in our lives: to protect our rights.

 

[GenSeneca]

Slavery is gone, at least until people realize that you're making slaves out of the top 50% by forcing them to pay for the "wants and needs" of the bottom 50%. After all, that's what you think rich people are, right? Your personal property, the people who you've enslaved through the tax code in order to pull the cart you get to ride in.

But government is elected and can be changed by the will of it's people... that's a HUGE difference my friend.

That's just nonsense... I pointed out Government is a mismanaged and corrupt monopoly that loses money hand over fist and your rational for that is that we elect them by the "will of the people", so that makes corruption, mismanagement and the infringements of our rights OK... because we can replace one corrupt, fiscally irresponsible and rights trampling party with another. If you think you'll get anything but what I've described with either of the statist parties, you're in for a rude awakening.

Again you're talking about a bipartisan attempt to promote both home ownership and business gains. Which by the way was only slightly more than a tenth of the bad mortgage paper.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.... Your bipartisan effort to artificially manipulate the housing market is at the root of the problem... that's what happens when you get "moderates" working together on altruistic projects. And, BTW, that bad paper was divided up, repackaged with other credit, and sold. Defaulted loans brought down the value of loans that were solvent. We've been over that before but you still don't get it...

Regardless had the regulation arms not been cut off for whatever reasons previously the regulators would have had the oversight & power to limit the damages by stepping in.

It was regulation that started the practice of issuing high risk mortgages... Why can't you understand that the problem wouldn't have happened at all if the government hadn't regulated the practice into existence? And why do you still cover for Democrats like Barney Frank, who said the regulation to prevent the collapse wasn't necessary... even after it came out that his lover was cooking the books?

Well that's very sad. I'm sorry to say it doesn't speak highly of you. And just as an FYI the Churches & Charities can't keep up with the need as is is.

I donate my own money to the things I believe in... you're the one who demands that other people donate their money to the things you believe in funding. And, FYI, Churches and Charities would have more funding if people like yourself would donate to them instead of demanding government raise taxes on other people to do the same job. When are you going to listen to Obama?

"Government can only do so much...And if we’re just waiting around for somebody else to do it for us... if we’re waiting around for somebody else to do something, it never gets done." - Obama

Listen to Obama! He commands you! Stop waiting for somebody else to feed hungry children and house them, do it yourself!

Well some of these policies are actually Bush policies but I'll make a few points.

Obama has adopted Bush's "failed" policies... And now they've magically transformed into "good" policies.

First... you'll get nowhere condemning me for supporting our new President because I do believe he'll do a very good job.

He'll be great for Unions, the bottom 50% and other special interest groups.

I support SOME subsidies, don't like corporate welfare and as soon as we level off this Bush Recession I think the corporations should lose many of their tax breaks & loopholes.

Some subsidies... like to the industries and corporations you like... screw equality and fairness, you got an agenda to push. You've got "wants and needs" that you see as someone elses responsiblity to fulfill...

Dude... you ranted about character assassinating the guy all through the election and even said it was because people did it to Bush... give me a break!

You may not have noticed, I stopped imitating you after the election because unlike you, I respect the office if not the man. I'll leave the childish character assassination to you progressives... you guys are so good at it.

there is more than one way to skin a cat and to stimulate and economy. We will see whether President Obama does well or whether he doesn't.

You ignored all the facts related to deficit spending as "stimulus" and why its not going to work this time around.... Pidgey offered facts, where are yours to support your belief that it will work?

That seems a somewhat "smart guy" resume to me... but that's just me.

I didn't ask for his resume, I asked for his senior thesis... Have you read it, or not? Do you have a link for it, or not? Has it been released yet, or not?

But give this new President a chance. Sometimes when the country loves somebody things actually get done.

When the country LOVES somebody?!?! We already know the media has lost all objectivity... If the public doesn't have objectivity, this administration is going to be a disaster for our country.

 

[Ejgertz]

The humor here is that the US Government, by their actions has implanted the thought in people's minds that it's OK to borrow and be in debt. They set the example for the country and they are now complaining about it. Simply ridiculous.

www.trulotics.com

 

[Pidgey]

It's actually the entire world. For instance, here's a report from the UK:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...brings-Britain-to-the-edge-of-bankruptcy.html

Everybody wants to blame everybody else, of course. Debt is simply promising tomorrow's productivity to pay for something today. That's easy to do and rationalize when the productivity curve is a positive exponential. Unfortunately, when the world primary energy production curve is plotted with EROEI factored in, we've more than definitely passed our peak. Adding insult to injury, distribution has been widening exponentially. The upshot is that there's been no way to mitigate the loss of energy delivered per capita.

Most folks are incapable of intuiting the relationship between energy as it relates to their standard of living except as it's applied in the most simple of presentations like the cost of fueling the car. The idea that the costs to purify water, produce & distribute junk mail, ship bananas thousands of miles to market, ad nauseum, will rise exponentially is just too big of a stretch--it's so much easier to blame the Republicans, the Democrats, Global Warming... you name it.

