View Full Version : Obama's Candidacy
Pythagorean
Jan31-12, 09:02 PM
He has the most experience as president with the current political atmosphere.
He has the most experience as president with the current political atmosphere.He's my choice, he took over a terrible situation, made some good changes, and needs a second term to see things through as much as possible.
He's the choice for middle America. Romney's the choice for the rich. Romney has nothing in his plans to make life for the average American better, he doesn't even recognize middle America, IMO.
Pengwuino
Jan31-12, 09:37 PM
He has the most experience as president with the current political atmosphere.
Finally someone says something factual in P&WA.
What's the saying? Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result? (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9045587/Barack-Obama-is-trying-to-make-the-US-a-more-socialist-state.html)
The Democrats had a lock on the government for 2 years and did less than nothing (except spend money) - and have the gall to blame the 'current Republican house' for their shortcomings. Unfortunately, making the government work efficiently is unpopular - but when given the chance the Dems failed hard. Blaming President Bush for the countries problems can only last for so long - that's all we've been hearing from the President is that it's Bush's fault, it's congress's fault, it's the rich's fault... I wonder how much campaign money the President will raise from Wall Street this year? He might set a fundraising record... again.
I also find the OPs original statement interesting - especially when compared to the 2008 election. There was a senior (moderately respected) Senator and a governor of one of the most well ran states in the country versus... a junior Senator whom had barely served for a year before campaigning. Mitt Romney is not perfect, but the President will have a hard time making the case of 'experience' stick - basically just because he's the incumbent he has more experience? I've been driving a car longer than Danica Patrick, but that doesn't make me a better driver.
Pythagorean
Feb1-12, 12:33 AM
basically just because he's the incumbent he has more experience? I've been driving a car longer than Danica Patrick, but that doesn't make me a better driver.
This sentence would be fair alone. But given that the rest of what you said is irrelevant to this election, you display a double standard.
I don't care about what party a candidate belongs to; if you want to whine about democrats, make a new thread. Let's keep partisanship out of this thread.
This sentence would be fair alone. But given that the rest of what you said is irrelevant to this election, you display a double standard.
I don't care about what party a candidate belongs to; if you want to whine about democrats, make a new thread. Let's keep partisanship out of this thread.
I see the President as being the 'leader of his party' and when he couldn't get 'his agenda' passed through a friendly congress, I have a hard time seeing him being successful. (even if I agreed with his policies) I think much of the extreme partisanship that exists is due to the 'us vs them' mentality that he talks about in nearly every speech. There is always someone for the President to blame it seems. That's not healthy for the country as a whole IMO, especially when we probably all could use less government in our lives.
Say what you want about the previous administration, but nearly all of his 'infamous' policies had vast bipartisan support*. That can't be said about President Obama - he seems too focused on eating the rich (so is that cannibalism?).
*(The tax cuts that were passed through congress in 2001/3 were one of the few major policies passed along party lines - but if they were so bad, why didn't President Obama and his friendly congress totally repeal them - especially when the sunset provision came to term?)
Pythagorean
Feb1-12, 01:03 AM
In my view, I don't care whether there is bipartisan support or not, either. In fact, I think both democrats and republicans are basically kings fighting over how many scraps to throw the rest of us. I care about what the president is doing for me. Obama is doing things for me as a student of science. I didn't like "no child left behind"; when you mess with the education of our youth, you really screw our future up.
In my view, Obama is the lesser of evils, not a knight in shining armor.
Greg Bernhardt
Feb1-12, 01:14 AM
I care about what the president is doing for me.
Is that the right attitude? Shouldn't you care about the greater whole rather than self-interest?
Pythagorean
Feb1-12, 01:14 AM
Is that the right attitude? Shouldn't you care about the greater whole rather than self-interest?
I don't know what's best for the whole, and I don't like it when people pretend they do. I also don't trust people that claim to; I'm cynical like that.
That's how our law system is built, free-market and all, Hobbes, Lock, etc...
Pythagorean
Feb1-12, 01:21 AM
I also feed my children, not other peoples;
Don't get me wrong, I volunteer at a Children's museum... but I don't think I'm a great savior of man or anything for it. I don't mind doing science for health, but it's all because these are things I'm interested in, not because I'm Jesus.
Pythagorean
Feb1-12, 01:24 AM
also, that's why Obama's going to win the election. Because he appeals to the personal needs of the most people. As Evo said, middle America.
Greg Bernhardt
Feb1-12, 01:24 AM
I don't know what's best for the whole, and I don't like it when people pretend they do. I also don't trust people that claim to; I'm cynical like that.
So hypothetically you would vote for a dictator if he included you in his inner circle?
Pythagorean
Feb1-12, 01:26 AM
So hypothetically you would vote for a dictator if he included you in his inner circle?
Dictator doesn't mean evil. But if you mean evil, ruthless dictator, no I wouldn't. I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I did that.
Pythagorean
Feb1-12, 01:41 AM
It's not like I don't have "altruistic" feelings and behavior. It's just that I don't think I'm really accountable for them. They're a result of millions of years of evolution, not some utilitarian logical conclusion I came to all on my own.
I think that morals are just a way we justify our feelings and behavior. They come as words and rules after the feelings/behavior, they don't guide it.
phoenix:\\
Feb1-12, 02:10 AM
Preservation of self-interest/desire/life is where morality stems from.
This discussion so far kind of reminds me of the Prince to be honest. "Quick to change the one in charge, but the net result is still the same" (paraphrasing).
Pengwuino
Feb1-12, 02:19 AM
also, that's why Obama's going to win the election. Because he appeals to the personal needs of the most people. As Evo said, middle America.
Heh, my parents are pure middle class and had nothing but higher taxes and higher medical bills because of him. I'm sometimes curious as to which middle class people are talking about when they say Obama is a man of the middle class. You can appeal all you want to people, but when they see your actions concerning them, appealing to voters isn't going to be worth much.
also, that's why Obama's going to win the election. Because he appeals to the personal needs of the most people. As Evo said, middle America.
See, that's the general problem that I have with the President - I don't want him (via the government) dealing with my 'personal needs'.
There was an analogy by a lesser-known pundit (I forget his name even) that basically said politicians (and especially President Obama) are campaining with our tax dollars via handouts. It's no longer about the strength of the country but 'what can uncle sam do for you?' It's also the hypocrasy in the solution - 'hey, health care costs are ballooning, the government covers 1/2 of all of the healthcare costs already - so lets expand it!'
I'm also curious as to what President Obama is doing for you 'as a student of science'? All I see are rising college costs, that at the rate the government is giving out student loans, are only primed to go up even still. I'd also remind you, that if you're using NCLB as an indictment of 'the opposition' - remember that President Obama extended it when the provision was expiring. (I'm not a fan of NCLB out of principle, but think that it's negative impact is far overblown - also remember, that it had more Democrat supporters than GOP supporters when it first was passed. The 100% literacy requirement was kind of silly, but the accountability piece was about as good as schools will get for money from the federal government - rightly so. So, teach to some sort of standard or don't get extra federal money.)
Heh, my parents are pure middle class and had nothing but higher taxes and higher medical bills because of him. I'm sometimes curious as to which middle class people are talking about when they say Obama is a man of the middle class.
I think this is the definition the president is using:
middle-class [mid-l-klas], adjective, of or pertaining to unaccountable government employees and contractors, mostly belonging to a labor union.
Seriously though, even President Obama admits that the ACA is not going to lower health care costs - it's just about getting his voting bloc insured. Health care costs will continue to go up, especially with that much more easy money floating around (see: former housing bubble, current education bubble, current medical care bubble, current Europe).
skippy1729
Feb1-12, 02:37 AM
He has the most experience as president with the current political atmosphere.
This is a fascinating statement. Is it intended to present a reason or qualification for re-election?
Compare this statement with:
Kim Jong-un has the most experience as Supreme Leader with the current political atmosphere.
OR
Bashar al-Assad has the most experience as president of Syria with the current political atmosphere.
mege makes some relevant and largely factual statements and is scolded for being partisan. Many of the other posts praise his rhetoric over his record. If rhetorical skills are what we need then, hands down, he's the man.
Skippy
Pythagorean
Feb1-12, 03:12 AM
I'm going to ignore comparison of Obama to the Supreme Leader.. that's ridiculous...
Obama has done a lot to reduce money-powered lobbying.
I'm also curious as to what President Obama is doing for you 'as a student of science'?
note: regardless of tuition costs, I am on RA's and TA's, I teach and do research for tuition. Food and gas prices are rising too. That's the nature of the beast, I don't blame Obama for that. But either way, I don't pay tuition, I work under research assitanceships for it, and the stipend rises with the tuition; the hours contracted stay the same.
what he has done for science/education (at least):
5 billion dollars to NIH
lifted the ban on stem cell research funding
student loan relief (caps on repayment rates)
extends more benefits to National Guard members who performed active service and allows for education benefits to be transferred to family members.
investing $2 billion in competitive grants to reform community colleges
$2,500 American Opportunity tax credit for tuition expenses
In general, you can see a list of accomplishments:
http://www.whathasobamadone.org/
Pythagorean
Feb1-12, 04:15 AM
Heh, my parents are pure middle class and had nothing but higher taxes and higher medical bills because of him. I'm sometimes curious as to which middle class people are talking about when they say Obama is a man of the middle class. You can appeal all you want to people, but when they see your actions concerning them, appealing to voters isn't going to be worth much.
We'll see; I hold fast to my prediction that he'll win. I'm not even going to bother voting.
My mother is a nurse and my father is a federal employee so it didn't seem to affect them negatively. As a grad student, I'm povert, so taxes and medical and loans have worked out great for me under Obama.
I'm going to ignore comparison of Obama to the Supreme Leader.. that's ridiculous...
Obama has done a lot to reduce money-powered lobbying.
note: regardless of tuition costs, I am on RA's and TA's, I teach and do research for tuition. Food and gas prices are rising too. That's the nature of the beast, I don't blame Obama for that. But either way, I don't pay tuition, I work under research assitanceships for it, and the stipend rises with the tuition; the hours contracted stay the same.
what he has done for science/education (at least):
5 billion dollars to NIH
lifted the ban on stem cell research funding
student loan relief (caps on repayment rates)
extends more benefits to National Guard members who performed active service and allows for education benefits to be transferred to family members.
investing $2 billion in competitive grants to reform community colleges
$2,500 American Opportunity tax credit for tuition expenses
In general, you can see a list of accomplishments:
http://www.whathasobamadone.org/
Your list of examples just furthers my point - the President is essentially 'buying' votes with tax dollars by shoveling money to individuals. "Oh, look - that nice man gave me $2500" - this is why the President will likely win reelection. Too bad his campaign is costing the country trillions.
Out of those things you listed, there are only 2 arguably 'common interest' type projects: the community college reform money and stem cell research. The stem cell research ban was silly, and the community college money dispursement was seen as redundant since many CCs had revitalized in the late-90s already when the states were doing better. The CC money was really more of a state-education-bailout than an education policy.
Pythagorean
Feb1-12, 05:36 AM
Then we agree Obama will win by appealing to the most people. You keep trying to sell me on common good though which only seems dishonest to me. It's snake oil. Have you forgotten about Hobbes and Locke? The alternative to this kind of appealing to masses was killing opposition and oppression.
So do you think a particular candidate has "real" snake oil?
russ_watters
Feb1-12, 06:25 AM
He has the most experience as president with the current political atmosphere.I believe that his "experience" is going to be a major problem for him.
russ_watters
Feb1-12, 06:27 AM
I don't know what's best for the whole, and I don't like it when people pretend they do. I also don't trust people that claim to; I'm cynical like that.
That's how our law system is built, free-market and all, Hobbes, Lock, etc... [stunned] Then how can you vote at all? :confused: also, that's why Obama's going to win the election. Because he appeals to the personal needs of the most people. As Evo said, middle America. You may be right, but that attitude may just kill western democracy. It's doing a fine job in Europe and we're racing to catch up.
I also agree that that will likely be Obama's campaign strategy. It makes me scared and sick to think that's what we've devolved into.
I'd much prefer an attitude where driven by bias one believes that what is best for them is best for the country because at least the good of the country is a consideration. Instead it sounds like you just want to pillage what you can from the ship before it sinks.
He has the most experience as president with the current political atmosphere.
Well, Roosevelt has the most experience being president, but he's dead.
I see the President as being the 'leader of his party' and when he couldn't get 'his agenda' passed through a friendly congress, I have a hard time seeing him being successful.
I think one reason for that was that he took a hands-off approach to Congress, letting them decide decide the specifics rather than write the legislation himself. In this way, he let a bunch of bickering hyenas argue over things, so in that essence, yes, it could be said he didn't lead his party.
(even if I agreed with his policies) I think much of the extreme partisanship that exists is due to the 'us vs them' mentality that he talks about in nearly every speech. There is always someone for the President to blame it seems. That's not healthy for the country as a whole IMO, especially when we probably all could use less government in our lives.
That partisanship has been going on a long time (I would say since Nixon, though maybe eralier - I'm too young to remember before that).
Say what you want about the previous administration, but nearly all of his 'infamous' policies had vast bipartisan support*. That can't be said about President Obama - he seems too focused on eating the rich (so is that cannibalism?).
*(The tax cuts that were passed through congress in 2001/3 were one of the few major policies passed along party lines - but if they were so bad, why didn't President Obama and his friendly congress totally repeal them - especially when the sunset provision came to term?)
Because also included in the provisions were other tax cuts that benfitted the middle class, and he wasn't willing to see those expire. In essence, he didn't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Romney is appealing to the upper class by the tax cuts he wants to give them, and himself, but that's ok?
Char. Limit
Feb1-12, 10:53 AM
Wow, didn't take long for this thread to get derailed by anti-Obama fanatics, did it?
russ_watters
Feb1-12, 11:45 AM
Wow, didn't take long for this thread to get derailed by anti-Obama fanatics, did it?
It did? To whom are you referring?
Char. Limit
Feb1-12, 11:47 AM
It did? To whom are you referring?
This is probably gonna get an infraction, but since you asked, I'm referring to Mege. I don't think he's had a good thought about Obama in his life. At least that's not the message I get from reading his posts.
EDIT: Not that it really matters. I probably won't visit this thread again.
Pythagorean
Feb1-12, 12:44 PM
There's a lot of nonsequiturs in response to the OP...
Russ, I already sad I'm not voting. Obama will still win. Democracy isn't going to last forever. Majority wins? Doesn't anyone read history? That's how Cesar got so much power. The majority is not equipped to guide political decisions.
skippy1729
Feb1-12, 12:48 PM
I'm going to ignore comparison of Obama to the Supreme Leader.. that's ridiculous...
I WAS MAKING NO SUCH COMPARISON. I was trying to figure out what your OP meant. The substitutions (Assad and Kim) are straightforward and tend to show that the OP is a largely empty statement. Therefore I was trying to figure out what this thread was about. Your reply has clarified what this thread is about.
Skippy
Pythagorean
Feb1-12, 12:55 PM
So do you agree he will have a 2nd term or not?
edit:
Also, the OP isn't an empty statement. Changing administration is a nightmare, especially changing partisans. Given two otherwise equal candidates, in a time of economic challenges, the wrong decision would be to change administration.
So it is an argument in favor of Obama's candidacy. Of course, they're not equal. Mitt Romney has less of a chance of becoming a president, so an lot of his time/energy/money are being wasted right now.
IMO, Obama will win a second term. He can run (quite effectively, I believe) against Boehner and McConnell, who have pledged to quash every Democratic initiative in order to make Obama a one-term president. That kind of partisanship does not serve the interests of the people - only the interests of the GOP, and it's not going to play well this fall. When the focus of the GOP leadership is not on economic recovery or job-creation, but just on getting rid of Obama, they are petty and self-serving. Maine's two senators are supposedly "moderate" Republicans, but they do whatever McConnell tells them to, even if that runs directly against the interests of this predominantly poor rural state.
Gokul43201
Feb1-12, 01:07 PM
Heh, my parents are pure middle class and had nothing but higher taxes and higher medical bills because of him.Which taxes have increased, and by how much?
Digging around the internets, I count a total of about $60B in tax hikes that have taken effect so far (nearly a third of which involves plugging a loophole in an alternative fuels tax credit that primarily affects the lumber/paper industry - see "Black Liquor Tax").
The 'Making Work Pay' tax credit alone was over $100B, and if you throw in all the payroll tax cuts and small business credits that Obama has passed, I wouldn't be surprised if there's been close to $200B in cuts.
So I'd be surprised if any significant fraction of the population has seen an increase yet (though that may change in the next few years). I think you'd have to be a chain smoking (see: tobacco tax increase) paper mill to have seen more tax raises than cuts.
Char. Limit
Feb1-12, 01:07 PM
If Romney does not win the primary, I think it's safe to say Obama is definitely winning a second term. None of the other candidates are really viable. Especially Newt gingrich, who has more black marks on his record than a smudged printer test sheet.
Pengwuino
Feb1-12, 01:11 PM
Wow, didn't take long for this thread to get derailed by anti-Obama fanatics, did it?
The thread started as a single thoughtless statement expressing that Obama is better than the others. How exactly was this derailed?
I'm sorry, I suppose everyone should just nod politely and agree, less we're called anti-Obama fanatics.
Pythagorean
Feb1-12, 01:15 PM
The thread started as a single thoughtless statement expressing that Obama is better than the others. How exactly was this derailed?
I'm sorry, I suppose everyone should just nod politely and agree, less we're called anti-Obama fanatics.
Well.. you did politely agree with our first post : )
Pengwuino
Feb1-12, 01:24 PM
So I'd be surprised if any significant fraction of the population has seen an increase yet (though that may change in the next few years). I think you'd have to be a chain smoking (see: tobacco tax increase) paper mill to have seen more tax raises than cuts.
They've had hikes in health care premiums starting right after Obama passed his health care plan. Insurers aren't idiots. My father also runs a small seasonal tax preparation business and has seen his costs go up. Hell, I think the profit from the business barely covers their normal tax bill.
The only good President in my opinion will be the one who gets rid of all the BS in the tax code. I did a clients return the other night (I work for him as well on the side) and this lady had $15k income, paid $1.5k in SS/Taxes, and since she had 2 kids, received an $8000 refund. My father does mainly lower income and middle class folks tax return and he says in all his years, the basic trend really is that lower and lower-middle class people do not pay ANY taxes. Most of them receive so much that the feds practically repay any state sales tax the people may have paid so "any" tax literally means ANY tax.
The problem with this country is that a vast majority of people pay so little taxes that they have no idea what it costs to run the country. This is why I dislike the pro-taxes types and the people who buy votes by running with pro-taxes agendas. If 30% of everyones income was taken away before you could even see it, I think people would start being a little more wary of having so many taxes.
Well.. you did politely agree with our first post : )
It was a back-handed agreement. It's like saying that the UN has the most experience being the UN. I can't believe the thread wasn't shut down immediately.
Pythagorean
Feb1-12, 02:00 PM
The problem with this country is that a vast majority of people pay so little taxes that they have no idea what it costs to run the country. This is why I dislike the pro-taxes types and the people who buy votes by running with pro-taxes agendas. If 30% of everyones income was taken away before you could even see it, I think people would start being a little more wary of having so many taxes.
In general, higher taxed places are actually happier. Of course, the higher tax has to actually go towards people's happiness. But based on so-called "for the greater goods" reply in this thread... the money is actually going towards people's happiness. Which is why Obama is going to win : )
As an example, Denmark has a 41.4 HPI, The US has 28.8 HPI, just looking at taxes and happiness index. But you can also read a more thorough review:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-happiest-places-on-earth-are-heavily-taxed
It was a back-handed agreement. It's like saying that the UN has the most experience being the UN. I can't believe the thread wasn't shut down immediately.
It's more like saying let's not uproot the UN and replace it with an administration that has a completely different value system. The time it takes to change everything and all the conflicting policies during transition would be much more costly to members of the UN. And why? The UN is doing it's job!
The UN is an excellent candidate for remaining the UN!!!
Gokul43201
Feb1-12, 02:21 PM
They've had hikes in health care premiums starting right after Obama passed his health care plan. Insurers aren't idiots.They also had hikes right before, and the year before, and the year before that ... going back many, many years, and at about thrice the inflation rate, on average. What might be useful is a comparison of the increases after, with the rate of increase before ACA was passed. I haven't seen any data that's recent enough for that.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_5aAsxFJOeMw/THK_aW0PMFI/AAAAAAAADeU/WZoHwdcHC8g/s1600/trend-average-single-and-family-health-premiums-2000-2009.PNG
My father also runs a small seasonal tax preparation business and has seen his costs go up. Hell, I think the profit from the business barely covers their normal tax bill. But this is not to say that he's seen a net increase in taxes, is it?
The only good President in my opinion will be the one who gets rid of all the BS in the tax code.Might not be any President that can pull it off. For one thing, you'd need a supermajority in Congress that wants the same thing.
I did a clients return the other night (I work for him as well on the side) and this lady had $15k income, paid $1.5k in SS/Taxes, and since she had 2 kids, received an $8000 refund. My father does mainly lower income and middle class folks tax return and he says in all his years, the basic trend really is that lower and lower-middle class people do not pay ANY taxes. Most of them receive so much that the feds practically repay any state sales tax the people may have paid so "any" tax literally means ANY tax. I believe this though it's quite the opposite in my case. I pay a much higher tax rate than say, Romney ... on a pathetic postdoc salary.
If 30% of everyones income was taken away before you could even see it, I think people would start being a little more wary of having so many taxes.I agree.
Pythagorean
Feb1-12, 02:44 PM
well, look at that... the slope is smaller during Obama! It looks like there's a lot of fallacy in people's selective claims about rising costs.
Pengwuino, perhaps you should have your parents create a PF account rather than us relying on your hearsay.
So far, and this is just tentative, and just my opinion, I don't think that Obama represents any sort of significant positive change. That is, assuming Romney gets the GOP nomination, then I don't think it matters who gets elected to the presidency.
For example, Obama recently temporarily stopped the TransCanada oil pipeline to Texas. A good thing imo, because I think that what's needed is more American refineries, not a pipeline to Texas for eventual export so that the oil companies can maximize their profits.
But it remains to be seen what the eventual outcome will be. I'm betting that, eventually, Obama will go along with it (and of course Romney is pro-pipeline all the way), and then we'll see the usual discussions about how he was forced to do it because of unreasonable Republican intransigence or whatever.
I also don't think that Obama is going to spearhead the enactment of sufficient regulatory measures wrt, say, the financial industry. Or that he's going to lead the way to significant changes in the tax code ... etc. In short, flip a coin, it will be business as usual either way.
Pythagorean
Feb1-12, 02:58 PM
In short, flip a coin, it will be business as usual either way.
So then by that measure do you agree that a change in administration would just be an unnecessary hassle?
skippy1729
Feb1-12, 03:11 PM
If Romney does not win the primary, I think it's safe to say Obama is definitely winning a second term. None of the other candidates are really viable. Especially Newt gingrich, who has more black marks on his record than a smudged printer test sheet.
I think that you have been watching too many Romney ads. Many of Newt's "black marks" are false and many are unusable in a general election campaign. I would be happy to get into specifics but that would probably be considered "thread hijacking". McCain was too much of a gentleman to use personal attacks. Newt will use them in retaliation. Newt doesn't have to cringe whenever the health care topic comes up, Romney does. Newt is not the "poster boy" for the OWS people; Romney is a perfect boogey man for the planned "class warfare" campaign. Present polls not withstanding, I think Newt will be a more formidable candidate than Romney.
The only prediction I have is that this race will be extremely close. Anyone who thinks this will be a blowout for either side is engaging in wishful thinking.
Skippy
So then by that measure do you agree that a change in administration would just be an unnecessary hassle?My opinion is that all elected public officials should be allowed one term (say, 6 years) and that's it. Wrt your question, I don't think it will matter whether Obama or Romney is elected. So, yeah, if that's the choice, then why bother voting? Or, as the mainstream ads extoll, "it doesn't matter who you vote for, as long as you vote". Well, if it doesn't matter who you vote for, then why does it matter if you vote at all?
On the other hand, if Gingrich gets nominated, then I'll probably vote for Obama.
Pythagorean
Feb1-12, 03:16 PM
I'm actually impressed with what I've seen of Romney's science stances, so far. I mostly just don't think his stage presence is going to appeal to most the voting US, and of course (to reiterate my OP) a change in administration is a waste of time if the candidates have the same end effect.
Jimmy Snyder
Feb1-12, 03:35 PM
Well, if it doesn't matter who you vote for, then why does it matter if you vote at all?
If I were a politician and I could do a favor for some district, I might pick one that had voted for me in order to reward it, or I might pick one that had voted against me in order to seduce it, but I would never pick a district that doesn't vote.
Pythagorean
Feb1-12, 03:42 PM
If I were a politician and I could do a favor for some district, I might pick one that had voted for me in order to reward it, or I might pick one that had voted against me in order to seduce it, but I would never pick a district that doesn't vote.
Good point; that's an important factor. But it doesn't mean much to a district with little/no population. We don't get much political foreplay whether we vote or not because the numbers just aren't enough to warrant appealing to us.
Pengwuino
Feb1-12, 04:12 PM
But this is not to say that he's seen a net increase in taxes, is it?
Yes, it is. They are on fixed incomes and haven't had any real changes in their exemptions or anything.
Might not be any President that can pull it off. For one thing, you'd need a supermajority in Congress that wants the same thing.
Which is a whole 'nother thread, unfortunately.
I believe this though it's quite the opposite in my case. I pay a much higher tax rate than say, Romney ... on a pathetic postdoc salary.
If you're talking about the 15% rate, that's been debunked before. Have some kids, they do wonders on your tax bill. It surprises me that my city is not rich with tax dollars considering the way people pop out babies around here :biggrin: .
Pengwuino
Feb1-12, 04:32 PM
It's more like saying let's not uproot the UN and replace it with an administration that has a completely different value system. The time it takes to change everything and all the conflicting policies during transition would be much more costly to members of the UN. And why? The UN is doing it's job!
The UN is an excellent candidate for remaining the UN!!!
So in 2004, you would have agreed not to vote out Bush because why should we replace him with an administration that has a completely different value system? Remember, one persons "he's doing half decent" is another persons "he's destroying this country". That would imply we should just get rid of term limits because "why go through the hassle".
I'm actually impressed with what I've seen of Romney's science stances, so far. I mostly just don't think his stage presence is going to appeal to most the voting US, and of course (to reiterate my OP) a change in administration is a waste of time if the candidates have the same end effect.I think that Obama's stage presence and rhetorical ability exceeds any of his possible opponents. But of course we have no way of knowing if a, say, Romney presidency would be substantially different than an Obama presidency.
The problem I have with Obama, and why he's been something of a disappointment to me, is that I don't think he's used the power of the presidency, his bully pulpit, to anywhere near its maximum effect -- assuming that he actually wants the sort of sweeping changes, to the betterment of America, that his rhetoric seems to indicate that he wants. His rhetoric is sort of inspiring, but his actions have been, more or less, in line with the status quo ... imho.
Pythagorean
Feb1-12, 05:28 PM
That would imply we should just get rid of term limits because "why go through the hassle".
You're being rather selective in your reading comprehension. "Why go through the hassle" is a conditional. It only applies if the forseeable outcome is the same for both candidates.
So this kind of argument is only a distraction from the real argument (whether another candidate could do a better job, whether the forseeable outcome is not in favor of Obama). What makes you want to avoid that argument? Are you just throwing everything to the wall and seeing what sticks?
For example, why avoid responding to the statistics that show a lower increase in the increase of premiums during Obama's stay? You selectively complained about the function of the data, ignoring the derivative that countered your complaint. Instead, you chose to raise a straw man.
If you want to have a productive discussion, tell me who you think would have a better forseeable outcome and why, instead of using deconstruction tactics.
If I were a politician and I could do a favor for some district, I might pick one that had voted for me in order to reward it, or I might pick one that had voted against me in order to seduce it, but I would never pick a district that doesn't vote.I think that, if you were a politician, then you would have a prioritized list of people, companies, etc. that you are beholden to, and that that list would be prioritized according to the monetary contributions and power/influence of those people, companies, etc. -- and that how the common folk in a particular district have voted, or not voted, will be less important than that.
Wrt the logical parsing of the statement (a common theme in mainstream ads some years back), "it doesn't matter who you vote for, just as long as you vote", my question remains. If it doesn't matter who you vote for, then why does it matter that you vote?
Pythagorean
Feb1-12, 05:32 PM
I think that Obama's stage presence and rhetorical ability exceeds any of his possible opponents. But of course we have no way of knowing if a, say, Romney presidency would be substantially different than an Obama presidency.
I agree, we can only talk about forseeables. Another reason my voting is pointless. Maybe despite Romney's bumbling stage presence, he'd make a much more effective commander and chief. I don't really know what's going on "up there" within the circles of the rich and powerful (no conspiracy theory intended... that they're in competition with each other only convolutes things more).
The problem I have with Obama, and why he's been something of a disappointment to me, is that I don't think he's used the power of the presidency, his bully pulpit, to anywhere near its maximum effect -- assuming that he actually wants the sort of sweeping changes, to the betterment of America, that his rhetoric seems to indicate that he wants. His rhetoric is sort of inspiring, but his actions have been, more or less, in line with the status quo ... imho.
Yes, he's actually been quite moderate on a lot of issues (such as abortion).
I'm not terribly surprised overall though. Everybody that makes it to president had some people that helped them get there. They're all somebody's corporate puppet to some extent. Ron Paul is probably the least so, but nobody takes him seriously and there's no guarantee his ideas would ever see the light of day if he magically made it to president.
Another reason my voting is pointless.I think it probably is pointless, but it doesn't have to be. That is, as long as we're pretty much confined to voting for either a Republican or a Democratic candidate, either of which is necessarily going to represent the interests of the status quo, then voting for one or the other is essentially pointless. But it doesn't have to be in the sense that it's entirely possible to develop massive support for a third major party that represents the interests of the people and improvements in America, and not just the interests, to the detriment of America, of corporations, the wealthy, and the financial sector.
But I've gotten off topic. Imho, Obama wil win. I'll probably vote for him. And no significant positive changes will ensue.
Pythagorean
Feb1-12, 05:55 PM
Or I could just move to Denmark...
Pengwuino
Feb1-12, 06:38 PM
You're being rather selective in your reading comprehension. "Why go through the hassle" is a conditional. It only applies if the forseeable outcome is the same for both candidates.
But that's what you're implying.
So this kind of argument is only a distraction from the real argument (whether another candidate could do a better job, whether the forseeable outcome is not in favor of Obama). What makes you want to avoid that argument? Are you just throwing everything to the wall and seeing what sticks?
For example, why avoid responding to the statistics that show a lower increase in the increase of premiums during Obama's stay? You selectively complained about the function of the data, ignoring the derivative that countered your complaint. Instead, you chose to raise a straw man.
I find your attitude insulting. Health premiums HAVE gone up, was I suppose to argue that they haven't? The idea that they haven't gone up as fast is argument against the fact that my parents have seen increases and that we should keep ol' Obama in office is silly.
If you want to have a productive discussion, tell me who you think would have a better forseeable outcome and why, instead of using deconstruction tactics.
You still haven't answered my question. I find your notion of keeping a candidate because it's too much of a hassle to change a bit silly. Why aren't you defending this notion beyond situations that are convenient for yourself?
Angry Citizen
Feb1-12, 06:45 PM
Imho, Obama wil win. I'll probably vote for him. And no significant positive changes will ensue.
Some significant positive changes have already ensued. Health care is huge to me, particularly as I am an uninsured type one diabetic. But you can thank Republicans and blue dog Democrats for keeping most of the 'change' from happening. I swear, the Democrats should've FORCED the filibuster out. What kind of country requires a sixty vote majority to pass legislation? The Democrats had a clear mandate from the people, and they lost it.
Some significant positive changes have already ensued. Health care is huge to me, particularly as I am an uninsured type one diabetic.Has Obamacare made a positive difference? I honestly don't know. It doesn't affect me, as I'm a veteran and have free health care for life.
Has Obamacare made a positive difference? I honestly don't know. It doesn't affect me, as I'm a veteran and have free health care for life.
It affects many young people who can stay on their parents' plans until age 26 (I think it's 26).
Very helpful to young folks who have to take jobs that don't offer insurance.
Obama has done a lot to reduce money-powered lobbying.
Care to elaborate and support with specifics?
seba102288
Feb1-12, 08:55 PM
I think we should vote them all out and make Chuck Norris president. :wink:
Seriously though, they all have their own agenda in mind. So the question is who really has America's best interest in mind?
Personally, I don't feel like Obama has done what he said he was going to do, and he can't blame congress considering it was completely controlled by the democrats for half of his presidency.
Angry Citizen
Feb1-12, 09:34 PM
Personally, I don't feel like Obama has done what he said he was going to do, and he can't blame congress considering it was completely controlled by the democrats for half of his presidency.
That's actually false, given that everything the Democrats tried to pass that was of consequence had to pass through the Senate Republicans' filibusters. All it took was one Democrat (Lieberman, I look at you) to join the Republicans on an issue and that was all she wrote. Case in point the "public option". In the Democratic-controlled House sans filibuster, the public option was welcomed with open arms. In the filibuster-prone Senate, it was killed. Why else do you think Obama struck the tone of the "Great Compromiser" for most of his Presidency? He had to at least try to woo Republican Senators to his side. Unfortunately, Obama did not bank on the Republicans' rather pitiful need to unseat him at all costs. I have never seen such obstructionist politics in all my studies of history. I thought the 2006 Congress was bad, but the 2008 Congress was the worst in history. A clear mandate from the people, yet the Republicans blocked everything that came through.
That's actually false, given that everything the Democrats tried to pass that was of consequence had to pass through the Senate Republicans' filibusters. All it took was one Democrat (Lieberman, I look at you) to join the Republicans on an issue and that was all she wrote. Case in point the "public option". In the Democratic-controlled House sans filibuster, the public option was welcomed with open arms. In the filibuster-prone Senate, it was killed. Why else do you think Obama struck the tone of the "Great Compromiser" for most of his Presidency? He had to at least try to woo Republican Senators to his side. Unfortunately, Obama did not bank on the Republicans' rather pitiful need to unseat him at all costs. I have never seen such obstructionist politics in all my studies of history. I thought the 2006 Congress was bad, but the 2008 Congress was the worst in history. A clear mandate from the people, yet the Republicans blocked everything that came through.
Are you certain the Republicans blocked "everything that came through"? I seem to recall PPACA, Cash for Clunkers, Stimulus, and the tax cuts that were Bush's then Obama's and now Bush's again(something like that - IMO - can't keep track)?
I think we should vote them all out and make Chuck Norris president. :wink:
Seriously though ... What do you mean "seriously though"?
Angry Citizen
Feb1-12, 09:54 PM
Are you certain the Republicans blocked "everything that came through"? I seem to recall PPACA, Cash for Clunkers, Stimulus, and the tax cuts that were Bush's then Obama's and now Bush's again(something like that - IMO - can't keep track)?
The PPACA was blocked at all possible turns. It was neutered from its original form, which was actually a decent health care law. This current incarnation is the work of the blue dog Democrats and the Republican obstructionists. The stimulus also was forced to include a number of compromises such as massive tax incentives, not to mention the fact that it was undersized by perhaps two to three times what would be required to really jumpstart the economy.
As for the tax cuts, I would have made the same decision. Republicans were yet again playing politics, wanting more money for rich people. They essentially held the unemployed hostage until Obama signed the extension of the tax cuts. Obama was forced to do it, otherwise millions would have lost their unemployment benefits. He probably prevented a new Great Depression in doing so. Not that you likely care. Obama's an evil socialist and the country's about to fall apart under his watch... :uhh:
Pythagorean
Feb1-12, 10:19 PM
But that's what you're implying.
You still haven't answered my question. I find your notion of keeping a candidate because it's too much of a hassle to change a bit silly. Why aren't you defending this notion beyond situations that are convenient for yourself?
I'm not sure if you're reading comprehension is challenged or you're just having trouble putting two different posts together. Do I really have to repeat myself or will you make an effort to reread my posts? If you're not going to make the effort, then it's pointless to even respond to your posts...
I find your attitude insulting.
Ok, so backhanded comments, personal feelings, and anecdotes about your family. These
Health premiums HAVE gone up, was I suppose to argue that they haven't?
You saw the data Gokul posted... can you see how your "argument" is misleading?
Pythagorean
Feb1-12, 10:21 PM
Care to elaborate and support with specifics?
Quoting Bara Vaida:
1) he signed an executive order limiting the ability of registered lobbyists to get jobs in the administration.
2) he imposed new communications restrictions on lobbyists wanting to talk to executive branch officials on stimulus projects.
3) he banned lobbyists from serving on government advisory boards.
The PPACA was blocked at all possible turns. It was neutered from its original form, which was actually a decent health care law. This current incarnation is the work of the blue dog Democrats and the Republican obstructionists. The stimulus also was forced to include a number of compromises such as massive tax incentives, not to mention the fact that it was undersized by perhaps two to three times what would be required to really jumpstart the economy.
As for the tax cuts, I would have made the same decision. Republicans were yet again playing politics, wanting more money for rich people. They essentially held the unemployed hostage until Obama signed the extension of the tax cuts. Obama was forced to do it, otherwise millions would have lost their unemployment benefits. He probably prevented a new Great Depression in doing so. Not that you likely care. Obama's an evil socialist and the country's about to fall apart under his watch... :uhh:
Care to support anything you've posted? As for the personal shot at me - is it a necessary inclusion to express your opinion?
Quoting Bara Vaida:
1) he signed an executive order limiting the ability of registered lobbyists to get jobs in the administration.
2) he imposed new communications restrictions on lobbyists wanting to talk to executive branch officials on stimulus projects.
3) he banned lobbyists from serving on government advisory boards.
Have these actions been effective? I'll have to do a little research on some of the green initiatives - such as Solyndra - before suggesting there were lobbyists involved. Does anyone know?
A quick search yielded this:
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/09/16/16greenwire-solyndra-spent-liberally-to-woo-lawmakers-unti-81006.html
"Solyndra Spent Liberally to Woo Lawmakers Until the End, Records Show"
This fiasco wasted $500+ million in taxpayer funds.
Pythagorean
Feb1-12, 10:51 PM
Huh... interesting potential scam there...
After Solyndra's bankruptcy, it was revealed that the company had spent a large sum of money on lobbying, that several of the company's shareholders and executives had made substantial donations to Obama's campaign (as well as to Republicans), and that Solyndra executives had had many meetings with White House officials.
Another article:
http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-solyndra-donor-20110917,0,2125785.story
Steve Spinner, who helped monitor the Energy Department's issuance of $25 billion in government loan guarantees to renewable energy projects, was one of Obama's top fundraisers in 2008 and is raising money for the president's 2012 reelection campaign.
Spinner did not have any role in the selection of applicants for the loan program and, in fact, was recused from the decision to grant a $535-million loan guarantee to Solyndra Inc. because his wife's law firm represented the company, administration officials said Friday.
He has the most experience as president with the current political atmosphere.That's true of every one term president. Doesn't mean he gained useful experience.
Dictator doesn't mean evil. Yes it does.
Pythagorean
Feb1-12, 10:59 PM
That's true of every one term president. Doesn't mean he gained useful experience.
The real question is whether Romney would really make any difference in the end... If not (and my stance is that he won't) then why bother wasting time and money changing administration?
If you think Romney (or Newt?!?) would make a better candidate, then make your case! Romney has crap for stage presence compared to Obama though, so Obama is going to win, I predict; which means Romney's just wasting his own time/money.
Pythagorean
Feb1-12, 11:04 PM
Yes it does.
Dictator has an objective denotation: it means that one has absolute power.
Evil has a massed subjective denotation: it means different things to different cultures.
Anyway, start a metaphysics thread in philosophy if you really want to carry this out...
Jasongreat
Feb1-12, 11:06 PM
The real question is whether Romney would really make any difference in the end... If not (and my stance is that he won't) then why bother wasting time and money changing administration?
If you think Romney (or Newt?!?) would make a better candidate, then make your case! Romney has crap for stage presence compared to Obama though, so Obama is going to win, I predict; which means Romney's just wasting his own time/money.
He would definitely be atleast a little different from Obama. Romney would make the hard choice to dump unproductive programs, Obama seems set to double down on his green energy plan. More money for more Solyndra's, more money for electric cars that start on fire and have a range of sixty miles. He made it pretty clear in his state of the union that just because of all these failures it is no reason to stop funding them. So IMO, that is one difference between Romney and Obama. Since Romney has been lambasted about his choices to shut down unproductive failing buisinesses while at Bain.
Pythagorean
Feb1-12, 11:11 PM
He would definitely be atleast a little different from Obama. Romney would make the hard choice to dump unproductive programs, Obama seems set to double down on his green energy plan. More money for more Solyndra's, more money for electric cars that start on fire and have a range of sixty miles. He made it pretty clear in his state of the union that just because of all these failures it is no reason to stop funding them. So IMO, that is one difference between Romney and Obama. Since Romney has been lambasted about his choices to shut down unproductive failing buisinesses while at Bain.
I'm not defending Solyndra or green energy in particular, and especially not the lobbying attached to that but in the sciences a program can be unproductive for a long time before it yields fruitful results. That's the nature of research and development. I don't know if I trust somebody to evaluate productivity appropriately.
There are over 20 million people out of work in this country that want more work. The situation has not improved, at all, since hitting bottom two years ago. Since prior recessions have all snapped back much more rapidly than this, I blame Obama. His the cause of the exploding deficits and businesses that are afraid to hire because of Obamacare and regulatory expansion like Dodd-Frank.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000
Angry Citizen
Feb1-12, 11:16 PM
more money for electric cars that start on fire and have a range of sixty miles.
Just a note, but the Volt is a gas/electric hybrid that has a range of about 300 miles, IIRC. There also exists a sports car, the Tesla Roadster, that can go about two hundred, and is all-electric.
Another note: the first cars sucked too.
Dictator has an objective denotation: it means that one has absolute power.
Evil has a massed subjective denotation: it means different things to different cultures.
Anyway, start a metaphysics thread in philosophy if you really want to carry this out...No need. We are not in 'different cultures', we are in this one which is composed of free people. To grant anyone absolute power over a free people is evil.
Pythagorean
Feb1-12, 11:18 PM
There are over 20 million people out of work in this country that want more work. The situation has not improved, at all, since hitting bottom two years ago. Since prior recessions have all snapped back much more rapidly than this, I blame Obama. His the cause of the exploding deficits and businesses that are afraid to hire because of Obamacare and regulatory expansion like Dodd-Frank.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000
I don't disagree with the data you've posted, but how can I be sure of your interpretation of it (it's all Obama's fault).
The real question is whether Romney would really make any difference in the end... Imho, a Romney admin promises to be a bit worse. At least with Obama there seems to be the chance that he might counter some of the negative forces in America. But Romney is definitely, without a doubt, pro status quo.
If not (and my stance is that he won't) then why bother wasting time and money changing administration?No reason, imo. Vote Obama.
... Romney's just wasting his own time/money.Yes, I think so, but he's got plenty of time/money.
There are over 20 million people out of work in this country that want more work. The situation has not improved, at all, since hitting bottom two years ago. Since prior recessions have all snapped back much more rapidly than this, I blame Obama.Well, in a certain sense, so do I. It seems that he could have done more than he has, imo. Will a Republican do any better? I don't think so. They have essentially the same masters, and problems. What, really, can a president do? America is controlled by the big corporations, and the financial sector. The congress is, fapp, a corrupt body. Am I being too cynical?
OmCheeto
Feb1-12, 11:39 PM
Yes it does.
Depends on what they're dictating....
QcvjoWOwnn4
I really should watch that movie one day.
I wonder how it will all end.
The Great Dictator
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Release date(s) October 15, 1940
The Great Dictator is a comedy film by Charlie Chaplin released in October 1940. Like most Chaplin films, he wrote, produced, and directed, in addition to starring as the lead. Having been the only Hollywood film maker to continue to make silent films well into the period of sound films, this was Chaplin's first true talking picture as well as his most commercially successful film. More importantly, it was the first major feature film to bitterly satirize Nazism and Adolf Hitler.
At the time of its first release, the United States was still formally at peace with Nazi Germany.
Depends on what they're dictating....Laughs aside, No.
OmCheeto
Feb2-12, 12:03 AM
Laughs aside, No.
One man's dictator, is another nation's leader....
yvwbqwqVJ04
Imho, a Romney admin promises to be a bit worse. At least with Obama there seems to be the chance that he might counter some of the negative forces in America. But Romney is definitely, without a doubt, pro status quo.
Romney is only pro status quo in so far as he isn't out for radical change of policy. If anything he wants to 'undo' a bit of the change. Romney is a neocon, no doubt about it - but I think he will make some of the hard decisions that President Obama will not. President Obama has skirted hard decisions and spent 4 years campaigning, trying to make everyone happy while the house is burning.
Yes, I think so, but he's got plenty of time/money.
This is quite the ideological parallel: Romney using much of his own money, while President Obama is using (an expected) billion dollars of other people's money to campaign. Fancy that...
Romney is only pro status quo in so far as he isn't out for radical change of policy.That's pretty much the definition of pro status quo, isn't it? And I think that Obama is pro status quo in pretty much the same way that Romney is pro status quo. So, they're both, imho, pro status quo. Which means no significant improvements. Vote for one or the other. It won't matter too much.
They're both, fapp, tools of the status quo, imho. But since I think/feel that Obama has, deep down, a bit more compassion/empathy for the common folks and really wants, though he's generally not able, to make improvements that would benefit America, then I'll vote for Obama.
Totally unscientific and perhaps unwarranted, but there you have it. Unless you or somebody else can persuade me otherwise.
Jasongreat
Feb2-12, 01:44 AM
Just a note, but the Volt is a gas/electric hybrid that has a range of about 300 miles, IIRC. There also exists a sports car, the Tesla Roadster, that can go about two hundred, and is all-electric.
Another note: the first cars sucked too.
That is correct I believe, I was refering to electicity alone, 60 miles, iirc. The tesla is a pretty nice concept, iirc they tried to get a subsidy from the government to make the telsa more competitive, the government chose not to back them.
To your note, that is correct, did it take the government to make them better, or was it the market? It seems to me the decline of the US auto industry can be traced to the seventies and eighties when it quit being a market driven industry and became a government controlled industry. I am amazed at the cars detroit was able to produce in spite of governmental meddling.
The biggest thing that stands out to me, is with all the praise heaped on the electric cars as green, where does the electricity come from? We are becoming a nation with more solar panels and wind turbines, but the bulk of the electricity is coal powered, until we get most of our power from nuclear, wind, solar, electric cars are just as dirty as gas powered cars, possibly even more so, with all the electrical transmission losses.
Pythagorean
Feb2-12, 02:20 AM
No need. We are not in 'different cultures', we are in this one which is composed of free people. To grant anyone absolute power over a free people is evil.
You don't get to choose objective definitions based on your culture. You're "dictating" that everyone should have your value system.
And mheslep... speaking of "free people"
Americans are locked up for crimes — from writing bad checks to using drugs — that would rarely produce prison sentences in other countries. And in particular they are kept incarcerated far longer than prisoners in other nations.