Of course, it's not a reality that people can accept either because the ramifications are too horrible. There's nothing more disturbing than the idea that even if we could confiscate all the money supposedly hoarded by The Evil Rich and redistribute it we'd still be just as bad off. Doesn't matter as it can't create energy. Worse, said money's evaporating pretty quickly, or rather the value of it is.

There are those who believe that The New Economy is going to fix all that. There'll be Cheap Energy for The Masses, who will finally be freed from The Tyranny of the Evil Corporations. They seem to think this as if said corporations were some parasitic living entity all their own. Sorry, folks, those corporations are us--they employ us. I guess it's a stretch for some folks to understand that a large company actually performs its function (produces its product) in a more efficient way than the same volume of "work done" produced by a group of smaller companies.

I've been at a large plant that produces Lexan (polycarbonates) this week. It was originally owned by GE but has been purchased by Sabic recently. With the economic slowdown, the demand for their product has dropped dramatically. A plant like that was never designed to "turn down" to the required extent. What happens is that the cost-per-ton of product rises as the plant is throttled back. They're planning on shutting the plant down soon for awhile due to the slowdown in demand. It was going to be for four weeks... then eight... now 16. This dynamic permeates our industrial society.

Yes, we can certainly create a bunch of jobs. What we ultimately cannot do is what so many folks actually want: reverse the negative trend of discretionary spending.

 

[top gun]

GenSeneca;82794]Ok, I'll give you that I'm partisan about CaLiCo principles and proudly so, but you need to stop accusing me of cheerleading for Republicans when I point out the failures, lies, hypocrisy and corruption of the Democrats. I see it all on both sides and hold them to the same standard, you hold Democrats to a different standard than Republicans and don't seem to hold Democrats accountable for anything. Your only criticism of them so far has been "they didn't complain enough" but you don't see that as a double standard, or even a problem.

Am I not allowed to hold my own views? I mean there is a reason why your ideology isn't in control of power. It's simply because you can't get hardly anybody to vote for it.

What did Bob Barr and the Libertarians pull in... 509,478 votes, which is only 0.4% of the popular vote.

I support the Party that I see as able to do the most good overall. Are the Democrat's positions all perfect? Of course not. Are they much better than the Republican's. Absolutely.

First off, you're wrong... as usual. A flat tax, or fair tax, would LOWER the tax bill for all Americans. (one side effect of this is an explosion in GDP growth, which brings in more revenue on a lower percentage)

There is a certain amount of revenue needed to run government. You cannot massively lower the upper classes taxes and then spread that deficit across the poorer groups and not affect them adversely. Obviously you are hoping for some uber GDP growth to make up these massive shortfalls... most don't see that as reality.

Secondly... You have lost any right to cry about raising taxes on the poor. You were the one wanting to raise the tax on cigarettes to $10 a pack with full knowledge that such a tax hits poor and minorities hardest.

Gen... buddy... you don't take anything away from me. I can hold my positions anyway I choose. If I hit the poor on taxing something for health reason that hurts (kills) themselves and others... I'm fine with it. Some will quit smoking.

It wasn't perfect because it limited government to being the protector of our rights rather than the provider of our every want and need... Isn't that what you mean?

Actually no. It wasn't perfect because it was written in a time when things like slavery was accepted by our government (sidebar: You noticed I posted earlier the section in the Constitution that you said did not exist about slaves).

Its a good thing for her that the human life inside her has no rights, huh?

Not a person. Human cells growing that "might" eventually completely develop into a person. The woman is an independent self sustaining person with full personhood.

Like compromise on Slavery? You're a big fan of hardliners taking a "moderate" position... well you got pro-slavery on one side and equal rights on the other... how would you compromise?

I that case there is no reasonable comprimise... but that's an extreme case, usually there is room for compromise.

Obama is certainly intelligent enough to understand that pandering to the bottom 50% with emotional arguments, vague generalities and promises of goodies paid for by the top 50% is a winning combination...

That's funny. You're calling people like Warren Buffet and the guy that owns Google the bottom 50%. Many huge Obama supporters were from the higher tax brackets.

 

[top gun]

GenSeneca;82795]You may not have noticed, I stopped imitating you after the election because unlike you, I respect the office if not the man. I'll leave the childish character assassination to you progressives... you guys are so good at it.

You backed off the smack talk because you saw the American people had pistol whipped you about the head and face from Maine to California and elected President Obama in spite of your childish & repeated attempts to character assassinate him and his family!

You ignored all the facts related to deficit spending as "stimulus" and why its not going to work this time around.... Pidgey offered facts, where are yours to support your belief that it will work?

There's a whole lot more there than I could post. I'm going by the bipartisan determination of experts in the field that say this is our best course of action. I don't believe all these many people are just dieing to fail and look stupid.

As with the New Deal these things have worked in the past.

I didn't ask for his resume, I asked for his senior thesis... Have you read it, or not? Do you have a link for it, or not? Has it been released yet, or not?