The United States has, for instance, 2.3 million criminals behind bars, more than any other nation
it has almost a quarter of the world's prisoners.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/americas/23iht-23prison.12253738.html?pagewanted=all
phoenix:\\
Feb2-12, 11:26 AM
There are over 20 million people out of work in this country that want more work. The situation has not improved, at all, since hitting bottom two years ago. Since prior recessions have all snapped back much more rapidly than this, I blame Obama. His the cause of the exploding deficits and businesses that are afraid to hire because of Obamacare and regulatory expansion like Dodd-Frank.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000
Maybe I am missing something, but from what I see the unemployment rate is 13.1 million in household.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
As far as the deficit is concerned. Policies signed under Obama calculate the amount of debt standing at $1 trillion (even though it increased 4x as much under his presidency), much of the debt increase was from previous policies (taken from Center on Budget and Policies), and during Obama's first term there was a budget proposal of 1.4-5 trillion dollars to be added to the deficit (mind you this was under Bush's budget proposal which ended in Sept. '09), in which Obama's first budget plan took place officially in 2010. So much of the 2009 deficit increase shouldn't be attributed towards Obama.
Has the situation improved? From various sources, ranging from government to economic analysts, the economy has shown signs of improvement even if it is improving slowly, it is still improving.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/fewer-sought-unemployment-aid-last-week-as-modest-economic-growth-reduces-layoffs/2012/02/02/gIQASOLFkQ_story.html
Businesses have been hiring:
EDIT (VIDEO is just some indicator on small growth and why, etc..., much of the other support of that statement comes from the bls link above, sorry).
EkV1QIuFybU
Obama's presidency? I think he's done pretty good considering the circumstances.
The problem I have with Obama, and why he's been something of a disappointment to me, is that I don't think he's used the power of the presidency, his bully pulpit, to anywhere near its maximum effect -- assuming that he actually wants the sort of sweeping changes, to the betterment of America, that his rhetoric seems to indicate that he wants. His rhetoric is sort of inspiring, but his actions have been, more or less, in line with the status quo ... imho.
This has essentially been my problem with him as President as well. To quote Michael Douglas in The American President
I will go door to door if I have to, but I'm gonna convince Americans that I'm right
That's what Obama should have done if he thought he was right about his Agenda.
Has Obamacare made a positive difference? I honestly don't know. It doesn't affect me, as I'm a veteran and have free health care for life.
Not me personally. My gf has epilepsy, and she can now get insurane at least (not that she can afford it), so it has affected her.
Maybe I am missing something, but from what I see the unemployment rate is 13.1 million in household.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htmI posted employed fraction of population (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000) intentionally to show the difference. To be 'Unemployed' in the BLS definition means you have jump through some of their hoops to be considered actively looking. Many people have given up looking, falling off the BLS definition, but the employed to population statistic still shows what's going on. E/P has its flaws too, as people simply retiring will lower E/P.
Has the situation improved? From various sources, ranging from government to economic analysts, the economy has shown signs of improvement even if it is improving slowly, it is still improving.Yes it has improved from the bottom. My point is that in all other US recessions the economy has bounced back more quickly. The global economy was impacted by the financial crisis, but other countries, like Germany which shunned a large stimulus despite Geitner's clamoring, have recovered robustly. If it were not for the luck of the recent boom in tight oil and gas I doubt the US economy would have got off the floor at all. Even there, with his rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline, he is dragging down the system.
Angry Citizen
Feb2-12, 01:32 PM
Not me personally. My gf has epilepsy, and she can now get insurane at least (not that she can afford it), so it has affected her.
I believe premiums will have to go down once the price controls go into effect (namely, that an insurance company must spend at least 80% of its income on healthcare for patients).
Angry Citizen
Feb2-12, 01:35 PM
Yes it has improved from the bottom. My point is that in all other US recessions the economy has bounced back more quickly. The global economy was impacted by the financial crisis, but other countries, like Germany which shunned a large stimulus despite Geitner's clamoring, have recovered robustly.
Germany is also significantly more protectionist and left-wing than we are, and they still have a large manufacturing base. Further proof that the world needs more left-wing economics. While Obama certainly is not a left-wing politician, he's the closest thing we'll get to having one in a position of power for a while - at least until the leftward shift occurs, which I have predicted ever since the Tea Party came into existence.
As for Obama personally, I had taken him to be a generally likable guy even if I disagreed with most of his policies. Not any more. See this in particular as to why, on a recent 911 memorial where numerous 911 survivors and victim relatives were invited:
Debra Burlingame, the sister of Charles "Chic" Burlingame (pilot of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon) met with President Obama today, along with other families who were victims of 9/11. Burlingame said she confronted Obama about Attorney General Eric Holder prosecuting the men who interrogated KSM, which may have produced intelligence leading us to bin Laden.
Burlingame describes the encounter with Obama: "As a former attorney I know you can't tell the Attorney General what to do, he said, 'No, I can't.' But I said 'we -- that shouldn't stop you from giving your opinion. We wouldn't be here today if they hadn't done their jobs. Can't you at least give them your opinion.' And he said 'no I won't,' and he turned around and walked away."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/05/05/burlingame_after_meeting_with_obama_he_turned_his_ back_on_me.html
Even there with his rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline he is dragging down the system.There are good reasons not to be dragged into a hasty rubber-stamping of such a potentially damaging project. There are plenty of people "dragging down the system", such as obstructionists in Congress who want to hold up funding for infrastructure. We have badly-crumbling roads and bridges all over this country, so funding for such projects could have a very wide-spread effect, instead of preferentially delivering a windfall to one region or one industry.
It is penny-wise and pound-foolish to resist such stimulatory spending (rebuilding infrastructure) in a recession. Every construction worker, steel-worker, Caterpillar employee, etc that can be employed would be paying taxes and would be producing other jobs in their localities as their demand for goods and service keep pace with their wages. Sometime, you have to prime the pump.
There are good reasons not to be dragged into a hastyHasty? Where do you get the idea the Keystone XL review has been hasty vs interminably drawn out in review by agency (http://www.downstreamtoday.com/news/article.aspx?a_id=9385&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1)after agency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline#Keystone_XL)?
March 17, 2008
TransCanada Corp. (TransCanada), on behalf of TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP (Keystone), on Friday announced that the U.S. Department of State has issued a Presidential Permit to Keystone authorizing the construction, maintenance and operation ...
...
Keystone XL extension was proposed in 2008. The application was filed in the beginning of 2009 and the National Energy Board of Canada started hearings in September 2009. It was approved by the National Energy Board on March 11, 2010. The South Dakota Public Utilities Commission granted a permit on February 19, 2010.
On July 21, 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency said the draft environmental impact study for Keystone XL was inadequate and should be revised, indicating that the State Department's original report was "unduly narrow" because it didn't fully look at oil spill response plans, safety issues and greenhouse gas concerns. ... The final environmental impact report was released on August 26, 2011. It stated that the pipeline would pose "no significant impacts" to most resources if environmental protection measures are followed, but it would present "significant adverse effects to certain cultural resources."...
There are plenty of people "dragging down the system", such as obstructionists in Congress who want to hold up funding for infrastructure. We have badly-crumbling roads and bridges all over this country, so funding for such projects could have a very wide-spread effect, instead of preferentially delivering a windfall to one region or one industry.
It is penny-wise and pound-foolish to resist such stimulatory spending (rebuilding infrastructure) in a recession. Every construction worker, steel-worker, Caterpillar employee, etc that can be employed would be paying taxes and would be producing other jobs in their localities as their demand for goods and service keep pace with their wages. Sometime, you have to prime the pump.The stimulus jobs I assume you are referring to have and will cost the taxpayer plenty, and I see no evidence that they have stimulated anything despite the ample rhetoric saying they have. The Keystone XL jobs on the other hand would cost the taxpayer nothing, as they are all private sector, and would help to hold down the cost of fuel, thus transportation, thus everything else.
Angry Citizen
Feb2-12, 02:11 PM
The Keystone XL jobs on the other hand would cost the taxpayer nothing, as they are all private sector, and would help to hold down the cost of fuel, thus transportation, thus everything else.
In order to sell fossil fuels which are among the most contaminated and "dirty" in the world? Obama did the right thing. Even if we're not going to be a decent green nation, we can at least pretend we are by shunning the worst of the worst.
In order to sell fossil fuels which are among the most contaminated and "dirty" in the world? Contaminated? Why not add radioactive and contains human body parts while you are at it?
Obama did the right thing. Sure, if one believes the US should be turned into a giant national park the BANANAs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY#BANANA). Canadian leadership, at least, has rejected (http://www.canada.com/business/Foreign+money+attempting+delay+pipeline+hearings+H arper/6005154/story.html) the notion:
[Foreign money attempting to delay pipeline hearings:] But just because certain people in the United States would like to see Canada be one giant national park for the northern half of North America, I don't think that's part of what our review process is all about. Our process is there to determine what the needs and desires of Canadians are
russ_watters
Feb2-12, 04:18 PM
Germany is also significantly more protectionist and left-wing than we are, and they still have a large manufacturing base. Further proof that the world needs more left-wing economics. If Germany is proof we need more left wing economics, most of the rest of Europe must be proof we don't. :rolleyes:
Angry Citizen
Feb2-12, 05:19 PM
If Germany is proof we need more left wing economics, most of the rest of Europe must be proof we don't. :rolleyes:
Because the United States, which is the embodiment of right-wing economics with a few modest exceptions, has done so well...
A pictoral view of the President.
http://www.apimages.com/Search.aspx?st=det&sort=date&ids=Obama%20Prayer%20Breakfast&showact=events&prds=10092&intv=3d&sh=10&kwstyle=or&adte=1328199695&pagez=60&cfasstyle=AND&
He has the most experience as president with the current political atmosphere.
I thought about this statement during my 7 hours of driving today. I think a good case could be made for both Hillary and Jeb. Hillary spent eight years in the White House and lived through some difficult challenges and decisions. Jeb has twelve years of close proximity and a unique triangular view (for lack of a better description).
Because the United States, which is the embodiment of right-wing economics with a few modest exceptions, has done so well...
Why don't you elaborate on your description - or support?
phoenix:\\
Feb2-12, 06:46 PM
I posted employed fraction of population (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000) intentionally to show the difference. To be 'Unemployed' in the BLS definition means you have jump through some of their hoops to be considered actively looking. Many people have given up looking, falling off the BLS definition, but the employed to population statistic still shows what's going on. E/P has its flaws too, as people simply retiring will lower E/P.
So, in other words, it's your opinion that 20 million people are unemployed but want work?
Yes it has improved from the bottom. My point is that in all other US recessions the economy has bounced back more quickly. The global economy was impacted by the financial crisis, but other countries, like Germany which shunned a large stimulus despite Geitner's clamoring, have recovered robustly. If it were not for the luck of the recent boom in tight oil and gas I doubt the US economy would have got off the floor at all. Even there, with his rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline, he is dragging down the system.
No other recession has been as big as the '07 recession and, the recession is over. Just because we still have the effects that the recession caused still occurring doesn't mean we are still in a recession.
As for the XL pipeline, well:
http://www.engineering.unl.edu/publications/ENonline/Summer11/pipeline.html
http://journalstar.com/news/opinion/editorial/columnists/mike-klink-keystone-xl-pipeline-not-safe/article_4b713d36-42fc-5065-a370-f7b371cb1ece.html?mode=story
It is better to stop the pipeline and work out the possible errors in its construction rather than building something that (EDIT) has the potential* to cause more devastation to the ecosystem and cause people to be without water and a place to live because of relocation. It is too risky.
I don't see the system being "dragged" down when it is improving.
Angry Citizen
Feb2-12, 06:54 PM
Why don't you elaborate on your description - or support?
What manner of support would you like?
The United States has a very poor social safety net that is much less inclusive than other countries, particularly in Europe. We don't have socialized medicine. Our tax rates are much lower, which limits our ability to redistribute wealth. Consequently, our income inequality is the highest in the developed world. Our regulations are much more lax than in Europe. We have signed numerous free trade agreements with countries whose labor forces work at significantly lower wage levels, and then we wonder why our companies ship themselves overseas. These are all the effects of right-wing thought, and is evidence that America is a nation governed by two right-wing parties.
What manner of support would you like?
The United States has a very poor social safety net that is much less inclusive than other countries, particularly in Europe. We don't have socialized medicine. Our tax rates are much lower, which limits our ability to redistribute wealth. Consequently, our income inequality is the highest in the developed world. Our regulations are much more lax than in Europe. We have signed numerous free trade agreements with countries whose labor forces work at significantly lower wage levels, and then we wonder why our companies ship themselves overseas. These are all the effects of right-wing thought, and is evidence that America is a nation governed by two right-wing parties.
Can you be more specific in your analysis of the US safety net - for instance - are you taking into account the US "Poverty Level" thresholds in comparison to other countries? Since you haven't supplied any actual data - perhaps you'd like to compare the value of benefits received (food stamps, housing, healthcare, education) on a per capita basis to income levels around the world (just a thought)?
Fukuyama's latest musings. (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,812208,00.html)
I'm not a great fan of him. I think he was once one of Bush advisers. But -honestly- I forgot.
(Looked him up. I think I confuse him often with Huntington.)
Pythagorean
Feb2-12, 07:33 PM
I thought about this statement during my 7 hours of driving today. I think a good case could be made for both Hillary and Jeb. Hillary spent eight years in the White House and lived through some difficult challenges and decisions. Jeb has twelve years of close proximity and a unique triangular view (for lack of a better description).
They're... not candidates...
They're... not candidates...
Maybe Hillary should be - she has 8 years in the Clinton White House and as much time logged in the Obama Administration as the President.
skippy1729
Feb2-12, 08:28 PM
Maybe Hillary should be - she has 8 years in the Clinton White House and as much time logged in the Obama Administration as the President.
That would be game over; the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan wouldn't have a chance.
Skippy
OmCheeto
Feb2-12, 08:33 PM
I posted employed fraction of population (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000) intentionally to show the difference. .....
hmmmm....
http://home.europa.com/~garry/pf.employed.fraction.of.population.last.10.years.j pg
One less dollar spent on my reading spectacles, and I'd not be able to see the negative slope.
russ_watters
Feb2-12, 08:57 PM
What manner of support would you like?
The United States has a very poor social safety net that is much less inclusive than other countries, particularly in Europe. We don't have socialized medicine. Our tax rates are much lower, which limits our ability to redistribute wealth. Consequently, our income inequality is the highest in the developed world. Our regulations are much more lax than in Europe. We have signed numerous free trade agreements with countries whose labor forces work at significantly lower wage levels, and then we wonder why our companies ship themselves overseas. These are all the effects of right-wing thought, and is evidence that America is a nation governed by two right-wing parties. Er, welll sure if we define "doing well" to equal being more socialistic then by definition, we are doing badly by not being more socialistic. Not that that says anything useful, though. :rolleyes:
Angry Citizen
Feb2-12, 09:00 PM
Er, welll sure if we define "doing well" to equal being more socialistic then by definition, we are doing badly by not being more socialistic. Not that that says anything useful, though. :rolleyes:
Well, I'm glad you like income inequality. "Socialistic" - *eyeroll* You know, I talk to real socialists all the time, and they think the right's obsession with it is hilarious. Even the most left wing of the European "socialist" states only has half its economy owned by the government.
russ_watters
Feb2-12, 09:56 PM
Well, I'm glad you like income inequality. I don't "like" it any more than I "like" gravity. It isn't in and of itself bad or good, it just is. Defining it as "bad" carries with it the implication that a country with more equality is automatically better than one with less even if every single person in the unequal country is richer than anyone in the more equal one. Its beyond silly to focus on inequality in a vacuum.
"Socialistic" - *eyeroll* You know, I talk to real socialists all the time, and they think the right's obsession with it is hilarious. Even the most left wing of the European "socialist" states only has half its economy owned by the government. Wow, extremist socialists think moderate socialists are actually on the other side of the fence? :bugeye:
Not sure why you even want to pretend like I'm doing some unfair labeling here: you referenced socialism pretty much by name in your post.
Angry Citizen
Feb2-12, 10:20 PM
I don't "like" it any more than I "like" gravity. It isn't in and of itself bad or good, it just is. Defining it as "bad" carries with it the implication that a country with more equality is automatically better than one with less even if every single person in the unequal country is richer than anyone in the more equal one. Its beyond silly to focus on inequality in a vacuum.
Righty-oh then. If you believe the disparity in overall wealth between the US and, say, Norway is so great as to nullify Norway's huge advantage in terms of income equality, then that's your right - but it's wrong.
Wow, extremist socialists think moderate socialists are actually on the other side of the fence?
Not sure why you even want to pretend like I'm doing some unfair labeling here: you referenced socialism pretty much by name in your post.
No I didn't. Do I suggest government control of the means of production? No? Guess I'm not a socialist then, or even a 'moderate' socialist... I'm a social democrat. I believe in a roughly even mix of 'capitalism' and 'socialism'. It has been seen throughout western Europe as an ideal system. The more a country moves from that ideal, the more it risks falling into economic devastation. The western European nations you would denounce are actually doing much better than we are; and again, we have a significantly more right-wing economy.
russ_watters
Feb2-12, 10:49 PM
Righty-oh then. If you believe the disparity in overall wealth between the US and, say, Norway is so great as to nullify Norway's huge advantage in terms of income equality, then that's your right - but it's wrong. What I believe is that the differences in quality of life between most first world nations are too small and reasons too different to be easily distinguished. But when comparing countries with larger wealth disparities, income inequality quickly become meaningless. For example, the US and China have identical income inequalities, yet the US has 6x the per capita GDP. Poverty rates in the two countries are so different as to be impossible to compare. No I didn't. Do I suggest government control of the means of production? No? Guess I'm not a socialist then, or even a 'moderate' socialist... I'm a social democrat. I believe in a roughly even mix of 'capitalism' and 'socialism'. Stop playing games. The "socialized" in "socialized medicine" medicine is a reference to socialism and acknowledging that you prefer a mix of socialism and capitalism is a reflection of your belief in some socialistic policies. There was absolutely nothing wrong with my characterization. At the same time, your rejection of the idea (unsolicited) that you are a "moderate socialist" while labeling yourself to be almost in the middle is disingenuous. A moderate anything is a person who is just toward that side of a two sided spectrum. If you're just to the left of center, you're a moderate socialist. If you're just to the right (doubt it), you're a moderate capitalist. But the difference between the two when you're almost exactly in the center (assuming you really are) is virtually nonexistent.
Moreover, you do suggest government control over some some industries, so unless you intend to play more word games with what "production" is your support of socialized medicine most certainly is a socialistic position of yours. It has been seen throughout western Europe as an ideal system. You mean until it collapses under its own weight? Regardless, opinions are opinions and you're entitled to believe it is an ideal system regardless of evidence or logical basis. The more a country moves from that ideal, the more it risks falling into economic devastation. The western European nations you would denounce are actually doing much better than we are.... I'm not denouncing anyone and again, "better" is a matter of opinion and definition (in your case, a recursive one). Please stop with the propaganda language.
Angry Citizen
Feb2-12, 11:06 PM
What I believe is that the differences in quality of life between most first world nations are too small and reasons too different to be easily distinguished.
Okay. I guess you've never been an uninsured diabetic like me, who, without socialized medicine, would have to pay some five hundred dollars monthly for insulin and needles and test strips. That's a huge quality of life change, and is just one example where America and non-America differ significantly.
You mean until it collapses under its own weight?
Chile is a great example in which laissez-faire economics collapses under its own weight, and Keynesian economics comes to the rescue. Western Europe is not 'collapsing under its own weight'. The Eurozone debt per capita average is twenty percent less than ours, while maintaining significant advantages in quality of life and a much more stable unemployment roster. I will not deny that countries like Greece are in it deep, but much of that has to do with the fact that these countries did not follow Keynesian economics. The debt must actually be paid down in times of plenty. It wasn't. Sucks for those countries - maybe if it weren't for the neo-liberal revolution that has taken place since Reagan?
Angry Citizen - I'm a bit confused with your postings about the benefits of Socialism in a thread titled "Obama's Candidacy" - how is this on topic? What does the defense of Socialism have to do with President Obama?
This recent CNN piece speaks for itself-IMO.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/02/news/economy/obama_tax_rich_jesus/
"Obama: Jesus would back my tax-the-rich policy"
(Apparently the President's proposed tax strategy is faith based?)
...Even the most left wing of the European "socialist" states only has half its economy owned by the government.Owned? Half? That went out 20-30 years ago. I suppose the UK's NHS (several million employees) constitutes a high fraction of the UK economy.
...never been an uninsured diabetic like me, who, without socialized medicine, ...What happened to "We don't have socialized medicine" (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3742141&postcount=111). Seems clear to me that US medicine is at least half socialized - Medicare, Medicaid, and Veteran's being government single payer systems (and unsustainable).
What happened to "We don't have socialized medicine" (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3742141&postcount=111). Seems clear to me that US medicine is at least half socialized - Medicare, Medicaid, and Veteran's being government single payer systems (and unsustainable).
Not to wander too far off topic - BUT - Medicare sets the standards for all medical billing and insurance reimbursement. I'm still trying to figure out why we are discussing Socialism in this thread about President Obama's Candidacy?
Char. Limit
Feb3-12, 10:29 AM
Angry Citizen - I'm a bit confused with your postings about the benefits of Socialism in a thread titled "Obama's Candidacy" - how is this on topic? What does the defense of Socialism have to do with President Obama?
Nice point. He's not a socialist, after all.
(Apparently the President's proposed tax strategy is faith based?)
Well, if it works for the Republicans to claim that their tax strategies have God's will behind them, might as well try the same, right?
/facetiousness
Clearly a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving his right to rule directly from the will of God. It's now the same with tax laws, of course.
Clearly a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving his right to rule directly from the will of God. It's now the same with tax laws, of course.
I'm not certain what the discussion of a monarch has to do with President Obama's Candidacy either?
Number Nine
Feb3-12, 01:36 PM
This recent CNN piece speaks for itself-IMO.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/02/news/economy/obama_tax_rich_jesus/
"Obama: Jesus would back my tax-the-rich policy"
(Apparently the President's proposed tax strategy is faith based?)
I interpreted that as a response to christian conservative leaders who apply "biblical" arguments in favour of the tax cuts and the free-market; a "**** you" of sorts to his opponents.
Excuses. I have to watch my mouth sometimes. I just found the similarity of the arguments of divine monarchy and 'divine taxation' striking.
And in a funny thought, wouldn't that be something, to have Romney as king. The United Kingdom of the Americas!
Forget it, back on topic to Obama, please.
Pythagorean
Feb3-12, 01:49 PM
Yeah.. it was an obvious backhanded comment. It's very Obama-like. Any argument that it was actually faith-based is either ignorant or deceitful. Ignorance is easy to forgive. I'm pretty ignorant about politics, myself. Social sciences are vastly complex!
Yeah.. it was an obvious backhanded comment. It's very Obama-like. Any argument that it was actually faith-based is either ignorant or deceitful. Ignorance is easy to forgive. I'm pretty ignorant about politics, myself. Social sciences are vastly complex!
I think the statement was a bit arrogant and dismissive of religious folk - might come back to hurt him?
On the other hand, it's possible he was speaking from the heart (he did spend 20 years in Rev Wright's church in Chicago) and we got a quick look under the tent and now understand the President makes decisions based on his religious beliefs. The alternative is not very nice - is it?
Char. Limit
Feb3-12, 02:48 PM
I think the statement was a bit arrogant and dismissive of religious folk - might come back to hurt him?
On the other hand, it's possible he was speaking from the heart (he did spend 20 years in Rev Wright's church in Chicago) and we got a quick look under the tent and now understand the President makes decisions based on his religious beliefs. The alternative is not very nice - is it?
I don't think it matters that much. Religious people already seem to think Obama's a bad candidate - at least, every religious person I've seen on TV and in the news seems to think that.
Pythagorean
Feb3-12, 02:50 PM
I think the statement was a bit arrogant and dismissive of religious folk - might come back to hurt him?
On the other hand, it's possible he was speaking from the heart (he did spend 20 years in Rev Wright's church in Chicago) and we got a quick look under the tent and now understand the President makes decisions based on his religious beliefs. The alternative is not very nice - is it?
Who cares whether it's nice or not? It wasn't arrogant and dismissive of religious folk in general, just a particular subset of religious folk that hold a particular belief. They are in the minority, so his candidacy will hardly be threatened (as you'll see when he's elected a second term... even without my vote).
Pythagorean
Feb3-12, 02:51 PM
I don't think it matters that much. Religious people already seem to think Obama's a bad candidate - at least, every religious person I've seen on TV and in the news seems to think that.
You mean right-wing, fundamentalist religious folk on fox? Or all religious people on all TV?
Char. Limit
Feb3-12, 02:51 PM
You mean left-wing, fundamentalist religious folk on fox? Or all religious people on all TV?
Probably the former. I don't watch all TV, after all. Just the bits that make it to my attention, which is mostly right-wing fundies.
Pythagorean
Feb3-12, 02:52 PM
oops, I said left-wing, meant right-wing. You got the context though : )
I don't think it matters that much. Religious people already seem to think Obama's a bad candidate - at least, every religious person I've seen on TV and in the news seems to think that.
If Pythagorean's post is correct "Yeah.. it was an obvious backhanded comment. It's very Obama-like. Any argument that it was actually faith-based is either ignorant or deceitful."
my guess is more than a few Independents and Moderates will take note of the insincerity.
Gokul43201
Feb3-12, 03:01 PM
I posted employed fraction of population (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000) intentionally to show the difference.You have to be very careful with interpreting E/P trends during a period when baby boomers are dropping (like flies) out of the workforce.
On a related note: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-03/payrolls-in-u-s-jumped-243-000-in-january-unemployment-rate-drops-to-8-3-.html
Gokul43201
Feb3-12, 03:07 PM
... we got a quick look under the tent and now understand the President makes decisions based on his religious beliefs.Not following exactly how we arrived at that. Please explain? The alternative is not very nice - is it?What is the (only) alternative you have in mind?
You have to be very careful with interpreting E/P trends during a period when baby boomers are dropping (like flies) out of the workforce.
On a related note: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-03/payrolls-in-u-s-jumped-243-000-in-january-unemployment-rate-drops-to-8-3-.html
Good point, I happened to look at stats for OH yesterday - approx 11,000 per month are turning 65 and retiring.
Not following exactly how we arrived at that. Please explain? What is the (only) alternative you have in mind?
My response was in the context of Pythagorean's post
"Yeah.. it was an obvious backhanded comment. It's very Obama-like. Any argument that it was actually faith-based is either ignorant or deceitful. Ignorance is easy to forgive. I'm pretty ignorant about politics, myself. Social sciences are vastly complex! "
Gokul43201
Feb3-12, 03:26 PM
My response was in the context of Pythagorean's post
"Yeah.. it was an obvious backhanded comment. It's very Obama-like. Any argument that it was actually faith-based is either ignorant or deceitful. Ignorance is easy to forgive. I'm pretty ignorant about politics, myself. Social sciences are vastly complex! "Yes, I read Pyth's post, but still don't follow your line of reasoning (it's been a long week). Maybe it's just that I see more alternatives that you have in mind.
Is it not possible, for instance, for the President to arrive at an idea independently of his religion, and seek wider acceptance for that idea from a religious electorate by pointing out a perceived connection to similar ideas from religious texts?
Yes, I read Pyth's post, but still don't follow your line of reasoning (it's been a long week). Maybe it's just that I see more alternatives that you have in mind.
Is it not possible, for instance, for the President to arrive at an idea independently of his religion, and seek wider acceptance for that idea from a religious electorate by pointing out a perceived connection to similar ideas from religious texts?
Agreed, there are a lot of possibilities.
You have to be very careful with interpreting E/P trends during a period when baby boomers are dropping (like flies) out of the workforce.
Yep: (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3741645&postcount=97)
E/P has its flaws too, as people simply retiring will lower E/P.
though not 'very' careful, as there are still many more turning 16 every day than 65. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Uspop.svg)
On a related note: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-03/payrolls-in-u-s-jumped-243-000-in-january-unemployment-rate-drops-to-8-3-.htmlThat's good news, though people should be even more careful with the BLS seasonally adjusted unemployment rate. BLS typically adds a big swag to the January numbers for seasonable adjustment, IIRC last year 1.3 million jobs, just tacked on, to compensate for what they assume will the right correction to the post holiday layoffs. And as mentioned above those that give up and stop looking drive the BLS unemployment figure down.
So, in other words, it's your opinion that 20 million people are unemployed but want work?
I'm saying it is a fact that for most of the last decade ~63% of the US population was employed, and it is a fact that now and for the last two years ~58.5% of the population of 311 million is employed.
phoenix:\\
Feb3-12, 04:53 PM
Those two may be facts, but what isn't a fact is 20 million people unemployed and looking for work.
Gokul43201
Feb3-12, 04:54 PM
...though not 'very' careful, as there are still many more turning 16 every day than 65. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Uspop.svg)Having only thought about this a minute (so I could easily be quite wrong), I disagree. My guess would be that the fraction of population turning 16 is a slowly varying function of time compared to the fraction turning 65 (specifically at this point in time, 65 yrs after 1946).
That's good news, though people should be even more careful with the BLS seasonally adjusted unemployment rate. BLS typically adds a big swag to the January numbers for seasonable adjustment, IIRC last year 1.3 million jobs, just tacked on, to compensate for what they assume will the right correction to the post holiday layoffs. And as mentioned above those that give up and stop looking drive the BLS unemployment figure down.Agreed. The answer, of course, is to wait a few quarters and look back.
Angry Citizen
Feb3-12, 04:57 PM
Angry Citizen - I'm a bit confused with your postings about the benefits of Socialism in a thread titled "Obama's Candidacy" - how is this on topic? What does the defense of Socialism have to do with President Obama?
Hooboy, let's take this one at a time.
I am not touting the benefits of socialism. I am touting the benefits of social democracy. Obama is taking us closer to social democracy; he's on the correct end of the spectrum compared to the right-wingers who want to pretend Keynesian economics do not work. Furthermore, a common critique of Obama is that he is a socialist. He is not, of course, except in the minds of the more radical and thoughtless members of the Republican party. However, even if he were, it would be better than if he were a radical advocate of laissez-faire.
Angry Citizen
Feb3-12, 04:58 PM
What happened to "We don't have socialized medicine" (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3742141&postcount=111). Seems clear to me that US medicine is at least half socialized - Medicare, Medicaid, and Veteran's being government single payer systems (and unsustainable).
America doesn't; but the City of Austin in which I reside is kind enough to have something similar. And when I get out of college, I'll benefit from Obama's universal health care plan (distinct from socialized medicine) in that my preexisting condition will have to be covered.
America doesn't; but the City of Austin in which I reside is kind enough to have something similar. And when I get out of college, I'll benefit from Obama's universal health care plan (distinct from socialized medicine) in that my preexisting condition will have to be covered.The healthcare industry, even considering Obamacare, is still seriously out of whack. How did it get to a point where the average person can't afford adequate preventative care?
Has Obama done enough to counter the root problems of overinflated healthcare costs? Imho, no.
In fact, it could be argued that Obama hasn't done many things that he could have done to counter the status quo, a status quo that maximizes corporate profits, the financial sector, and benefits the rich to the detriment of the country as a whole.
Angry Citizen
Feb4-12, 07:53 AM
Has Obama done enough to counter the root problems of overinflated healthcare costs? Imho, no.
I agree. Obama's faux-universal-health-care system is not a replacement for real, honest-to-god socialized medicine. However, he has done a lot - wait till the price control comes into effect where the insurance industry is forced to pay 80% of its income on health care.
Those two may be facts, but what isn't a fact is 20 million people unemployed and looking for work.
Did someone post "20 million people unemployed and looking for work" as factual?
America doesn't; but the City of Austin in which I reside is kind enough to have something similar. And when I get out of college, I'll benefit from Obama's universal health care plan (distinct from socialized medicine) in that my preexisting condition will have to be covered.
How much will your plan cost per year between premium, deductibles, co-insurance, co-pays, etc. - any idea?
I agree. Obama's faux-universal-health-care system is not a replacement for real, honest-to-god socialized medicine. However, he has done a lot - wait till the price control comes into effect where the insurance industry is forced to pay 80% of its income on health care.
Please clarify your opinion of how this will work - please present accurate information.
Angry Citizen
Feb4-12, 10:20 AM
How much will your plan cost per year between premium, deductibles, co-insurance, co-pays, etc. - any idea?
Assuming a roughly linear relation in cost per capita, approximately half what it does now.
http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php
Angry Citizen
Feb4-12, 10:25 AM
Please clarify your opinion of how this will work - please present accurate information.
Please clarify your clarification on how this will work. What would you like to know? It's in the PPACA. Indeed, it's already starting to happen.
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2010pres/11/20101122a.html
Assuming a roughly linear relation in cost per capita, approximately half what it does now.
http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php
Considering this thread is titled Obama's Candidacy - I'll ask this question in the context of promises made by the President - why do you believe health care costs will be reduced by 50% when Obamacare is fully implemented?
btw - please support your response if you decide to present specifics beyond your opinion.
Please clarify your clarification on how this will work. What would you like to know? It's in the PPACA. Indeed, it's already starting to happen.
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2010pres/11/20101122a.html
Accordingly, you posted mis-information. This is from your link "New regulations issued today by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) require health insurers to spend 80 to 85 percent of consumers’ premiums on direct care for patients and efforts to improve care quality." my bold
You stated "However, he has done a lot - wait till the price control comes into effect where the insurance industry is forced to pay 80% of its income on health care. "
Do you have any idea whatsoever the (pre-PPACA) average profit margin is for an insurance company or the average percentage of premium allocated to direct care for patients?
Angry Citizen
Feb4-12, 10:32 AM
why do you believe health care costs will be reduced by 50% when Obamacare is fully implemented?
Excuse me, I think I misread your post. I thought you were asking me about the cost of socialized medicine (which is the plan I advocate) rather than the cost of my actual insurance plan. I haven't the foggiest. I don't know what insurance I'll be on.
Furthermore, I don't believe health care costs will be reduced by 50% when Obamacare is fully implemented because it is not a socialized medical system. It is a universal health care system that is still farther to the right-wing than any western European system. But mark my words - our cost per capita will go down, and our health will increase as a result of it. Belgium has a reasonably similar UHC plan, and the figures for their system is widely available.
btw - please support your response if you decide to present specifics beyond your opinion.
The post you are quoting has a source from the University of California at Santa Cruz. I think that qualifies as support.
The post you are quoting has a source from the University of California at Santa Cruz. I think that qualifies as support.
I can't open your link. However, if it was on topic - it would be a good source.
Angry Citizen
Feb4-12, 10:38 AM
Accordingly, you posted mis-information. This is from your link "New regulations issued today by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) require health insurers to spend 80 to 85 percent of consumers’ premiums on direct care for patients and efforts to improve care quality." my bold
You stated "However, he has done a lot - wait till the price control comes into effect where the insurance industry is forced to pay 80% of its income on health care. "
Do you have any idea whatsoever the (pre-PPACA) average profit margin is for an insurance company or the average percentage of premium allocated to direct care for patients?
I see very little difference between my post and the link. 80% is a baseline figure. It is the minimum for the general populace. Since insurance companies do not acquire any income aside from premiums (please correct me otherwise), my statement matches.
As for the average percentage, no, I do not. However, we can be assured that it is lower than 80%:
http://fyi.uwex.edu/healthreform/aca-changes-set-to-go-into-effect-jan-1-2011/
Specifically:
According to HealthCare.gov, the Department of Health and Human Services’ website on health-care reform, the new rules will protect up to 74.8 million insured Americans. Some 9 million people could be eligible for rebates worth up to $1.4 billion.
Unless those darn HHS guys are lyin' again.
Angry Citizen
Feb4-12, 10:41 AM
I can't open your link. However, if it was on topic - it would be a good source.
I'll quote relevant sections then (in full context):
Despite the wide gaps, higher spending on health care does not necessarily prolong lives. In 2000, theUnited States spent more on health care than any other country in the world: an average of $ 4,500 per person. Switzerland was second highest, at $3,300 or 71% of the US. Nevertheless, average US life expectancy ranks 27th in the world, at 77 years. Many countries achieve higher life expectancy rates with significantly lower spending. The chart below shows the top 30 countries in the world ranked by life expectancy. The red line indicates per-capita health expenditure (right axis), and shows that many countries outperform the US with approximately half the spending.
Below that portion is the attached chart. Note that the chart shows (for some reason) that the US's life expectancy is far higher than it actually is. Make sure to read the relevant paragraph above.
I see very little difference between my post and the link. 80% is a baseline figure. It is the minimum for the general populace. Since insurance companies do not acquire any income aside from premiums (please correct me otherwise), my statement matches.
As for the average percentage, no, I do not. However, we can be assured that it is lower than 80%:
http://fyi.uwex.edu/healthreform/aca-changes-set-to-go-into-effect-jan-1-2011/
Specifically:
Unless those darn HHS guys are lyin' again.
Again, you posted mis-information - whether you "see very little difference" or not. In the future, please be sure to distinguish between your opinions and fact.
In the context of this thread about Obama's Candidacy - perhaps we should explore everything the President has ever said about the condition of the healthcare system and everything he's promised? Given that the PPACA will take another 2 years to implement - it seems a good topic to measure the President in the past, present, and future.
Angry Citizen
Feb4-12, 10:53 AM
Again, you posted mis-information - whether you "see very little difference" or not. In the future, please be sure to distinguish between your opinions and fact.
Was my 'opinion' factually inaccurate? No. It was not. The error I made was a conservative error that would've benefited you had you not spoken up; given that the reality may be up to 85% on actual health care costs, that is just another plus in favor of the PPACA.
Was my 'opinion' factually inaccurate? No. It was not. The error I made was a conservative error that would've benefited you had you not spoken up; given that the reality may be up to 85% on actual health care costs, that is just another plus in favor of the PPACA.
If you want to present your opinion as factual - please support with more than additional opinions.
Angry Citizen
Feb4-12, 11:08 AM
I can't make you read links. See support already given.
I can't make you read links. See support already given.
We both now the rules - let's (both follow them) and end the discussion here - get back on topic.
phoenix:\\
Feb4-12, 03:53 PM
Did someone post "20 million people unemployed and looking for work" as factual?
Yes. Go back a few pages to see the post.
America doesn't; ...Well does and doesn't. Clearly Medicare and Medicaid are single payer socialized medicine, and account for ~half of all health dollars spent in the US.
Angry Citizen
Feb5-12, 08:54 AM
Well does and doesn't. Clearly Medicare and Medicaid are single payer socialized medicine, and account for ~half of all health dollars spent in the US.
Y'know, I hate it when people try to pull a fast one on someone like me. This is not the least bit true, and I have documentation to prove it. Medicare and Medicaid account for about 36% of all health dollars spent in the US, and given that they service the most needy people (poor and unhealthy people, and old/disabled people), this number is a great example of how socialized programs work better.
Anyway, documentation. Follow the link below. Scroll to 'downloads', then to the third download link from the top. Do the math: (medicaid+medicare)/total expenditure.
https://www.cms.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/02_NationalHealthAccountsHistorical.asp#TopOfPage
Astronuc
Feb5-12, 09:08 AM
Well does and doesn't. Clearly Medicare and Medicaid are single payer socialized medicine, and account for ~half of all health dollars spent in the US.
Y'know, I hate it when people try to pull a fast one on someone like me. This is not the least bit true, and I have documentation to prove it. Medicare and Medicaid account for about 36% of all health dollars spent in the US, and given that they service the most needy people (poor and unhealthy people, and old/disabled people), this number is a great example of how socialized programs work better.
Anyway, documentation. Follow the link below. Scroll to 'downloads', then to the third download link from the top. Do the math: (medicaid+medicare)/total expenditure.
https://www.cms.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/02_NationalHealthAccountsHistorical.asp#TopOfPage
Well - mheslep did indicate ~half, and it appears that is the case, or at least it's close depending on what one includes "health dollars spent"
Medicare and Medicaid paid a record 57.5% of patient bills for hospital, doctors, drugs and other care in the last quarter, up from 49.3% in 2005.
Contrast this
http://yourlife.usatoday.com/health/healthcare/story/2011/08/Medicare-Medicaid-tab-keeps-growing/49776998/1
with this
https://www.cms.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/02_NationalHealthAccountsHistorical.asp
Total health expenditures reached $2.6 trillion, which translates to $8,402 per person or 17.9 percent of the nation's Gross Domestic Product, the same share as in 2009.
I think this thread needs surgery to excise the OT discussion on government-supported medical care.
Please stick to the topic of "Obama's Candidacy".
Y'know, I hate it when people try to pull a fast one on someone like me. This is not the least bit true, and I have documentation to prove it. Medicare and Medicaid account for about 36% of all health dollars spent in the US, and given that they service the most needy people (poor and unhealthy people, and old/disabled people), this number is a great example of how socialized programs work better.
Anyway, documentation. Follow the link below. Scroll to 'downloads', then to the third download link from the top. Do the math: (medicaid+medicare)/total expenditure.
https://www.cms.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/02_NationalHealthAccountsHistorical.asp#TopOfPage
How exactly does this information support your comment 'this number is a great example of how socialized programs work better'?
The topic of this thread is Obama's Candidacy - why don't we get back on topic. If you want to discuss healthcare in this thread - I'll repeat myself:
"In the context of this thread about Obama's Candidacy - perhaps we should explore everything the President has ever said about the condition of the healthcare system and everything he's promised? Given that the PPACA will take another 2 years to implement - it seems a good topic to measure the President in the past, present, and future. "
Jack21222
Feb5-12, 10:14 AM
While I'm not happy with everything Obama has done, at least he hasn't been much of a warmonger. I'm very happy with his foreign policy. It's also nice to have somebody that isn't trying to actively subvert scientific research in areas like stem cells and climate change.
I'll be rooting for him, though I won't vote for him. Voting for president in my state is completely useless, since it is going to go to Obama by a 2 to 1 margin.
Angry Citizen
Feb5-12, 10:15 AM
While I'm not happy with everything Obama has done, at least he hasn't been much of a warmonger. I'm very happy with his foreign policy. It's also nice to have somebody that isn't trying to actively subvert scientific research in areas like stem cells and climate change.
I'll be rooting for him, though I won't vote for him. Voting for president in my state is completely useless, since it is going to go to Obama by a 2 to 1 margin.
Eh, it's still a +1 on the national count. Go for it. Plus you can vote for your state representative at the same time.
Jack21222
Feb5-12, 10:26 AM
Eh, it's still a +1 on the national count. Go for it. Plus you can vote for your state representative at the same time.
+1 on the national count accomplishes nothing. I'll probably end up voting for a third party candidate like I do every year, a +1 to them means marginally more.
Angry Citizen
Feb5-12, 10:28 AM
It accomplishes something. It provides a greater mandate to the party you vote for. That is taken into consideration - unless you're 2009 Obama, apparently. *still slightly bitter*
As for third-party candidates, a +1 to them is the epitome of uselessness. No third party will ever rise in this system.
Jack21222
Feb5-12, 11:16 AM
It accomplishes something. It provides a greater mandate to the party you vote for. That is taken into consideration - unless you're 2009 Obama, apparently. *still slightly bitter*
As for third-party candidates, a +1 to them is the epitome of uselessness. No third party will ever rise in this system.
I disagree about the mandate thing, particularly when if Obama wins, he can't run for reelection again. He'll just do what he wants to do regardless of how many people voted for him. Even then, I don't think mandates mean anything. Just look at Bush... he barely won his first election, and lost in the popular vote, but he still crammed a voluntary, unpopular war down our throats.
I think democrats are spineless and I disagree with some of their spending habits. I think republicans fascist control freaks, but I agree with the general idea of cutting spending in some areas. If you claim there is a mandate for the winning party, I claim there is a mandate for "none of the above."
I disagree about the mandate thing, particularly when if Obama wins, he can't run for reelection again. He'll just do what he wants to do regardless of how many people voted for him. Even then, I don't think mandates mean anything. Just look at Bush... he barely won his first election, and lost in the popular vote, but he still crammed a voluntary, unpopular war down our throats.
I think democrats are spineless and I disagree with some of their spending habits. I think republicans fascist control freaks, but I agree with the general idea of cutting spending in some areas. If you claim there is a mandate for the winning party, I claim there is a mandate for "none of the above."
I think President Obama will need to have control of both the House and Senate (as he did in the first 2 years with Pelosi and Reid) to just do what he wants. The 2010 results would have to be completely reversed to conclude a mandate - IMO.
Y'know, I hate it when people try to pull a fast one on someone like me. This is not the least bit true, and I have documentation to prove it. Medicare and Medicaid account for about 36% of all health dollars spent in the US, and given that they service the most needy people (poor and unhealthy people, and old/disabled people), this number is a great example of how socialized programs work better.
I'd say it's an example of how unworkable they are, because their costs have been increasing exponentially. At some point, rationing is going to be implemented into Medicare (beyond what it already is) because the government won't be able to handle the very high costs. The UK, Norway, Canada, and Sweden all have both had to deal with rationing due to excessive healthcare costs in their single-payer systems (LINK (http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/fulltext/8111101ec059.pdf?expires=1328472063&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=4CDF768AD187B3CD220DE922738CE679)), with Sweden partially privatizing theirs.
Despite the wide gaps, higher spending on health care does not necessarily prolong lives. In 2000, theUnited States spent more on health care than any other country in the world: an average of $ 4,500 per person. Switzerland was second highest, at $3,300 or 71% of the US.
Switzerland has one of the best healthcare systems in the world, so I don't know if spending a lot of money on healthcare is a bad sign. The U.S. spends more per capita on public education than most everyone as well, and that is a socialist system, so I doubt nationalizing the healthcare system would make things become cheaper.
Nevertheless, average US life expectancy ranks 27th in the world, at 77 years. Many countries achieve higher life expectancy rates with significantly lower spending. The chart below shows the top 30 countries in the world ranked by life expectancy. The red line indicates per-capita health expenditure (right axis), and shows that many countries outperform the US with approximately half the spending.
That's because the life expectancy calculation doesn't correct for car accidents and homicides. A LOT of Americans die each year from car accidents and homicides. If you remove those two variables from the life expectancy calculation, you get a much better result. Two economists in 2006, Robert L. Ohsfeldt and John E. Schneider, performed a study in which they did just this and found that when corrected, the U.S. life expectancy jumps to number one. Their method has been criticized, and the authors said that they aren't sure of the exact numbers, but that they wanted to point out how the statistic can jump around depending on how it is calculated (and if one is going to use life expectancy as a way to compare the quality of healthcare systems, things like car accidents and murders need to be accounted for in computing it): LINK1 (http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/08/25/violence-traffic-accidents-and-us-life-expectancy/) LINK2 (http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/does-the-us-lead-in-life-expectancy-223/)
The U.S. also ranks very high in cancer survival rates, whereas the UK lags behind the advanced countries in this (LINK (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-24013456-uk-lags-on-cancer-survival-rates.do)). Other countries such as Norway and Sweden rank fairly well in cancer survival rates, so I mean while not always meaning bad treatment, socialized medicine doesn't guarantee great quality treatment nor does a more privatized system like the U.S. has mean lack of it.