EXACTLY WHAT PART OF... I HAVEN'T READ IT WOULDN'T KNOW WHERE TO TELL YOU TO LOOK FOR IT... are you having trouble with?

When the country LOVES somebody?!?! We already know the media has lost all objectivity... If the public doesn't have objectivity, this administration is going to be a disaster for our country.

You're right. We were much better off with a C average intelligence President that 75% of our country and the vast majority of the rest of the world either thought was an a$$ and/or hated.

And hey he left us in such good shape!

Thank God for President Obama. I've never seen a President move so fast to try and make things better!

 

[GenSeneca]

I mean there is a reason why your ideology isn't in control of power. It's simply because you can't get hardly anybody to vote for it.

You keep supporting whatever is popular, I'll keep supporting what is right.

You cannot massively lower the upper classes taxes and then spread that deficit across the poorer groups and not affect them adversely.

Its your messiah that wants to spread the wealth... My suggestion is to lower taxes for ALL Americans. Since you missed that the last time I'll say it again, ALL Americans. Neither the Flat or Fair tax plans would spread the deficit across the poorer groups, they would both drastically lower the tax burden on the poor.

If I hit the poor on taxing something for health reason that hurts (kills) themselves and others... I'm fine with it. Some will quit smoking.

That's cool... you support increasing taxes on the poor, I don't. You think you have some right to tell others how to live even when their decisions have no effect on you in any way, I don't. You think creating an authoritarian nanny state would be just wonderful, I don't.

I hope anyone who's on the fence about Universal Healthcare realizes that its people like Top Gun who will push for a denial of coverage to those who make personal choices they disagree with. Smokers and the Obese will be the first ones to be denied coverage and care.

Actually no. It wasn't perfect because it was written in a time when things like slavery was accepted by our government (sidebar: You noticed I posted earlier the section in the Constitution that you said did not exist about slaves).

Wrong... I was correct in my observation about what it did say. I didn't say the constitution didn't mention slavery, that was a strawman you created because you could refute such an absurd claim, you were unable to show where my statement was incorrect. The Constitution did not approve of slavery, it didn't force non slave states to adopt slavery and it didn't promote the expansion of slavery.

Not a person. Human cells growing that "might" eventually completely develop into a person. The woman is an independent self sustaining person with full personhood.

Funny you should make that claim, its one that's been shown scientifically false and unsupportable, right here on this board... Exactly when do you think that lump of cells become a person, a week, a month, when? You should talk to PaleRider, he loves refuting ignorance on this topic.

That's funny. You're calling people like Warren Buffet and the guy that owns Google the bottom 50%. Many huge Obama supporters were from the higher tax brackets.

No, I wasn't. Your logical fallacies are obvious attempts to hide the weakness of your arguments. Obama never pandered to the top 50% in any way, he was pandering to the bottom 50% with promises of goodies that would be paid for by the likes of Buffet and Google guy.

Dig up a quote from Obama where he talks about the rich and wealthy. Any quote will do... You won't find one where he speaks well of the wealthy or promises them anything but a guilt trip to higher taxville.

 

[GenSeneca]

childish & repeated attempts to character assassinate him and his family!

Doing just that to Bush for 8 years worked for the Democrats. You didn't think such tactics were childish then, you thought they were justified.

There's a whole lot more there than I could post. I'm going by the bipartisan determination of experts in the field that say this is our best course of action.

If government central planning worked... Communist Russia would have never failed, they would have been an economic juggernaut to this day.

As with the New Deal these things have worked in the past.

False. We know it as the Great Depression... other nations only call that time a depression. Ours was "great" because it lasted so long, we did the exact opposite of what we should have done and it made things worse. The only thing that pulled us out of the depression was WW2.

The New Deal strapped us with more debt and deficit than people like yourself care to acknowledge because you know we can never pay back what we promised and spent. Now you want to make the same mistake again... you learned nothing from history... I guess you want WW3.

EXACTLY WHAT PART OF... I HAVEN'T READ IT WOULDN'T KNOW WHERE TO TELL YOU TO LOOK FOR IT... are you having trouble with?

His thesis is all about his view of our Constitution and what he'd like to do to "Change" it and where he can't change it, how to craft policy in order to get around it... I think that's kind of important. I find it disturbing that such an important document is intentionally being kept from the public.

You're right.

I always am.

Thank God for President Obama.

 

[Phoenix68]

Since the debt is only a number, deficit spending is no big deal, and there are no repercussions in the government spending money it doesn't have... Why don't we try a more radical "Change" for our beloved Welfare State?

The bailouts, of which the total amount is going up every day, have added just less than 8 trillion dollars of debt to the budget. That's 8,000,000,000,000 - Why fart around with saving fat cats and big corporations? Lets just be proud of the fact that we're a welfare state and go all out...

.
The Obama RECOVERY Is About To Make Trump Look Good
.
.
Donald Trump Built A National Debt So Big It’ll Weigh Down The Economy For Years!!!
.​