ParticleGrl
Feb5-12, 07:59 PM
I'd say it's an example of how unworkable they are, because their costs have been increasing exponentially. At some point, rationing is going to be implemented into Medicare (beyond what it already is) because the government won't be able to handle the very high costs. The UK, Norway, Canada, and Sweden all have both had to deal with rationing due to excessive healthcare costs in their single-payer systems (LINK (http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/fulltext/8111101ec059.pdf?expires=1328472063&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=4CDF768AD187B3CD220DE922738CE679)), with Sweden partially privatizing theirs.
Medicare costs have been growing significantly less slowly than private spending on healthcare. IF medicare growth is unsustainable, private spending growth is MORE unsustainable- if your argument suggests there is no workable health-care sector than it probably need revising.
Norway, and Sweden have generally comparable outcomes to us, and spend much less per capita overall on healthcare- no one should doubt we would spend less money going to a single payer. We may reduce quality of care (you can at least argue that).
Also, rationing is a non-issue. Much US care is already rationed by the insurance plans your job offers.
Medicare costs have been growing significantly less slowly than private spending on healthcare. IF medicare growth is unsustainable, private spending growth is MORE unsustainable- if your argument suggests there is no workable health-care sector than it probably need revising.
Private sector healthcare is private-sector, but it isn't really free-market, and without the free-market component, private-sector isn't necessarilly better.
Norway, and Sweden have generally comparable outcomes to us, and spend much less per capita overall on healthcare- no one should doubt we would spend less money going to a single payer. We may reduce quality of care (you can at least argue that).
I think one could doubt whether we would spend less money with single-payer. Look at public education. We spend more per pupil what other countries spend (on average) and yet it is a socialist system. Or it could be as you say where spending would decline, but so would quality.
Also, rationing is a non-issue. Much US care is already rationed by the insurance plans your job offers.
All things are rationed, I am referring to care being rationed via governmental fiat than by the price system (although we probably have bureaucratic rationing in private-sector health care to a degree as well due to the lack of interstate competition between health insurance companies).
It seems to me that the problem of adequate healthcare for a certain portion of the population is a, presumably, solvable problem that hasn't yet been solved. There seem to be plenty of facilities, beds, technology, nurses, doctors, etc. So, why is it that a certain, arguably significant, portion of the American population can't get adequate health care? Because they can't afford to pay what that costs ... right? Well, why does it cost so much? Does it need to cost as much as it does? Is the cost of healthcare inordinately inflated? Is there a way to make preventative healthcare affordable to everybody in America? I don't know. I'm asking. Apparently Obamacare doesn't solve the problem. Why not? Is it any sort of an improvement? Why, or why not?
Medicare costs have been growing significantly less slowly than private spending on healthcare. IF medicare growth is unsustainable, private spending growth is MORE unsustainable- if your argument suggests there is no workable health-care sector than it probably need revising.
I'm still not certain what any of this has to do with the topic Obama's Candidacy?
Perhaps we should restrict the healthcare debate to PPACA specifics vs Candidate and President Obama promises?
In the first two years of President Obama's term, the PPACA was the priority of the Democrat Team consisting of President Obama, House Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Leader Harry Reid. This is the legislation they passed - didn't they promise it would fix health care, create jobs, and reduce deficits.
If I recall, passing this 2,000 page Bill was so important there wasn't any time for Congress to read the final draft before voting - even though full implementation won't happen until 2014.
PrepperMike
Feb6-12, 10:16 AM
After reading this entire thread...how can you wonder why we are prepping?
Remember that Obama can do a few things in his administrative capacity, but he cannot legislate. The GOP in Congress is doing their level best to stop every initiative that he supports, and he's getting precious little support from some in his own party. When Mitch McConnell says that his #1 priority is getting rid of Obama (not creating jobs or helping to fix the economic mess we're in), take him at his word.
russ_watters
Feb6-12, 10:41 AM
Clearly, those are both the same goal!
Remember that Obama can do a few things in his administrative capacity, but he cannot legislate. The GOP in Congress is doing their level best to stop every initiative that he supports, and he's getting precious little support from some in his own party. When Mitch McConnell says that his #1 priority is getting rid of Obama (not creating jobs or helping to fix the economic mess we're in), take him at his word.
When the President could pass anything he wanted - he got the PPACA pushed through without anyone reading the final draft - why not focus on what he has done - promises made, promises kept, and promises broken? If you want to discuss the GOP in Congress - start a thread - please.
... on healthcare- no one should doubt we would spend less money going to a single payer. I'm not so sure.
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/ukgs_line.php?title=Health%20Care&year=1960_2011&sname=&units=k&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&spending0=13.82_15.14_14.82_15.57_16.42_17.50_18.4 4_19.88_20.71_20.52_21.86_22.74_23.73_25.01_28.42_ 29.88_30.61_29.91_30.59_30.80_33.36_34.11_34.03_38 .36_38.81_39.31_40.16_41.10_42.52_43.69_44.34_46.6 3_50.83_53.93_55.26_58.84_58.81_60.02_62.06_52.56_ 56.27_60.40_64.61_69.24_76.43_82.90_87.13_89.52_93 .95_99.69_109.84_109.10&legend=&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_a
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/ukgs_line.php?title=Health%20Care&year=1960_2011&sname=&units=p&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&spending0=3.36_3.59_3.48_3.51_3.50_3.65_3.78_3.97_ 3.97_3.86_4.02_4.09_4.12_4.05_4.67_4.94_4.93_4.70_ 4.66_4.57_5.05_5.24_5.12_5.57_5.49_5.36_5.27_5.16_ 5.08_5.10_5.14_5.48_5.96_6.19_6.08_6.28_6.11_6.03_ 6.02_4.93_5.08_5.32_5.57_5.81_6.23_6.61_6.75_6.77_ 7.06_7.88_8.14_7.95&legend=&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_a
AlephZero
Feb6-12, 04:43 PM
That's a pretty chart, but it doesn't show one interesting fact: even after 10 years of an incompetent UK administration throwing money at public services in a blatant and cynical attempt to buy votes (IMO) the current UK expenditure of 8% GDP compares with about 16% GDP in the US (source: wikipedia).
Of course you are entitled to claim the US health service is "twice as good" as the UK - for those people who have access to it, of course.
That's a pretty chart, but it doesn't show one interesting fact: even after 10 years of an incompetent UK administration throwing money at public services in a blatant and cynical attempt to buy votes (IMO) the current UK expenditure of 8% GDP compares with about 16% GDP in the US (source: wikipedia).
Of course you are entitled to claim the US health service is "twice as good" as the UK - for those people who have access to it, of course.I did not intend to do yet another US vs UK health comparison. US health care has its problems, namely that it is too expensive as you suggest. Ok? I did want to back up the earlier claim that government run/single payer healthcare, which Obama said he wanted (http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/june/barack_obama_on_sing.php), is somehow a silver bullet for cost control. Edit: I should have just posted US Medicare/Medicaid spending vs time, which is existing single payer health care in the US. Its spending has also exploded.
Gokul43201
Feb6-12, 05:40 PM
I'm not so sure.
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/ukgs_line.php?title=Health%20Care&year=1960_2011&sname=&units=k&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&spending0=13.82_15.14_14.82_15.57_16.42_17.50_18.4 4_19.88_20.71_20.52_21.86_22.74_23.73_25.01_28.42_ 29.88_30.61_29.91_30.59_30.80_33.36_34.11_34.03_38 .36_38.81_39.31_40.16_41.10_42.52_43.69_44.34_46.6 3_50.83_53.93_55.26_58.84_58.81_60.02_62.06_52.56_ 56.27_60.40_64.61_69.24_76.43_82.90_87.13_89.52_93 .95_99.69_109.84_109.10&legend=&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_a
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/ukgs_line.php?title=Health%20Care&year=1960_2011&sname=&units=p&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&spending0=3.36_3.59_3.48_3.51_3.50_3.65_3.78_3.97_ 3.97_3.86_4.02_4.09_4.12_4.05_4.67_4.94_4.93_4.70_ 4.66_4.57_5.05_5.24_5.12_5.57_5.49_5.36_5.27_5.16_ 5.08_5.10_5.14_5.48_5.96_6.19_6.08_6.28_6.11_6.03_ 6.02_4.93_5.08_5.32_5.57_5.81_6.23_6.61_6.75_6.77_ 7.06_7.88_8.14_7.95&legend=&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_aIt's likely not possible to say much about the NHS just from those plots (even more so, due to the range of years chosen). I suspect it would require a much more careful analysis that accounts for other significant influences. In fact, one could just as easily argue a nearly opposite point (i.e., that the NHS helped mitigate growing healthcare costs), by noting that while Healthcare spending (as a fraction of GDP) rose by over an order of magnitude in the 60 yr period from 1890 to 1950, it hardly even tripled in the subsequent 60 year period.
It's likely not possible to say much about the NHS just from those plots (even more so, due to the range of years chosen). ...Sure I grant one can argue either way that government run/single payer healthcare might lower or raise costs. But from the UK record we can reject argument-is-over statements like "no one should doubt we would spend less money going to a single payer."
Again, President Obama gave us the PPACA - we should focus on his promises - kept and broken - regarding lower costs, expanded coverage, jobs creation, plan choice, deficit reduction, etc. We should also be discussing the expansion of Medicaid under President Obama.
Again, President Obama gave us the PPACA - we should focus on his promises - kept and broken - regarding lower costs, expanded coverage, jobs creation, plan choice, deficit reduction, etc. We should also be discussing the expansion of Medicaid under President Obama.I agree in that I think that Obamacare doesn't really address the root problem, which, imo, is the inordinate inflation of healthcare costs. In fact, I'll go as far as to say that the Obama administration hasn't really done anything to effectively address any of the important problems that America and Americans are confronted with. He's a bust. A total disappointment, imho. But I also think that a GOP president would be even worse, if that's possible.
He has the most experience as president with the current political atmosphere.
Does anyone else find it humorous that President Obama has cited his on-the-job experience recently? It was a different story in the Dem primaries in 2008. my bold
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/16/politics/main3720763.shtml
"AP) By some measures, Barack Obama has a thin record. He's a Senate newcomer who has never worked in the White House, governed a state or run a business.
Democratic presidential rival Hillary Rodham Clinton points to his resume as evidence that Obama is not ready for the White House. "He was a part-time state senator for a few years, and then he came to the Senate and immediately started running for president," she says dismissively.
Obama's accomplishments are more substantial and varied than Clinton suggests. And he has a longer record in elected office than she does, as a second-term New York senator.
Obama was a community organizer and led a voter-registration effort in Chicago that added tens of thousands of people to the rolls. He was a civil rights attorney and taught at one of the nation's premier universities. He helped pass complicated measures in the Illinois legislature on the death penalty, racial profiling, health care and more. In Washington, he has worked with Republicans on nuclear proliferation, government waste and global warming, amassing a record that speaks to a fast start while lacking the heft of years of service."
Does anyone else find it humorous that President Obama has cited his on-the-job experience recently?It's humorous that you would find that humorous. After all, what else is he going to cite? Come to think of it, maybe that's what makes it humorous. Anyway, I'm not an Obama supporter either.
I agree in that I think that Obamacare doesn't really address the root problem, which, imo, is the inordinate inflation of healthcare costs. In fact, I'll go as far as to say that the Obama administration hasn't really done anything to effectively address any of the important problems that America and Americans are confronted with. He's a bust. A total disappointment, imho. But I also think that a GOP president would be even worse, if that's possible.
One big thing that President Obama has introduced is unpredictablity in economic policies. He lays outlines for stark policies, begs for change, and has much of the country holding their breath. This unpredictability and 'wait and see' mentality hurts the economy in a way. The biggest example of this of course is the ACA - how much is this going to cost employers that want to continue to insure their employees in the long run? Even in the short term this could be even more important if an expansion is planned. This is a trait of President Obama in particular as I don't think even President Clinton held the country hostage with his ideas quite to this extent. Catergorize this under 'too much rhetoric.'
Even if the 'real impact' of these policies is minimal, the percieved impact can often be damaging.
Campaign promises aside - this is something that a seasoned executive would know (perception matters). I realize that speeches/pressers/etc aren't always the President's call, but he should have enough backbone to say 'Is what I am going to say going to make things better or worse?' (IMO, this is also one of those things that would afflict Ron Paul if elected President) Santorum and Romney both have executive experience both in government and business. I don't think they'd make these perception mistakes and realize when it's time to just say nothing rather than stir the pot and leave people wondering.
ParticleGrl
Feb9-12, 12:09 AM
But from the UK record we can reject argument-is-over statements like "no one should doubt we would spend less money going to a single payer."
I contend your chart makes my point for me. Put the US on the same chart If you are using the UK to make a comparison between single payer and our system, you should at least make the comparison instead of putting up the UK numbers in isolation. If you put the US on your charts, you'll find we pay more and have faster growing costs.
Also, to compare like-with-like medicare spends less for patient care then the private sector, despite insuring a riskier population. Its growth has also been slower than private care. Ergo, expanding medicare to cover everyone would result in less money spent on health care.
Pythagorean
Feb9-12, 12:52 AM
Does anyone else find it humorous that President Obama has cited his on-the-job experience recently? It was a different story in the Dem primaries in 2008. my bold
That's the point, really. He was criticized for not having experience. Now he has more experience as president than any of the republicans running, so as much as they banked on that argument before, it's no longer a tagline.
That's the point, really. He was criticized for not having experience. Now he has more experience as president than any of the republicans running, so as much as they banked on that argument before, it's no longer a tagline.And he can run as a centrist. He has not embarked on any far-left runs that the GOP can use against him.
Pythagorean
Feb9-12, 01:01 AM
I actually think Obama and Romney are both pretty moderate folks. Not sure why we don't just accept the moderate party as a country, yet. We must like this illusion of polarization.
I actually think Obama and Romney are both pretty moderate folks. Not sure why we don't just accept the moderate party as a country, yet. We must like this illusion of polarization.I hate the polarization. I almost always vote split tickets;, and the current crap flying around in the media ticks me off to no end!
russ_watters
Feb9-12, 06:43 AM
And he can run as a centrist. He has not embarked on any far-left runs that the GOP can use against him.
He can run as whatever he wants, but that doesn't guarantee the strategy will have any traction.
And he can run as a centrist. He has not embarked on any far-left runs that the GOP can use against him.
As you've explained this repeatedly in previous posts - let's give credit to the GOP for preventing him from enacting anything that's too far left - agreed?
I contend your chart makes my point for me. Put the US on the same chart If you are using the UK to make a comparison between single payer and our system, you should at least make the comparison instead of putting up the UK numbers in isolation. If you put the US on your charts, you'll find we pay more and have faster growing costs.
Also, to compare like-with-like medicare spends less for patient care then the private sector, despite insuring a riskier population. Its growth has also been slower than private care. Ergo, expanding medicare to cover everyone would result in less money spent on health care.
If Medicare for everyone was the answer - why didn't President Obama push for it - rather than a 2,000 page Bill that greatly expands the size and scope of Government (including the IRS)?
Char. Limit
Feb9-12, 10:33 AM
As you've explained this repeatedly in previous posts - let's give credit to the GOP for preventing him from enacting anything that's too far left - agreed?
How much can you name that the GOP has stopped Obama, as in Obama personally, from enacting?
How much can you name that the GOP has stopped Obama, as in Obama personally, from enacting?
I'm not certain - I'll need to re-read all of the posts making that claim.
Remember that Obama can do a few things in his administrative capacity, but he cannot legislate. The GOP in Congress is doing their level best to stop every initiative that he supports, and he's getting precious little support from some in his own party. When Mitch McConnell says that his #1 priority is getting rid of Obama (not creating jobs or helping to fix the economic mess we're in), take him at his word.
Can you (please) cite some examples to help further our discussion?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-A09a_gHJc
Do you demand more proof?
If you are a politics-junky, you already knew this, so why demand confirmation?
russ_watters
Feb9-12, 11:37 AM
You missed the point, turbo - WhoWee agrees with you (as do I). It was Char who wanted WhoWee to substantiate your claim.
And assuming your point is correct - that the Repubs prevented Obama from being more liberal - I think Obama will have trouble selling "I governed from the middle."
I contend your chart makes my point for me.Reminder: your point was not single payer is arguably cheaper, but "no one should doubt we would spend less money going to a single payer."
Put the US on the same chart If you are using the UK to make a comparison between single payer and our system, you should at least make the comparison instead of putting up the UK numbers in isolation. If you put the US on your charts, you'll find we pay more and have faster growing costs. Look, the UK's NHS spending more than doubled from 2000 until now. Over that same time period the UK's population grew by 3 million while the US population grew by 29 million. I won't try to produce a private (i.e. federal tax deductible employer insurance) spending curve over the same time period, but whatever it is (and its bad) do you really think the UK doubling-of-spending record makes your case beyond any doubt?
Also, to compare like-with-like medicare spends less for patient care then the private sector, despite insuring a riskier population. Its growth has also been slower than private care. which I dispute. The usual flawed figures leave out a great deal of cost not included in Medicare's 'administration' books, Medicare cost shifts onto the private system, and then given the size of Medicare its going to be very difficult to separate cause and effect between Medicare and everything else.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-A09a_gHJc
Do you demand more proof?
If you are a politics-junky, you already knew this, so why demand confirmation?
Actually turbo - as per Evo (today) - information from the Heritage Foundation is slanted anti-Obama and not permitted in this forum. Accordingly - do you have anything else?
Office_Shredder
Feb10-12, 11:21 AM
Actually turbo - as per Evo (today) - information from the Heritage Foundation is slanted anti-Obama and not permitted in this forum. Accordingly - do you have anything else?
That's not citing the Heritage Foundation claiming Mitch McConnell believes this (which would be disallowed), that's a video of Mitch McConnell stating his number one priority is defeating Obama. There's a clear difference, and the fact that he happens to be talking at a Heritage Foundation event is irrelevant to the greater conversation (unless you want to argue that he lied to them for political reasons)
That's not citing the Heritage Foundation claiming Mitch McConnell believes this (which would be disallowed), that's a video of Mitch McConnell stating his number one priority is defeating Obama. There's a clear difference, and the fact that he happens to be talking at a Heritage Foundation event is irrelevant to the greater conversation (unless you want to argue that he lied to them for political reasons)
I'll defer to Evo?
Listening to President Obama's speech about the budget he's sending (about a week late?) to the Hill - not sure why it needs to be explained and promoted? Given last year it didn't pass - and the Senate hasn't passed a budget in over 1,000 days - where is the sense of urgency and priority? Suggesting Repubs want to set the economy back by not renewing the payroll tax deduction (which actually cuts contributions to Social Security) - seems very petty in the greater context - IMO of course.
mheslep
Feb13-12, 11:03 AM
Yes his new budget will have a $1.3 trillion deficit for FY 2012. Lots of new spending, no serious cuts to old spending or Medicare reform, but includes a big tax increase. This should raise the debt to over $16 trillion by the end of the year. Next FY the debt will have nice shot at 110% GDP.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/overview
Actually turbo - as per Evo (today) - information from the Heritage Foundation is slanted anti-Obama and not permitted in this forum. Accordingly - do you have anything else?I said that the Foundry blog you linked to was yellow journalism and not acceptable.
Yes his new budget will have a $1.3 trillion deficit for FY 2012. Lots of new spending, no serious cuts to old spending or Medicare reform, but includes a big tax increase. This should raise the debt to over $16 trillion by the end of the year. Next FY the debt will have nice shot at 110% GDP.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/overview
I just heard on the radio President Obama wants an additional $800,000,000 for countries of the "Arab Spring" - label IMO until I find a source please.
mheslep
Feb13-12, 02:54 PM
I just heard on the radio President Obama wants an additional $800,000,000 for countries of the "Arab Spring" - label IMO until I find a source please.Doesn't matter wrt to the deficit. $0.8B is in the noise, a little more than 2 hours of current federal spending. He has to reform Medicare. Right now the fix can be w/ no change at all to, say, people over 55 as per a Ryan plan or something like it. Soon, the situation will require changes to benefits already in the system.
Doesn't matter wrt to the deficit. $0.8B is in the noise, a little more than 2 hours of current federal spending. He has to reform Medicare. Right now the fix can be w/ no change at all to, say, people over 55 as per a Ryan plan or something like it. Soon, the situation will require changes to benefits already in the system.
I have a problem with ANY requests for additional spending when they haven't passed a budget in the past 1,000+ days.
mheslep
Feb13-12, 05:01 PM
I have a problem with ANY requests for additional spending when they haven't passed a budget in the past 1,000+ days.To be specific, 'they' is Harry Reid in the Senate. The House or course passed a budget.
I wonder if President Obama will respond to Newt Gingrich's remarks in OK? Newt said (Obama) is the most dangerous President of all time - very critical on his (Obama's)reluctance to identify terrorists as Islamic extremists, and said we should take Iran at their word when they say they want to wipe Israel from the map. Newt also said we could lose an American city in our lifetimes.
http://nation.foxnews.com/newt-gingrich/2012/02/21/gingrich-obama-most-dangerous-president-american-history
Pythagorean
Feb21-12, 01:00 PM
I think his best bet would to be ignore Newt directly, maybe implicate or insinuate a response elsewhere.
aquitaine
Feb22-12, 06:12 PM
I think his best bet would to be ignore Newt directly, maybe implicate or insinuate a response elsewhere.
Newt's already faded, soon enough this will become a total non-issue.
Pythagorean
Feb22-12, 06:23 PM
Newt's already faded, soon enough this will become a total non-issue.
exactly.
Newt's already faded, soon enough this will become a total non-issue.
Newt who?
Newt who?Good response. Newt is a non-issue. He would like to stay in the public eye, but he is not a player. He has a ton of baggage and no plurality of women would vote to put Callista in the WH as first lady.
Pythagorean
Feb22-12, 10:40 PM
I like these words
Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
russ_watters
Feb23-12, 05:51 AM
I like these words I don't think they are all that useful - even a little disingenuous - since the "principle" at issue is clearly accessible to people of all/no faith.
I like these words
I also like them. They speak to me as a vision farther than a single country's.
They also make it clear that Obama thinks democratic governments, in the making of laws, should not be guided solely by religious dogma.
I agree
Jimmy Snyder
Feb23-12, 08:04 AM
I don't know if I'm allowed to post this. It is the prohibition against killing people that is being cited. This is a universal principle and should satisfy Obama's criterion. The argument is over who is and isn't a person. This argument has occured in the past and didn't end well
With the Supreme Court decision on PPACA approaching, I think court appointments will become more of an issue - here's a recent article on the subject as related to an Obama second term.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/05/obama-court-nominees_n_1255688.html
russ_watters
Feb23-12, 02:01 PM
I don't know if I'm allowed to post this. It is the prohibition against killing people that is being cited. This is a universal principle and should satisfy Obama's criterion. The argument is over who is and isn't a person. This argument has occured in the past and didn't end well You're exactly right Jimmy and this is what irritates me so much about Obama (and his fans, for falling for it). If Gingrich says something pompous or Santorum says something from the religious fringe, people think - 'well, that figures', he's ________ - but Obama is able to hold on to his squeaky clean image by being a propaganda master. In this case, he got people to believe a falsehood without even having to say it!
It is certainly true that separation of Church and State requires that laws not have strictly religious motivation. And therefore, it is also true that it is incumbent upon the Pro Life side to frame their agument according to principles even the non-religious can agree on. But the implication of explaining this to us is that the Pro Life side is not properly framing their argument. Obama doesn't say this, though, he just tricks his followers into generating it themselves. Trouble is, it's nowhere close to true. The truth of the matter is that the principle that the pro life side is discussing is simply "Thou shalt not murder" (irony intended) - a principle that essentially everyone agrees on.
At best, this is a strawman/red herring piece of propaganda by Obama. At worst, it's an implied lie.
And yes, Jimmy, we don't need to dig into the nitty-gritty of when/how you decide if a fetus has a right to life that is violated by aborting it (resulting in murder). The point isn't in that discussion, its that Obama doesn't even acknowledge that's what the issue is.
AlephZero
Feb23-12, 02:08 PM
The argument is over who is and isn't a person.
So far as I can tell, the dogma is about when a collectiion of molecules becomes a person, which is a different argument.
Jimmy Snyder
Feb23-12, 02:12 PM
So far as I can tell, the dogma is about when a collectiion of molecules becomes a person, which is a different argument.
On this one point we agree. My side espouses reason, while the other side espouses dogma.
mheslep
Feb23-12, 04:20 PM
... If Gingrich says something pompous or Santorum says something from the religious fringe, people think - 'well, that figures', he's ________ - but Obama is able to hold on to his squeaky clean image by being a propaganda master. In this case, he got people to believe a falsehood without even having to say it!
It is certainly true that separation of Church and State requires that laws not have strictly religious motivation. And therefore, it is also true that it is incumbent upon the Pro Life side to frame their agument according to principles even the non-religious can agree on. But the implication of explaining this to us is that the Pro Life side is not properly framing their argument. Obama doesn't say this, though, he just tricks his followers into generating it themselves. Trouble is, it's nowhere close to true. The truth of the matter is that the principle that the pro life side is discussing is simply "Thou shalt not murder" (irony intended) - a principle that essentially everyone agrees on.
At best, this is a strawman/red herring piece of propaganda by Obama. At worst, it's an implied lie. ...Exactly, and the abortion/birth control funding issue turned to religious nut issue is just one example of the general method. Argue against against the the size of the deficit and the racist card or the 'rube' card is played, etc.
Pythagorean
Feb23-12, 07:53 PM
But the implication of explaining this to us is that the Pro Life side is not properly framing their argument
So you don't identify with "40 days for life" or prolife.com or any of the other leading acitivists that rally outside of abortion clinics, tell people they're going to hell, and commonly cite Jeremiah 1:5?
These are clearly the most vocal people about pro-life... and these people exist... so Obama's words are obviously targeted at them. It seems "disingenuous" to not acknowledge these people exist and that they vocally represent the pro-life movement.
There's actually three major religions that represent pro-life in the US: Christian, Islam, and Judaism. Obama obviously isn't referring to secular pro-life groups (whom hardly represent the demographics of pro-lifers).
Drotzer
Feb23-12, 09:20 PM
Heh, my parents are pure middle class and had nothing but higher taxes and higher medical bills because of him. I'm sometimes curious as to which middle class people are talking about when they say Obama is a man of the middle class. You can appeal all you want to people, but when they see your actions concerning them, appealing to voters isn't going to be worth much.
That is totally false. Higher medical Bills would be due to insurance companies. Taxes? If your parents are middle class, their taxes were lowered.
That is totally false. Higher medical Bills would be due to insurance companies. Taxes? If your parents are middle class, their taxes were lowered.
We really don't know which taxes he's referring to or their specific income level or filing classification - do we? They might be small business owners facing cost increases - we don't know. The payroll tax cut (the one that reduces your contribution to social security at a time when social security is facing insolvency) might not be enough to offset a lost deduction of some type?
As for medical, we really don't know the medical history or reasons for increases - do we? For instance, are you certain that healthcare mandates (PPACA/Obamacre) aren't causing insurance premiums to rise? Also, are you certain that changes to the Medicare reimbursement rates haven't somehow impacted the specific health care costs of these particular people?
If Pengwuino decides to share more details - then perhaps a definitive response can be given - until then - we just don't know enough about their particular situation to render a conclusion - IMO of course.
SixNein
Feb24-12, 12:06 AM
when social security is facing insolvency
Last time I checked, social security was projected to be solvent through 2037. And quite frankly, projections aren't that great so far out.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/cbo-projects-social-security-drained-2037-generation-solvent/story?id=12776481#.T0co13mY7x4
Last time I checked, social security was projected to be solvent through 2037. And quite frankly, projections aren't that great so far out.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/cbo-projects-social-security-drained-2037-generation-solvent/story?id=12776481#.T0co13mY7x4
My mistake - Social Security will be solvent for another 25 years (approx). Do those projections factor in a shrinking workforce, reductions in contributions, increases in SSDI, annual cost of living increases, expanded LIS program,or other variables?
If we start taxing the wealthy on just a bit more of of their income, SS can be solvent forever. I think that we all know this. There are politicians that want to resist this and claim that SS is in crisis, and clamor for "privitazation" instead of considering reasonable reforms. I hit the maximum contribution limit for years and years. It wouldn't have hurt me a bit to pay just a bit more, when I was making those wages.
If we start taxing the wealthy on just a bit more of of their income, SS can be solvent forever. I think that we all know this. There are politicians that want to resist this and claim that SS is in crisis, and clamor for "privitazation" instead of considering reasonable reforms. I hit the maximum contribution limit for years and years. It wouldn't have hurt me a bit to pay just a bit more, when I was making those wages.
What makes you think the increased revenues won't be used elsewhere - again?
SixNein
Feb24-12, 01:06 AM
My mistake - Social Security will be solvent for another 25 years (approx). Do those projections factor in a shrinking workforce, reductions in contributions, increases in SSDI, annual cost of living increases, expanded LIS program,or other variables?
Why not just look up the CBO report?
I don't think it's possible to state how long social security will remain solvent with any kind of certainty. All we can say is that social security is now on a decline, and if the trend continues at its present rate, it will be insolvent in 2037. But next year, the trend could dissipate, accelerate, or remain the same. There is simply too many variables to predict social security so far out into the future. For example, there will be 6 presidential elections between now and then. One might as well ask the 8 ball.
A more accurate argument would be that social security coffers are currently declining; however, there is no immediate risk of insolvency of the program. So social security coffers are something we want to keep an eye on, but it's not currently a crisis of any kind.
Why not just look up the CBO report?
I don't think it's possible to state how long social security will remain solvent with any kind of certainty. All we can say is that social security is now on a decline, and if the trend continues at its present rate, it will be insolvent in 2037. But next year, the trend could dissipate, accelerate, or remain the same. There is simply too many variables to predict social security so far out into the future. For example, there will be 6 presidential elections between now and then. One might as well ask the 8 ball.
A more accurate argument would be that social security coffers are currently declining; however, there is no immediate risk of insolvency of the program.
I'd like to see the Social Security funds managed with the same level of accountability private pension funds and their managers/administrators are held.
SixNein
Feb24-12, 01:34 AM
I'd like to see the Social Security funds managed with the same level of accountability private pension funds and their managers/administrators are held.
Social security is the one program that doesn't concern me too much. By and large, social security has been doing its job.
Medicare, military, and energy are my largest concerns. I have quite a few concerns about our legal system....
russ_watters
Feb24-12, 05:41 AM
So you don't identify with "40 days for life" or prolife.com or any of the other leading acitivists that rally outside of abortion clinics, tell people they're going to hell, and commonly cite Jeremiah 1:5?
These are clearly the most vocal people about pro-life... and these people exist... so Obama's words are obviously targeted at them. It seems "disingenuous" to not acknowledge these people exist and that they vocally represent the pro-life movement. Do these people ever explain anything or is the only thing they every say that bible verse? Perhaps they figure it is too obvious to explain what "pro life" means? I've never heard of them and I find it hard to believe a group that is only 8 years old is the most vocal group on abortion. Around where I live, I see billboards and bumper stickers that say:
-Abortion stops a beating heart
-Choose life
-Abortion is murder
These go right to the heart of the matter. The very name of the movement should evoke thoughts about the issue of a right to life. Are you saying you had no idea that the pro life movement was about a right to life for fetuses?
By the way: I'm mostly pro choice. I don't identify with them at all.
russ_watters
Feb24-12, 05:46 AM
Last time I checked, social security was projected to be solvent through 2037. And quite frankly, projections aren't that great so far out.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/cbo-projects-social-security-drained-2037-generation-solvent/story?id=12776481#.T0co13mY7x4
The link to the citation is dead.
I've been hearing 2037 for a while now - has that number been updated to account for the recession and cuts in the payroll tax rate?
It seems like the debate over high gas prices has picked up right where it left off in 2008.
my bold
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-04-tires-inflated_N.htm
"The Department of Energy estimates that keeping tires properly inflated can help improve gas mileage by about 3.3%. It's one step the agency recommends to reduce fuel costs, along with removing items from the trunk, replacing clogged air filters and getting regular tuneups.
The Obama campaign could not provide figures to back up his claim that inflating tires and getting tuneups would save just as much oil as could be produced by offshore drilling. Offshore drilling is off limits under current law, but McCain wants to lift the ban to alleviate high gas prices. Obama said last week he would be willing to support limited additional offshore oil drilling as part of a comprehensive energy policy, a shift from his previous position.
But McCain is wrong when he says inflating tires is the only thing Obama is proposing to address America's energy challenges.
Besides the recommendation to keep tires properly inflated, Obama also suggested providing incentives for people to trade in gas guzzling vehicles for more fuel-efficient cars; investing in research and development to produce new fuel-saving technologies like long-running batteries; encouraging innovation in alternative energies; and retrofitting buildings to make them more energy efficient."
I just realized "Cash for Clunkers" was part of the Obama energy policy.
Besides the recommendation to keep tires properly inflated, Obama also suggested providing incentives for people to trade in gas guzzling vehicles for more fuel-efficient cars; investing in research and development to produce new fuel-saving technologies like long-running batteries; encouraging innovation in alternative energies; and retrofitting buildings to make them more energy efficient."[/I]
While I understand the morivation behind the cash for clunkers and other similar programs, I have to wonder if people driving more fuel efficient cars isn't offset by the idea (in their heads) that now they can drive more.
While I understand the morivation behind the cash for clunkers and other similar programs, I have to wonder if people driving more fuel efficient cars isn't offset by the idea (in their heads) that now they can drive more.
I suppose a few people might drive more if there's gas remaining in their tank - my teenagers are classic examples.
ThinkToday
Feb24-12, 01:51 PM
Why in the world would I trade in a truck that's paid for only to borrow money to buy a new truck with better gas mileage? That's like trading in my wife for one that's a better cook. I may get what I want, but it'll cost me a lot more ;-) - and No, my wife will never read this, lol
Seriously, I remember the first gas lines during Carter's presidency. You had to buy a foreign car to get good gas mileage, and people did. I came back (as I suspect others did) to US made cars when they started getting the mileage, reliability, and style right. Cars and trucks will evolve and we'll move toward them. My 61' Willy only got 8mpg and it was a 6-cylinder!
IMO, we don't need the government pushing us to borrow more money to buy a car just for more mpg, we have enough debt now. I'll run my truck until it won't run, then I'll look for my next truck and mpg will be a factor, so will 4x4, A/C, safety, etc.
I tend to think oil speculation is a big factor. As one oil trader put it, http://www.thereformedbroker.com/2012/02/12/dan-dicker-almost-half-the-price-of-oil-is-speculative-premium/ , perhaps to the tone of $40/barrel or more.
From http://www.philstockworld.com/2012/02/14/oil-myths-the-hedgeye-rebuttal/
'According to a recent paper by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis titled, “Speculation in the Oil Market” (Juvenal and Petrella), it has been “estimated that assets allocated to commodity index trading strategies rose from $13 billion in 2004 to $260 billion as of March 2008”. This paper concludes:
“Our results confirm that Kilian’s (2009) conclusion that global demand shocks as the main drivers of oil fluctuations remains robust. In addition, we show that speculative shocks are the second most important driver of oil prices.”'
IMO, the rolling of futures contracts until the price is "right" is a problem. In the links you'll see the speculation is often by investment groups that don't do anything with oil except trade it up for a better price. I'd like to see the government require oil contracts to require the buyer prove they can take delivery in 30 days or loose their "investment".
One thing I don't think Americans can continue to do is tell the rest of the world to drill every gallon you can so we don't have to. Until technology replaces oil, we need to be working as hard to get oil from here as they are from there. We're "farming" gas from dumps, natural gas, etc., I just don't see us that far away. T.B. Picken's push to move commercial trucking to CNG seems like a good start. I remember when 18 wheelers were about all that used diesel, now diesel is everywhere. Perhaps the same thing could happen with CNG.
Obama's not wrong about making your car run better, but we're not going to "save" our way out of a gas/oil future.
Gokul43201
Feb24-12, 02:04 PM
We really don't know which taxes he's referring to or their specific income level or filing classification - do we? They might be small business owners facing cost increases - we don't know. The payroll tax cut (the one that reduces your contribution to social security at a time when social security is facing insolvency) might not be enough to offset a lost deduction of some type?The payroll tax cut is only a part of all the middle-class tax cuts that Obama has signed over the past 3 years. But even so, I'm not aware of any lost deductions that come close to offsetting the payroll cuts. Are you?
As for medical, we really don't know the medical history or reasons for increases - do we? For instance, are you certain that healthcare mandates (PPACA/Obamacre) aren't causing insurance premiums to rise? Also, are you certain that changes to the Medicare reimbursement rates haven't somehow impacted the specific health care costs of these particular people?We'll if we don't really know these things, one could hardly make definitive assertions about the blame lying solely with Obama! But that's exactly what Pengwuino does.
If Pengwuino decides to share more details - then perhaps a definitive response can be given - until then - we just don't know enough about their particular situation to render a conclusion - IMO of course.While we may not be able to arrive at a conclusive analysis of the Pengwuino family tax history, we certainly can say something about the tax rates affecting the average middle class family (which is, in fact, who Pengwuino specifically mentions before giving the example of his own family), and the reality, last time I checked, is that the vast majority of these families have gotten net decreases in taxes over the past three years adding to somewhere near three thousand dollars per family (just from "Making Work Pay" in 2009 + payroll tax cuts for 2010 and 2011) fpr the average family. As for small businesses, Obama signed over a dozen different tax cuts for them, including things like: eliminating all capitals gains taxes on key investments, doubling the investment limit that businesses can write off, a new deduction for health insurance for the self-employed, deductions for start up investments, etc.
http://www.ctj.org/obamastaxcuts.php
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-signs-payroll-tax-cut-extension-into-law-includes-jobless-benefits/2012/02/22/gIQArSaAUR_story.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-31/obama-urges-congress-to-extend-expand-small-business-tax-breaks.html
2010 Tax Year Summary [pdf] --> http://tax.cchgroup.com/downloads/files/pdfs/legislation/tax-yearend.pdf
2011 Tax Year Summary [pdf] --> http://tax.cchgroup.com/downloads/files/pdfs/legislation/2011yearend.pdf
mheslep
Feb24-12, 03:24 PM
Recall that the President also raised tobacco taxes, about $1.5B/year, back in 2008. Also in effect now is the "Snooki" tanning bed tax.
Signed into law by the President but not yet in effect include:
o Uninsured penalty/tax/whatever, $695 up to $2085, 2014 to 2016
o Medicare tax hike of 0.9%, medicare investment income tax at 3.8% for incomes>$200K/year, 2013
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/feb/07/barack-obama/president-barack-obama-says-he-didnt-raise-taxes/
SixNein
Feb24-12, 03:35 PM
The link to the citation is dead.
I've been hearing 2037 for a while now - has that number been updated to account for the recession and cuts in the payroll tax rate?
Yes, both of those things are considered.
Here is another link:
http://cbo.gov/publication/42212
Yes, both of those things are considered.
Here is another link:
http://cbo.gov/publication/42212
Given the date of the report - is it likely the shrinking of the workforce (as reported in recent unemployment stats) was factored in for future years? Fewer workers will probably mean lower revenues. Also, the new extension of the social security reduction wouldn't be included - would it?
Gokul43201
Feb24-12, 04:20 PM
Recall that the President also raised tobacco taxes, about $1.5B/year, back in 2008. Also in effect now is the "Snooki" tanning bed tax.I'm aware of those, but hardly think they come anywhere close to offsetting the tax cuts for most people.
So I'd be surprised if any significant fraction of the population has seen an increase yet (though that may change in the next few years). I think you'd have to be a chain smoking (see: tobacco tax increase) paper mill to have seen more tax raises than cuts.
SixNein
Feb24-12, 04:56 PM
Given the date of the report - is it likely the shrinking of the workforce (as reported in recent unemployment stats) was factored in for future years? Fewer workers will probably mean lower revenues. Also, the new extension of the social security reduction wouldn't be included - would it?
I posted a link.
mheslep
Feb24-12, 05:04 PM
Yes, both of those things are considered.
Here is another link:
http://cbo.gov/publication/42212
As the chart in that CBO report shows, SS revenues have been falling short of outlays for a couple years now and the gap is about to expand rapidly. The parlor games with the SS trust fund/lock box continue here with the payroll tax cut, which will decrease revenues $100B. If one still believes in the lock box concept, SS loses no revenue here because it simply takes more money from the general revenue, i.e. the left hand of the govt. pays the right, and the left hand borrows more.
ThomasT
Feb24-12, 05:42 PM
I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
I don't think they are all that useful - even a little disingenuous - since the "principle" at issue is clearly accessible to people of all/no faith.The question is: what principle, that's accessible to both theistic religious people and atheists, does abortion violate?
Apparently, what Obama's saying is that he can't pinpoint such a principle. Therefore, he can't advocate outlawing abortion in his capacity as chief executive, even though he might personally and religiously be against abortion.
I think this makes sense. Whether it's disingenuous or not is another question.
But to say that Obama doesn't acknowledge what the issue is would be wrong, imo. The point being that the endowment of 'personhood' on a developing fetus at some point in its development is arbitrary.
Does personhood begin at the instant of conception? Sometime in the first trimester? The second trimester?
What exists is a situation in which Obama, or anyone else, can't explain why "abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those who have no faith at all."
ThomasT
Feb24-12, 05:52 PM
If we start taxing the wealthy on just a bit more of of their income, SS can be solvent forever.This seems to be the case. If that increased revenue is actually used for SS. But the bottom line is that if taxes on the wealthy aren't increased, then there's no hope of saving SS. Which is quite ok if one happens to be relatively well off. But of course not ok for the majority of Americans.
I posted a link.
Yes you did. However, the projections show Social Security contributions increasing - even though the size of the workforce is shrinking and the contribution reductions were extended.
I'm not an American, but...
For both your sake and the sake of the rest of the world, I hope Obama wins the election. The USA has not been incredibly popular with the rest of the world for years now. However, when Obama won the election in 2008, I know that many people I know were quite happy and thought he would make an able president. Many people around me still think the same thing (although they are a bit disappointed he didn't make it life paradise in a few years).
Romney and Santorum, on the other hand, pretty much everyone I know utterly dislikes. Romney is an American exceptionalist who feels the need to tell anyone how much more important the USA is than any other country, which makes him well-hated by anyone I know. While I try very hard to ignore this, even I sometimes get the idea that people from the USA are annoyingly 'proud' of their country. When a president feels the need to excessively show this, I start worrying. Santorum is simply an idiot for believing such strange things as the Dutch performing euthanasia on all the elderly who don't wear an "I don't want to be killed"-bracelet, for actively saying being gay is bad, and openly saying he would bomb Iranian facilities if they don't show everything they're doing to America (because, of course, all Iranians are bad peopleTM and should do as the Americans say[1]). In other words: diplomatically speaking, Obama is a million times more capable than the Republican candidates I've seen so far.
I should add that, given that the above is based on interaction with people in my country and things I've heard people say in public, my view might be inaccurate or only be accurate for many people in my country (the Netherlands).
As far as the economy goes, I don't think I can change anyone's view on this one: I think Obama's been much better than most people give him credit for. However, I suspect that the people who wouldn't like to see him re-elected gladly say he hasn't done enough for the economy.
Then there's the matter of political positions on ethical and social issues. I've already hinted a bit at this in my rant about Santorum, but I also think Obama is much more capable in that regard. To give a few examples, Romney is in favor of abstinence-only education, he opposes same-sex marriage, doesn't favor legalizing medical cannabis (even though cannabis is less harmful than tobacco, but meh), and would ban federal funding of stem-cell research. The other Republican candidates speak of similar things.
Of course, I don't agree with everything the presidential candidates of the Republican party have said so far, but, like I said, I believe (and hope) Obama is the way to go for 2012-2016.
[1] I don't want to say too much about this now, seeing as this is a thread about Obama's candidacy, not about my views on Iran, but I feel it might be necessary. I'm not particularly thrilled about the possibility of Iran building nuclear weapons, that's true. And if they do, I think there has to be something we can do about it. However, I also try to see it from their point of view. And from their point of view, 1. Israel is their sworn enemy, and the USA is 'with them', 2. the USA have nukes, 3. they pretty much get told that they will be completely destroyed if they will build nukes (several important people in the USA have by now called for a strike on Iran), 4. if they *don't* have nukes, they're doomed if/when Israel decides to attack them. What choice do they have but to build nukes in secret, and pretend they're only building these facilities for nuclear energy? (There is, of course, the possibility that they're speaking the truth, in which case it would still be prudent not to let an enemy see their facilities out of fear for espionage. But, for the moment, I'll assume people's worst-case scenarios are correct.)
I'm not an American, but...
For both your sake and the sake of the rest of the world, I hope Obama wins the election. The USA is not incredibly popular with the rest of the world for years now. However, when Obama won the election in 2008, I know that many people in my direct vicinity were quite happy and thought he would make an able president. Many people around me still think the same thing.
Romney and Santorum, on the other hand, pretty much everyone I know utterly dislikes. Romney is an American exceptionalist who feels the need to tell anyone how much more important the USA is than any other country, which makes him well-hated by anyone I know. Santorum is simply an idiot for believing such strange things as the Dutch performing euthanasia on all the elderly who don't wear an "I don't want to be killed"-bracelet, for actively saying gays are stupid, and openly saying he would bomb Iranian facilities if they don't show everything they're doing to American (because, of course, all Iranians are bad peopleTM). In other words: diplomatically speaking, Obama is a million times more capable than the Republican candidates I've seen so far.
I should add that, given that the above is based on interaction with people in my country and things I've heard people say in public, my view might be inaccurate or only be accurate for many people in my country (the Netherlands).
As far as the economy goes, I don't think I can change anyone's view on this one: I think Obama's been much better than most people give him credit for. However, I suspect that the people who wouldn't like to see him re-elected gladly say he hasn't done enough for the economy.
Then there's the matter of political positions on ethical and social issues. I've already hinted a bit at this in my rant about Santorum, but I also think Obama is much more capable in that regard. To give a few examples, Romney is in favor of abstinence-only education, he opposes same-sex marriage, doesn't favor legalizing medical cannabis (even though cannabis is less harmful than tobacco, but meh), and would ban federal funding of stem-cell research. The other Republican candidates speak of similar things.
Of course, I don't agree with everything the presidential candidates of the Republican party have said so far, but, like I said, I believe (and hope) Obama is the way to go for 2012-2016.
We have threads for bashing Santorum and Romney - you might want to post these opinions in those threads?
We have threads for bashing Santorum and Romney - you might want to post these opinions in those threads?
I'm aware. This was not to show my personal opinion so much as what most of the people around me think - and why it would (diplomatically speaking) be best if Obama gets elected.
Gokul43201
Feb24-12, 07:21 PM
We have threads for bashing Santorum and Romney - you might want to post these opinions in those threads?Agreed. This thread is meant only for bashing Obama.
ThomasT
Feb24-12, 08:29 PM
I should add that, given that the above is based on interaction with people in my country and things I've heard people say in public, my view might be inaccurate or only be accurate for many people in my country (the Netherlands).I think, and polls will show, that about 50% of Americans agree with your assessment, and about 50% don't. The US is an extremely divided country in certain respects.
I agree with you that, compared to the GOP candidates, Obama seems head and shoulders above them in many ways.
Unfortunately, I don't believe that Obama is particularly special, other than wrt his general demeanor and rhetorical skills. That is, I think he's basically a bought and paid for advocate of the status quo ... in practice if not necessarily in belief.
So, I won't be voting for him, and I certainly won't be voting for any of the GOP candidates.
Pythagorean
Feb24-12, 09:12 PM
Do these people ever explain anything or is the only thing they every say that bible verse? Perhaps they figure it is too obvious to explain what "pro life" means? I've never heard of them and I find it hard to believe a group that is only 8 years old is the most vocal group on abortion. Around where I live...
The argument has already been had and established long ago in Roe vs. Wade. It's pro-life activists whom the iotas is on. Many do feel justified citing God; others fail to come up with convincing arguments (they appeal only to pathos).
Obama's not talking about one example (such as a specific organization that formed 8 years ago) he's talking about people who feel that it's their place to enforce the laws of the bible.
You use your locale as a reference, should I reference mine? Can you imagine what kind of people might be hanging outside of Planned Parenthood by how I've demonstrated my perception of the pro-life movement? Can you image they're the same group that protest Elton John playing local shows?
Anyway, we don't need to base it on our locals or specific organizations; there's a long national history already established in the US:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-life
Obama is declaring a clear separation philosophy in a concrete example that is well-known in the US. He has made political actions to back it up (by making sure EVERY female has access to birth control measures). He has faced resistance!
Anyway, this a thread about Obama's candidacy. The point is that his statements are consistent with Obama's image as progressive and a large body of the US wants progressive. It especially strengthens him against Santorum.
Obama is declaring a clear separation philosophy in a concrete example that is well-known in the US. He has made political actions to back it up (by making sure EVERY female has access to birth control measures). He has faced resistance!
Every female already had access to birth control, his policy just makes sure that someone else is paying for it.
He basically constructed a straw man and beat it down with his 'contraception mandate'. What deficiency was he honestly correcting? This 'separation philosophy' is coming at the expense of everyone's choice. What is the harm in allowing someone (or a religious orgnization...) a choice in what medical coverage they buy? Freedom is constricted via the President's policies (with this being the latest in a long line), I don't see how there is any other way to look at it.
I'm far from being a religious person, but President Obama (and his cohort) are waging a war on freedoms, starting with Religion. If (reasonable) Religious freedom can be thrown to the wayside by the government so easilly, what other freedoms should I be prepared to give up? Women (and men) already had the freedom to buy contraception, but now they lack the freedom to NOT buy contraception (via paying for insurance).
Pythagorean
Feb25-12, 12:44 AM
Every female already had access to birth control, his policy just makes sure that someone else is paying for it.
Your twisting the meaning; the point of healthcare reform is that everyone gets access to healthcare financially and this should be regardless of what beliefs their employers hold.
Your twisting the meaning; the point of healthcare reform is that everyone gets access to healthcare financially and this should be regardless of what beliefs their employers hold.And that's not a bad policy. Birth control is cheap. Pregnancies and childbirth can be very expensive. That's why the employees of faith-based companies can often get free riders to provide contraceptives even if the companies refuse to pay for the service.
Your twisting the meaning; the point of healthcare reform is that everyone gets access to healthcare financially and this should be regardless of what beliefs their employers hold.
What about the employee's beliefs? 'Employers' aren't the only ones with beliefs. Individuals, despite what many leftists belief, do have beliefs of their own that may not be owed to religion or some other orthodoxy. Even if that belief IS owed to some religion - does it really make it less viable?
And I didn't twist the meaning in the slightest, the paradigm is slanted from the start. Being against a mandate does not mean that one wants the total opposite mandated instead. ie: just because I think that a contraception mandate is entirely unneccessary that does not mean that I am against the use/purchase/etc of contraception. I think that the mandate is being unfairly posed as a matter of 'women's health' when it is nothing more than another purposely divisive policy that strips individuals of their freedom of choice. If an individual (woman in this case) is employed in a job that has health benefits and they are unable to afford birth control out of pocket, then they probably have larger problems (I paid for my college GF's pills out of pocket: we got it from a corner pharmacy, unsubsidized, from a 'normal' doctor (not planned parenthood) for ~$15/mo). Making birth control 'free' to women does NOT change the fact that many people still are not responsible for themselves and make bad decisions anyhow. This policy is purely idealogical and has very narrow real impact compared to the constriction of freedom imposed. This President has no problem imposing his beliefs on others, but yet has the gall to tell people that their beliefs are totally invalid.
To put this in different terms: where is the problem inherent in the system that requires such a change that it is neccessary to step on individual's concience and personal freedoms?
To put this in different terms: where is the problem inherent in the system that requires such a change that it is neccessary to step on individual's concience and personal freedoms?
The very simple fact that these beliefs are destructive to other people.
The very simple fact that these beliefs are destructive to other people.
I think you misunderstood the question and the problem. Moreover, you're projecting local Dutch custom on the US. AFAIK, he made a good point.
The very simple fact that these beliefs are destructive to other people.
Personal responsibility is destructive to other people?
Is there an example of a reasonably responsible person that has been 'left out in the cold' regarding contraception due to the status quo? Like I mentioned above - the pill is not expensive, and 'free' condoms are generally already available from NGOs.
The 'contraception mandate' was not in response to some grand call for making birth control illegal. Even Rick Santorum (as an example of the religious 'boogie man') is on record noting that while his family doesn't use birth control, he does not believe it should be banned - but he also believes that making birth control mandatory erodes on individual freedoms.
This is just one of many facets to the ultimate 'insurance mandate' problem. Many states already have a 'contraception mandate' - and while they pose a much less problem (especially since nearly every state with a mandate has a clause for concience objections), an individual can move from state to state unfettered, just like an individual can normally move from job to job if they don't like the benefits. Under the Presidents dictate - this is no longer possible and half of the states which did not have a contraception mandate now have had their soverignty taken away. In a general sense, the all-consuming-power of this President is eroding freedoms and choice bit by bit. The choice to use/buy/sell contraceptions exists. Now, we're left with only the choice to use or not - with zero benefit to show for it. "Freedoms for you, as long as I agree with them" - DNC mantra.
And that's not a bad policy. Birth control is cheap. Pregnancies and childbirth can be very expensive. That's why the employees of faith-based companies can often get free riders to provide contraceptives even if the companies refuse to pay for the service. This is pretty much a non-issue ginned up to give Santorum, Gingrich, etc, something to beat Obama with. I don't think Mr. Mittens would get much traction on this issue after having signed a universal health-care initiative into law in Massachusetts.
This thread is about Obama - please don't de-rail with off topic comments about the other candidates.
Jimmy Snyder
Feb25-12, 10:13 AM
... the employees of faith-based companies can often get free riders to provide contraceptives even if the companies refuse to pay for the service.
Then why do we need a law to enforce what would happen on its own anyway?
russ_watters
Feb25-12, 10:15 AM
Anyway, this a thread about Obama's candidacy. The point is that his statements are consistent with Obama's image as progressive and a large body of the US wants progressive. That leads well into another point I was wanting to bring up:
First off, I'd like to see your evidence that the "US wants progressive". I think the mid-term elections are evidence it doesn't. And (citation later), it has been true for a long time that the US self-identifies itself as more conservative than liberal.
In addition - and more relevant than today - even though the republican candidates are actively campaigning to their conservative base, more Americans still say Obama is too liberal than say Santorum or Romney are to conservative:
Americans' perceptions of Obama's ideology have changed significantly since he was elected. Four years ago, when Gallup first asked this question about Obama while he was competing for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, a plurality, 47%, thought his views were about right. At that time, 37% said his views were too liberal, compared with today's 51%.
The perceptions that Obama is too extreme to the left of the ideological spectrum than his competitors are to the right are likely due to three factors. First, Americans are more familiar with Obama than with either of his challengers, as evidenced by the smaller percentage without an opinion of Obama's political views (4%) compared with Romney's (9%) or Santorum's (13%).
Second, for many years Americans have been roughly twice as likely to self-identify as conservative rather than liberal. Thus, the odds are probably greater that a Democratic politician would be perceived as too liberal than that a Republican candidate would be perceived as too conservative.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/152954/Half-Say-Obama-Liberal-Agree-Issues.aspx?utm_source=add%2Bthis&utm_medium=addthis.com&utm_campaign=sharing#.T0ebqHvZQBQ.twitter
In other words, many people who voted for Obama thought he was more moderate than he really is. Now after seeing him in office, they realize just how liberal he is.
Now for the last part, there may be an issue of biased self-reporting at work and it is something that I've perceived a lot at PF: liberals, even ones that are pretty far to the left, often self-label as "moderates" (a few even as conservative!) even though they aren't. But 40% to 20% is still a big gap.
On the other hand, the poll also reports that Obama has roughly the same split of people agreeing vs disagreeing with him on the issues as those other two candidates. However, this may result from Obama's actions not following his beliefs due to being beaten toward the center by the Republicans. For example, he was pushing for a second stimulus, which he never got, at about the same time as he was signing debt control legislation. This can make his "policies" vs his beliefs hard to reconcile.
Each candidate has their own thread. Please keep all discussions specifically about the canidate.
Your twisting the meaning; the point of healthcare reform is that everyone gets access to healthcare financially and this should be regardless of what beliefs their employers hold.
I think one of the problems the President has with the healthcare reform is that it hasn't been fully implemented yet and details continue to seep out that some embrace and others reject - this is a good example. Personally, when I see a contraceptive mandate - I have to wonder how close these plans will ultimately come to being the "Cadillac Plans" the President originally intended to punish?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-02-22-health-care-revision_N.htm
"A proposed 40% tax on high-priced or "Cadillac" health care plans would begin in 2018 instead of 2013, as originally proposed by the Senate. And the definition of a high-end policy would increase to $27,500 for a family, instead of $23,000.
The Senate's version of the tax, which was projected to raise $150 billion over 10 years, was opposed by labor unions. House Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, had raised reservations about its impact. A typical family policy costs more than $13,000 in 2009, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, indicated that there would be support from labor leaders for Obama's new proposal. "Working families deserve health insurance that covers more and costs less," he said."
Please note the annual cost of these plans - premiums of over $2,000 per month before the elimination of the lifetime cap and other mandates.
Pythagorean
Feb25-12, 12:42 PM
First off, I'd like to see your evidence that the "US wants progressive".
You've skewed my words here with selective quoting... go back and read the sentence again and compare to what you've written. Once you've done that, look at the link below.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx
On the particular issue we are discussing, you can see there's still a large body of the US supporting his decision (about half).
http://www.gallup.com/poll/152963/Contraception-Debate-Divides-Americans-Including-Women.aspx
It's going to come down to swing votes in the end, which means those of us that are looking for the lesser evil. When it comes to a choice between Santorum and Obama, it will be Obama for me. Romney and Obama... I might not even bother voting. I would say they're about equally the lesser evil; Obama is just smoother on stage. Then again, maybe a smooth talker is better for foreign affairs.
And of course, remember that approval ratings don't tell you who people think is the lesser evil. I may not approve of a lot of what Obama does, but that doesn't mean I want Santorum as president if that was the alternative.
Then again, maybe a smooth talker is better for foreign affairs.
It definitely is.
ThomasT
Feb25-12, 12:47 PM
It's going to come down to swing votes in the end, which means those of us that are looking for the lesser evil. When it comes to a choice between Santorum and Obama, it will be Obama for me. Romney and Obama... I might not even bother voting. I would say they're about equally the lesser evil; Obama is just smoother on stage. Then again, maybe a smooth talker is better for foreign affairs.I think Obama's personality is better for an American figurehead ... given that other things are equal, which I don't think they are. That is, of the three you mentioned, Obama is clearly the best choice, imho.
Pythagorean
Feb25-12, 12:53 PM
What about the employee's beliefs?
Employees aren't forced to take contraceptive... nobody is... or what are you implying?
And I didn't twist the meaning in the slightest, the paradigm is slanted from the start. Being against a mandate does not mean that one wants the total opposite mandated instead. ie: just because I think that a contraception mandate is entirely unneccessary that does not mean that I am against the use/purchase/etc of contraception.
Nobody said you were....
I think that the mandate is being unfairly posed as a matter of 'women's health' when it is nothing more than another purposely divisive policy that strips individuals of their freedom of choice.
How?
If an individual (woman in this case) is employed in a job that has health benefits and they are unable to afford birth control out of pocket, then they probably have larger problems
So what?
(I paid for my college GF's pills out of pocket: we got it from a corner pharmacy, unsubsidized, from a 'normal' doctor (not planned parenthood) for ~$15/mo).
So what?
Making birth control 'free' to women does NOT change the fact that many people still are not responsible for themselves and make bad decisions anyhow.
So what? This policy reduces the chance that their irresponsibility will result in another mouth for the US to feed. It saves money by removing that burden.
This policy is purely idealogical and has very narrow real impact compared to the constriction of freedom imposed.
You still have yet to demonstrate freedoms taken away from individual employee.
To put this in different terms: where is the problem inherent in the system that requires such a change that it is neccessary to step on individual's concience and personal freedoms?
No individual's rights are being stepped on. Insurance companies and religious institutions are not individuals. Birth control is simply not being discriminated against as a medical issue. It's religious institution that wanted to be the exception, not many other employers even recognized this as some special case of health.
I think Obama's personality is better for an American figurehead ... given that other things are equal, which I don't think they are. That is, of the three you mentioned, Obama is clearly the best choice, imho.
Well, if it were clear, it's strange that so many people talk about the presidential campaign and who's going to win, isn't it? :wink: (I agree with you, though.)
I don't know what's best for the whole, and I don't like it when people pretend they do. I also don't trust people that claim to; I'm cynical like that.
That's how our law system is built, free-market and all, Hobbes, Lock, etc...
If someone is labeled a "smooth talker" - don't they run the risk that people will not trust them?
I think you misunderstood the question and the problem. Moreover, you're projecting local Dutch custom on the US. AFAIK, he made a good point.
Wait, what? I'm from the Netherlands, and I agree with something that's widely agreed on in the Netherlands (among other countries), therefore I am 'projecting' local Dutch custom on the US? That's not an argument at all.
Pythagorean
Feb25-12, 01:00 PM
I think one of the problems the President has with the healthcare reform is that it hasn't been fully implemented yet and details continue to seep out that some embrace and others reject - this is a good example. Personally, when I see a contraceptive mandate - I have to wonder how close these plans will ultimately come to being the "Cadillac Plans" the President originally intended to punish?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-02-22-health-care-revision_N.htm
"A proposed 40% tax on high-priced or "Cadillac" health care plans would begin in 2018 instead of 2013, as originally proposed by the Senate. And the definition of a high-end policy would increase to $27,500 for a family, instead of $23,000.
The Senate's version of the tax, which was projected to raise $150 billion over 10 years, was opposed by labor unions. House Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, had raised reservations about its impact. A typical family policy costs more than $13,000 in 2009, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, indicated that there would be support from labor leaders for Obama's new proposal. "Working families deserve health insurance that covers more and costs less," he said."
Please note the annual cost of these plans - premiums of over $2,000 per month before the elimination of the lifetime cap and other mandates.
Thanks for the informative post. I can't argue with your concerns. I certainly don't think Obama is the white knight, here. All I can say is that this issue (cadillac plans) is somewhat obscure and probably won't impact his candidacy much.
Jimmy Snyder
Feb25-12, 01:01 PM
It's going to come down to swing votes in the end, which means those of us that are looking for the lesser evil.
I'm tired of always voting for the lesser evil. I'm changing tactics this year.
Pythagorean
Feb25-12, 01:03 PM
If someone is labeled a "smooth talker" - don't they run the risk that people will not trust them?
The people (me) labeling them smooth talker already don't trust them as much as they (Obama) would like. Still, the point is that most Obama supporters don't see it the way I do. They take Obama as 100% genuine. The fact that he's a good smooth talker will only help him with the majority of his votes.
Also, it's not like those of us that think that think the other candidates are squeaky clean. For us, it's a choice between good liars and bad liars, but they're all liars.
Pythagorean
Feb25-12, 01:05 PM
I'm tired of always voting for the lesser evil. I'm changing tactics this year.
I've considered not voting before as a "tactic" (the tactic would be to give up on caring, thus lowering my stress levels).
What did you have in mind?
Wait, what? I'm from the Netherlands, and I agree with something that's widely agreed on in the Netherlands (among other countries), therefore I am 'projecting' local Dutch custom on the US? That's not an argument at all.
God man. He asked what's wrong with the system, and you responded with what I consider basically a platitude, you didn't even bother to answer the question. If you want to say anything, then bring arguments to the table. And, in case you forgot, I am Dutch too.
ThomasT
Feb26-12, 12:34 AM
If someone is labeled a "smooth talker" - don't they run the risk that people will not trust them?Sure. I don't particularly trust Obama any more than the others. I just don't think he's screwed anything up yet, and I don't think he will. He'll do, I'm guessing, basically what's expected of him by the status quo. Even though I'd like to see some changes in that status quo, it's gotten us to the America of today which is a pretty good place to live for most of us.
In terms of what they can be expected to do, maybe it would turn out to be a coin toss between Obama and Romney. But, assuming that other things are essentially equal, I think that Obama projects a better image for an American president at this time.
God man. He asked what's wrong with the system, and you responded with what I consider basically a platitude, you didn't even bother to answer the question. If you want to say anything, then bring arguments to the table. And, in case you forgot, I am Dutch too.
*rereads* My apologies, I seem to have misread the question. (Yes, I did not forget you were Dutch.) It was the 'projecting local Dutch custom' that tends to get on my nerves.
*rereads* My apologies, I seem to have misread the question. (Yes, I did not forget you were Dutch.) It was the 'projecting local Dutch custom' that tends to get on my nerves.
Well, I am sorry, but you do that. The US is a continent with 300M people and has different problems than the Netherlands, which is, in respect to that, a village filled with Hobbits.
As an example, I've read your remark on the right to bear arms. Well, if you would move with family from the Netherlands to somewhere in the outback of the US where it takes police about an hour to arrive at your doorstep, you wouldn't know how fast you would end up buying a gun to defend your family just in case. So please take into respect that it is just a different country.
As an example, I've read your remark on the right to bear arms. Well, if you would move with family from the Netherlands to somewhere in the outback of the US where it takes police about an hour to arrive at your doorstep, you wouldn't know how fast you would end up buying a gun to defend your family just in case. So please take into respect that it is just a different country.
I don't disagree with that. I simply think it's a relatively unimportant issue when it comes to electing a presidential candidate.
Every female already had access to birth control, his policy just makes sure that someone else is paying for it.
He basically constructed a straw man and beat it down with his 'contraception mandate'. What deficiency was he honestly correcting? This 'separation philosophy' is coming at the expense of everyone's choice. What is the harm in allowing someone (or a religious orgnization...) a choice in what medical coverage they buy? Freedom is constricted via the President's policies (with this being the latest in a long line), I don't see how there is any other way to look at it.
I'm far from being a religious person, but President Obama (and his cohort) are waging a war on freedoms, starting with Religion. If (reasonable) Religious freedom can be thrown to the wayside by the government so easilly, what other freedoms should I be prepared to give up? Women (and men) already had the freedom to buy contraception, but now they lack the freedom to NOT buy contraception (via paying for insurance).
I'm divided on this issue.
I don't think the government should be able to require employers to offer health insurance at all and, aside from preventing sham policies or fraud, shouldn't be dictating what services have to be provided by health insurance policies purchased and/or operated by employers.
Whether an employer offers health insurance and the cost of that health insurance is just part of the overall compensation package an employee should consider before deciding to accept the job. Not providing health insurance will put an employer at a competitive disadvantage in attracting employees, but it shouldn't be illegal.
But, if the government can require employers to provide health insurance and dictate what those policies have to cover, then I don't see any justification for exempting a business that just happens to be owned by a religious group. The mandate covers university employees and hospital employees. Running a university and/or hospital is extending beyond strictly religious functions and the university/hospitals should be subject to the same laws as universities/hospitals owned by non-religious entities.
Women (and men) already had the freedom to buy contraception, but now they lack the freedom to NOT buy contraception (via paying for insurance).
Don't employees of a private business also lack the same freedom? Do Catholic employees get a discount on their health insurance just because they don't plan to use the free contraceptives their employer's plan provides? And what happens when the company I work for donates to a super-PAC for a pro-abortion candidate? Should employees that oppose that candidate get a special refund from their employer to free them up from supporting a candidate with moral views incompatible with theirs?
In other words, I don't think this works on an individual employee basis.
http://www.google.ca/search?q=%E2%80%98African+Americans+for+Obama%E2%8 0%99.&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
playing a race card?
http://www.google.ca/search?q=%E2%80%98African+Americans+for+Obama%E2%8 0%99.&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
playing a race card?
I don't see it that way. I think a candidate should be able to communicate directly with special interest groups. At the same time, they should expect content to leak and can run the risk of being considered too biased with that group (whatever group that might be - trial lawyers for instance).
mheslep
Feb27-12, 07:26 PM
whatever group that might be
Whatever group? You would defend 'Whites for Newt'? 'White Men for Santorum'?
Whatever group? You would defend 'Whites for Newt'? 'White Men for Santorum'?
If they want to run the risk of such a collaboration - it's not a problem for me - although it would probably be a big problem for them.:rofl:
The President recently apologized for the burning of religious materials and has vowed to investigate.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-27/obama-apologizes-for-koran-burning-as-afghan-riots-continue.html
I don't think it's fair to attack the President for his apology - he was put in a difficult position by news reports - IMO.
However, I'm a bit confused about the original source of these reports? Who broke this story?
How about a balance? We will burn 1000 bibles in competence.
Book for book ... lets burn them all. And get on with life.
How about a balance? We will burn 1000 bibles in competence.
Book for book ... lets burn them all. And get on with life.
Our President was blind sided and our soldiers were shot - I think the source of the leak is important and may impact the re-election campaign.
Our President was blind sided and our soldiers were shot - I think the source of the leak is important and may impact the re-election campaign.
I can agree that sources are important. Re-election ? not so much. There is no competition.
We will burn 1000 bibles in competence.
Yeah well, your book isn't their book. Right?
My point is this - if this account is accurate:
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/02/ap-7-afghans-killed-in-afghan-protests-over-koran-burning-022212/
"Gen. John Allen, the top commander of American and NATO forces in Afghanistan, said after the books had been mistakenly given to troops to be burned at a garbage pit without realizing it.
“It was not a decision that was made because they were religious materials,” Allen said Tuesday, one day after Afghan workers at the garbage pit found the books. “It was not a decision that was made with respect to the faith of Islam. It was a mistake. It was an error. The moment we found out about it we immediately stopped and we intervened.”"
How did this apparent mistake turn into an international incident requiring President Obama and generals to apoligize?
SHISHKABOB
Feb28-12, 05:15 PM
My point is this - if this account is accurate:
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/02/ap-7-afghans-killed-in-afghan-protests-over-koran-burning-022212/
"Gen. John Allen, the top commander of American and NATO forces in Afghanistan, said after the books had been mistakenly given to troops to be burned at a garbage pit without realizing it.
“It was not a decision that was made because they were religious materials,” Allen said Tuesday, one day after Afghan workers at the garbage pit found the books. “It was not a decision that was made with respect to the faith of Islam. It was a mistake. It was an error. The moment we found out about it we immediately stopped and we intervened.”"
How did this apparent mistake turn into an international incident requiring President Obama and generals to apoligize?
because there are a few people out there who react violently to the burning of Korans?
Desecrating a copy of the Quran is punishable by imprisonment in some countries (life imprisonment in Pakistan, according to Article 295-B of the Penal Code) and has been punishable by death in Afghanistan, Somalia and Pakistan.
From Wikipedia, Quran desecration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran_desecration). I am guesstimating that to a number of them, western troops are now free game, effective immediately. Like I said, somewhere in between a major clusterfluff and dung happens.
SHISHKABOB
Feb28-12, 05:47 PM
If the burning was nothing more than a mistake - how did anyone know what was being burned?
in your own post the quote mentions how Afghan workers found the burnt remains. One of them probably either got upset about it and told people, or just plain told people and then they got upset.
I don't think anyone will be surprised to hear my support is behind any Republican candidate that runs against President Obama. However, I think this issue should be off limits in the campaign.
Jimmy Snyder
Feb28-12, 06:11 PM
I don't think anyone will be surprised to hear my support is behind any Republican candidate that runs against President Obama. However, I think this issue should be off limits in the campaign.
That train left the station already.
That train left the station already.
I think attempts to use this topic against the President will backfire.
IMO, given international relations, the only response possible was the one he has given.
There are times when honesty and pragmatism should trump ideology. I trust Obama to stay that course. Not so his potential opponents in the GE.
Jimmy Snyder
Feb28-12, 06:27 PM
It will narrow your choices, I think Paul is the only one who hasn't criticized the apology.
IMO, one of the benchmarks for adult behavior and intelligence is the ability to offer an apology when appropriate.
AlephZero
Feb28-12, 06:38 PM
How did this apparent mistake turn into an international incident requiring President Obama and generals to apoligize?
One possible reason is because it shows the utter and complete lack knowledge on the part of whoever made such a "mistake", considering where they are operating and what they are supposed to be doing there.
IMO it's about the same level of "mistake" as an Afghani claiming that he/she accidentally burnt a US flag because he/she didn't recognize what it was.
mheslep
Feb28-12, 06:40 PM
I can agree that sources are important. Re-election ? not so much. There is no competition.No competition against President 25-million-unemployed (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/real-unemployment-rises-162-june-253-million-people),$1.3-trillion-deficit,punish-our-enemies (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/25/in-appeal-to-hispanics-obama-promises-to-push-immigration-reform/),$4gas Obama? We'll see.
No competition against President 25-million-unemployed (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/real-unemployment-rises-162-june-253-million-people),$1.3-trillion-deficit,punish-our-enemies (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/25/in-appeal-to-hispanics-obama-promises-to-push-immigration-reform/),$4gas Obama? We'll see.
That's my feeling - there are PLENTY of other reasons not to re-elect the President.
Pythagorean
Feb28-12, 06:55 PM
If you actually put "punishment" in context, it might be a bit more fair... He's dressing up a simple concept with colorful language: vote for people who promote policies that are helpful to you, don't vote for people that don't promote policies that are helpful for you.
Can't comment on the rest, but I've seen numbers get taken out of context over and over in this thread.
The UAW clearly favors candidates that help them.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/us/politics/uaw-tries-to-help-obama-win-working-class-voters.html?_r=1
"The United Automobile Workers union, a primary beneficiary of President Obama’s decision to rescue domestic carmakers, is now trying to return the favor. "
mheslep
Feb28-12, 08:16 PM
If you actually put "punishment" in context, it might be a bit more fair... He's dressing up a simple concept with colorful language: vote for people who promote policies that are helpful to you, don't vote for people that don't promote policies that are helpful for you....
The relevant context is that the President was addressing the collection of an ethnic group, encouraging the use of the term "enemies" in political rhetoric against other citizens in good standing. The relevant historical context is that a former President, Nixon, used the term to describe a list of political targets, or an "enemies list", also citizens. Obama went on to say, in addressing Senator McCain and others, "Those aren’t the kinds of folks who represent our core American values” in the same speech. This is exactly the same kind of us versus them tone that Palin used with her "real American" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/21/AR2008102102449.html) comment. She at least apologized for the statement later. This kind of rhetoric (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/Obama_on_smalltown_PA_Clinging_religion_guns_xenop hobia.html) has become salt and pepper for this President.
Pythagorean
Feb28-12, 10:56 PM
See, now that's much more trivial than what I imagined when I first read it. A politician using rhetoric? That's unheard of!
Does anyone recall when President Obama took office 3 years ago and promised to close Gitmo within a year - signed an order?
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-22/politics/guantanamo.order_1_detention-guantanamo-bay-torture?_s=PM:POLITICS
"January 22, 2009
President Obama signs the order requiring that the Guantanamo Bay facility be closed within a year.Promising to return America to the "moral high ground" in the war on terrorism, President Obama issued three executive orders Thursday to demonstrate a clean break from the Bush administration, including one requiring that the Guantanamo Bay detention facility be closed within a year."
Not only is Gitmo still open now in 2012, but this was in the news yesterday. my bold
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington/post/at-guantanamo-bay-soccer-is-in-the-air-again/2012/02/28/gIQAboPngR_blog.html
"When the authorities at Guantanamo Bay closed Camp 4, the open-air, communal-living facility here, and moved the detainees to an indoor facility called Camp 6, the inmates lost the small patch of dirt where they played soccer. Or, as they call it, football.
The competition, though, was not lost forever.
The Pentagon has said it is restoring the glorious game to Gitmo with a new 28,000-square-foot “super-rec” space that includes a field surrounded by a gravel track with shaded areas in the corners. Detainees will reach the field by walking through covered walkways that the military is calling “habitat trails” — rather like the tunnel to the pitch at, say, Manchester United’s Old Trafford stadium, but without the crowds.
The cost of the project: $744,000.
Officials here said the detainees had desperately missed their matches and boosting the morale of the inmates makes the job of the guard force easier. "
What happened to the small patch of dirt?
ThomasT
Feb29-12, 01:48 PM
Does anyone recall when President Obama took office 3 years ago and promised to close Gitmo within a year - signed an order?
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-22/politics/guantanamo.order_1_detention-guantanamo-bay-torture?_s=PM:POLITICS
"January 22, 2009
President Obama signs the order requiring that the Guantanamo Bay facility be closed within a year.Promising to return America to the "moral high ground" in the war on terrorism, President Obama issued three executive orders Thursday to demonstrate a clean break from the Bush administration, including one requiring that the Guantanamo Bay detention facility be closed within a year."
Not only is Gitmo still open now in 2012, but this was in the news yesterday. my bold
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington/post/at-guantanamo-bay-soccer-is-in-the-air-again/2012/02/28/gIQAboPngR_blog.html
"When the authorities at Guantanamo Bay closed Camp 4, the open-air, communal-living facility here, and moved the detainees to an indoor facility called Camp 6, the inmates lost the small patch of dirt where they played soccer. Or, as they call it, football.
The competition, though, was not lost forever.
The Pentagon has said it is restoring the glorious game to Gitmo with a new 28,000-square-foot “super-rec” space that includes a field surrounded by a gravel track with shaded areas in the corners. Detainees will reach the field by walking through covered walkways that the military is calling “habitat trails” — rather like the tunnel to the pitch at, say, Manchester United’s Old Trafford stadium, but without the crowds.
The cost of the project: $744,000.
Officials here said the detainees had desperately missed their matches and boosting the morale of the inmates makes the job of the guard force easier. "
What happened to the small patch of dirt?Not clear what the point of this post is. Are we to be angry at Obama for keeping the Gitmo prison open though he said he would close it? Or are we to be very disappointed that he has spent $744K of our money on a soccer field for people suspected of terrorist activities? Either way, not good for Obama, imho. Which, I suppose, was the point of the post.
Not clear what the point of this post is. Are we to be angry at Obama for keeping the Gitmo prison open though he said he would close it? Or are we to be very disappointed that he has spent $744K of our money on a soccer field for people suspected of terrorist activities? Either way, not good for Obama, imho. Which, I suppose, was the point of the post.
I'm not sure if his base approves of Gitmo being kept open - possibly not? I think non-supporters of the President appreciate that he changed his position after gaining access to all of the information (what ever that might be?).
On the second point - a cost of $744,000 - it seems a bit much to replace "the small patch of dirt where they played soccer" - doesn't it? I don't think we invested more than $20,000 to prep and equip our community soccer fields.
Gokul43201
Feb29-12, 02:23 PM
I'm not sure if his base approves of Gitmo being kept open - possibly not? I think non-supporters of the President appreciate that he changed his position after gaining access to all of the information (what ever that might be?).He changed his position because Congress forced him to, by making a big hullabaloo about imprisoning detainees within the mainland, and how it would be such an unconscionable - not to mention dangerous - act to invite blood-thirsty terrorists into our backyards.
On the second point - a cost of $744,000 - it seems a bit much to replace "the small patch of dirt where they played soccer" - doesn't it? I don't think we invested more than $20,000 to prep and equip our community soccer fields.Do we have more details on what the money was spent on, and what the rationale was that permitted the budget to be approved? Could it be that this expenditure is estimated to provide much more in savings? Could it be a result of some analysis which shows that detainees are more likely to spill valuable intel when they have $744K soccer fields to play in? Could it be that a $0.7M soccer field might stop the next $7T war?
mheslep
Feb29-12, 02:47 PM
Congress overriding a veto would force the President to do this or that. Obama signed the Defense Authorization bill that blocked transfer of the prisoners. Whatever he said in protest is meaningless to me, so much blather.
He changed his position because Congress forced him to, by making a big hullabaloo about imprisoning detainees within the mainland, and how it would be such an unconscionable - not to mention dangerous - act to invite blood-thirsty terrorists into our backyards.
Do we have more details on what the money was spent on, and what the rationale was that permitted the budget to be approved? Could it be that this expenditure is estimated to provide much more in savings? Could it be a result of some analysis which shows that detainees are more likely to spill valuable intel when they have $744K soccer fields to play in? Could it be that a $0.7M soccer field might stop the next $7T war?
Didn't President Obama have control of both the House and Senate in 2009? Perhaps he shouldn't have made (a big hullabaloo on his part as well) promises he couldn't keep?
As for justification for the spending - it's not clear - looks like they added a guard tower and expanded the fence so they don't need to be escorted to the field?
I did find this info.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/02/28/2666083/744000-buys-cooperative-guantanamo.htmlry.
"The showcase soccer field — half the size of an American football field — is being built by Burns and Roe Services Corp., said a Pentagon spokesman, Army Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale. It should open in April, as the third recreation yard at Guantánamo’s main prison camp complex, a year after construction began on what is currently the largest expansion under way at the decade-old detention center.
The Obama administration estimates that it spends $800,000 a year per captive on basic operating costs for the detention center, whose staff numbers 1,850 government employees from contractors to guards.
When it was suggested that the price tag was excessive, Reese replied that this base’s remote location at times doubles construction costs. "
Gokul43201
Feb29-12, 04:04 PM
Congress overriding a veto would force the President to do this or that. Obama signed the Defense Authorization bill that blocked transfer of the prisoners. Whatever he said in protest is meaningless to me, so much blather.It would have been nothing more than a waste of time for him to veto on the basis of the Gitmo argument. He tried that argument way back in 2009 and learned that neither party was interested. Nimby-ism is much too easy a seed to sow.The Senate voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday to cut from a war spending bill the $80 million requested by President Obama to close the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and to bar the transfer of detainees to the United States and its territories.
The vote, which complicates Mr. Obama’s efforts to shutter the prison by his deadline of Jan. 22, 2010, was 90 to 6. Republicans voted unanimously in favor of cutting the money.
“The American people don’t want these men walking the streets of America’s neighborhoods,” said Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota. “The American people don’t want these detainees held at a military base or federal prison in their back yard, either.”(emph mine)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21detain.html?pagewanted=all
I do agree with WhoWee, however, that Obama deserves a sound heckling for demonstrating an over-abundance of naivete.
mheslep
Feb29-12, 05:34 PM
It would have been nothing more than a waste of time for him to veto on the basis of the Gitmo argument. ...Waste of time? I doubt that. It think trade off is the more likely reasoning. I was aware of the lopsided vote on the defense spending bill when I made that previously post. That vote is far from indicative of a veto override from a Nancy Pelosi House and a Harry Reid Senate in the first ~year of his presidency. No, if Obama was determined to fulfill a campaign pledge, regardless of the political consequences, he likely could have had his way on Gitmo. One consequence might be a loss of the pull needed to get the pending health care bill though. I think it more likely that he saw the large political cost and backed down.
On the second point - a cost of $744,000 - it seems a bit much to replace "the small patch of dirt where they played soccer" - doesn't it? I don't think we invested more than $20,000 to prep and equip our community soccer fields.
What year was that? Just perusing a few proposals for soccer fields gives an estimate somewhere around $400k to $500k per field. But I think many of those proposals include the whole package (parking, restrooms, etc). The only proposal that broke down each of the individual costs had about $125k for the soccer field, itself.
What year was that? Just perusing a few proposals for soccer fields gives an estimate somewhere around $400k to $500k per field. But I think many of those proposals include the whole package (parking, restrooms, etc). The only proposal that broke down each of the individual costs had about $125k for the soccer field, itself.
I'm guessing those proposals were for fields that were stateside. You can't exactly go to the local Communist party official in Cuba to arrange for concrete, asphalt, fuel, housing for employees, etc. Nearly everything has to be shipped in. That could add substantial cost.
What year was that? Just perusing a few proposals for soccer fields gives an estimate somewhere around $400k to $500k per field. But I think many of those proposals include the whole package (parking, restrooms, etc). The only proposal that broke down each of the individual costs had about $125k for the soccer field, itself.
We developed one main field and a dozen unimproved practice fields with portable goals. We started with flat and cleared land that required minimal grading - all owned by the school district. The majority of the cost was for goals/nets. The parking was shared and the school donated a few old bleachers that we rebuilt (paint and a few boards). Most people bring their own folding chairs. We purchased a shed for a concession stand and a local company donated portable toilets. None of the fields have lights.
I'm familiar with another project that used property (parking area) at our county fair grounds - the costs were comparable to ours.
I'm guessing those proposals were for fields that were stateside. You can't exactly go to the local Communist party official in Cuba to arrange for concrete, asphalt, fuel, housing for employees, etc. Nearly everything has to be shipped in. That could add substantial cost.
Why would you need all of those things? The inmates were content with "a small patch of dirt" previously.
Didn't President Obama have control of both the House and Senate in 2009? Perhaps he shouldn't have made (a big hullabaloo on his part as well) promises he couldn't keep?
I'm tired of this line from Obama's detractors. It is (imo) patently false. Obama did not "control" the House and Senate. The democrats did. However, Democrats, unlike Republicans, do not tend to tow the party line. There is frequent enough crossover from the likes of Ben Nelson and others. How the ACA got passed is beyond me.
Republicans don't seem to have that problem (remember Santorum's comment of "taking one for the team"?) When it's important, they seem to tow the party line (granted, there are exceptions, like the ACA).
Additionally, just about every politican makes promises they end up not keeping.
However, yes, it was naive of Obama to expect no political heat from trying to close Gitmo.
I'm tired of this line from Obama's detractors. It is (imo) patently false. Obama did not "control" the House and Senate. The democrats did. However, Democrats, unlike Republicans, do not tend to tow the party line. There is frequent enough crossover from the likes of Ben Nelson and others. How the ACA got passed is beyond me.
Republicans don't seem to have that problem (remember Santorum's comment of "taking one for the team"?) When it's important, they seem to tow the party line (granted, there are exceptions, like the ACA).
Additionally, just about every politican makes promises they end up not keeping.
However, yes, it was naive of Obama to expect no political heat from trying to close Gitmo.
I think President Obama relied heavily on Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in his first two years - they were able to pass hundreds of billions in additional spending - weren't they - "cash for clunkers" was my favorite.
Does anyone know the history of this program - was it originated or expanded under President Obama?
https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=edb5ff7fdcbc7774141e3106f303b27d&tab=core&tabmode=list&print_preview=1
"The United States Government, as represented by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Mission to Indonesia, is seeking proposals from qualified local Indonesian non-governmental organizations that are interested in implementing the USAID-funded program entitled "Program to Extend Scholarships and Training to Achieve Sustainable Impacts, Phase Two (PRESTASI II)". USAID plans to award one Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee completion-type contract, with a total estimated cost in the range of $16 to $20 million, covering a period of five years.
Through short- and long-term training in the United States and Indonesia as well as other training-related activities in the Mission, PRESTASI Phase II will provide opportunities for Indonesia's emerging leaders to earn advanced degrees, professional accreditation and specific technical and other skills. The Contractor shall manage more than 100 selected participants currently training in the United States and Indonesia from PRESTASI Phase I. The Contractor's responsibilities shall include the recruitment, identification, and placement of Indonesian professionals in training programs that will maximize their skills and potential as leaders and managers within their communities and technical fields. The Contractor shall be responsible for providing related technical assistance for a variety of Indonesian nationals and targeted institutions, which is an additional key element of the program."
It appears the program (Page 11 - Background) began after a report was released in 2010 and follows another initiative from 2009?
https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=2904b146ce9433bc7f02b9ab0b6988ee
thorium1010
Mar2-12, 02:13 AM
I am not participant in this thread, but i thought this was interesting -
zskn9gQoGLY
However, Democrats, unlike Republicans, do not tend to tow the party line. There is frequent enough crossover from the likes of Ben Nelson and others. How the ACA got passed is beyond me.Maybe the ACA got passed because your premise is wrong.
Maybe the ACA got passed because your premise is wrong.
Maybe, or maybe not:
Ben Nelson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Nelson)
Nelson's votes in the Senate have often placed him at odds with the leadership of his party. A National Journal congressional vote rating from 2006 placed him to the right of five Senate Republicans (Gordon Smith, Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter, Susan Collins, and Lincoln Chafee). Mary Landrieu was the only other Democrat to place to the right of any Republicans (she placed to the right of Chafee).[50] A similar 2007 National Journal congressional vote rating went even further, placing him to the right of eight Senate Republicans (the above five as well as Richard Lugar, Norm Coleman, and Mike DeWine), with Landrieu once again placing to the right of Chafee and being the only other Democrat to place to the right of any Republicans.[51] Most recently, the American Conservative Union rated his overall performance for 2010 at 48 percent, the highest given to any Democratic senator.[52]
Nelson was one of only two Democratic senators to vote against the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. Nelson is strongly opposed to replacing the income tax with a national sales tax, a position that finds favor with increasingly many conservatives. He has voted with Republicans on matters of bankruptcy reform, environmental protection, lawsuit reform, and trade. In 2004 he was one of only three Democratic senators to vote to invoke cloture on the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment; in 2006 he was one of only two Democratic Senators to vote that way.[53][54] He was the only Democratic senator to vote against a 2006 bill that would have extended federal funding for Stem Cell Research. He has, however, voted consistently against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He has also opposed President Bush's plan to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq.[55] Early in Bush's first term he voted with the majority of his party against scrapping President Bill Clinton's expansive new rules on ergonomics regulation for workers; many of his fellow conservative Democrats like John Breaux, Max Baucus, Blanche Lincoln, and Zell Miller voted with Republicans on the issue. On April 26, 2010, Nelson was one of two Democratic senators in attendance to vote against the motion to move a financial regulations bill forward, siding with Senate Republicans. The other was Harry Reid, who voted against his own proposed bill out of procedure.
On August 5, 2010, Nelson was the only Democrat to vote against Elena Kagan for confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court.[56]
On December 18, 2010, Nelson voted in favor of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010.
That seems like the voting record of someone who doesn't always tow the party line (and whie it might make an interesting exercise to analyze every republican, that's way to much work).
This headline - IMO - seemed to infer the President is being very tough on Iran.
http://news.yahoo.com/interview-obama-says-hes-not-bluffing-iran-130532562.html
"In interview, Obama says he's not bluffing on Iran"
However, the story seems to indicate the comments were directed towards Israel?
"His comments appeared aimed more at Israel and its supporters in the United States than at Iran. Obama addresses the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee on Sunday and meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Monday at the White House. Netanyahu will also address AIPAC.
"I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don't bluff," he said in the interview. "I also don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But (both) governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."
Obama will try to convince Netanyahu to postpone any plans his government may have to unilaterally attack Iran's nuclear facilities in coming months. An attack that soon would not carry U.S. backing, and the U.S. would probably not be involved in planning or executing it.
Nonetheless, it could force the United States into a new conflict and an arms race in the Middle East, as Obama made clear in the lengthy interview. It also could allow Iran to paint itself the victim and draw new support that would undermine rather than enhance Israel's security, Obama warned."
Is anyone else confused?
By the way, folks, the phrase is "toe the line". It comes from dart competitions, when the toes of your leading foot aren't allowed to cross the throwing line. The rule is there to keep competitors from inching closer to the dart-board. Off-topic, I know, but sometimes these things grate on my nerves.
Jimmy Snyder
Mar2-12, 11:09 AM
The journalist who writes the headline is not the journalist that writes the article. Did the President say which particular bluff wasn't a bluff?
The journalist who writes the headline is not the journalist that writes the article. Did the President say which particular bluff wasn't a bluff?
:smile:
By the way, folks, the phrase is "toe the line". It comes from dart competitions, when the toes of your leading foot aren't allowed to cross the throwing line. The rule is there to keep competitors from inching closer to the dart-board. Off-topic, I know, but sometimes these things grate on my nerves.
As in darts, it's fun some times to watch the participants "stand" on the side of their foot with one leg in the air for balance and their entire upper body leaned forward over the line - just saying. (:wink:)
BTW, in regard to the Gitmo soccer field's cost, how many soccer-fields has anybody in the US built in a communist country that doesn't want us there? Everything has to be shipped in and done on-site, as noted previously, but when you build a soccer-field in the US, you don't normally have to install air-conditioned guard towers, chain-link fences topped with razor-wire, etc. Unless somebody here has detailed knowledge of what was involved in building this field, I suggest that we drop this red herring now.
I know this thread is for the express purpose of bashing Obama, but it's not reasonable to blame him for the Pentagon's every expenditure on every military base around the world.
BTW, in regard to the Gitmo soccer field's cost, how many soccer-fields has anybody in the US built in a communist country that doesn't want us there? Everything has to be shipped in and done on-site, as noted previously, but when you build a soccer-field in the US, you don't normally have to install air-conditioned guard towers, chain-link fences topped with razor-wire, etc. Unless somebody here has detailed knowledge of what was involved in building this field, I suggest that we drop this red herring now.
I know this thread is for the express purpose of bashing Obama, but it's not reasonable to blame him for the Pentagon's every expenditure on every military base around the world.
President Obama promised to close this location within one year - in his 3rd year more than $700k was spent re-store soccer games. This isn't a red herring -it's a broken campaign promise with questionable spending.
Gokul43201
Mar2-12, 12:18 PM
Waste of time? I doubt that. It think trade off is the more likely reasoning. I was aware of the lopsided vote on the defense spending bill when I made that previously post. That vote is far from indicative of a veto override from a Nancy Pelosi House and a Harry Reid Senate in the first ~year of his presidency. No, if Obama was determined to fulfill a campaign pledge, regardless of the political consequences, he likely could have had his way on Gitmo. One consequence might be a loss of the pull needed to get the pending health care bill though. I think it more likely that he saw the large political cost and backed down.This is all plausible, but to do what you think he should have done, the veto would only have been the first step. He'd still need to get Congress to appropriate the funds to shut down Gitmo and transfer prisoners stateside. And there's no way that's going to happen.
This is all plausible, but to do what you think he should have done, the veto would only have been the first step. He'd still need to get Congress to appropriate the funds to shut down Gitmo and transfer prisoners stateside. And there's no way that's going to happen.100% true. There is fear-mongering on both sides of the aisle regarding bringing the Gitmo prisoners to the US, housing them in our prisons, and trying them in our court-system. Also, there is the little detail that many of them can't be re-patriated, because the countries that they originated in won't take them back.
Obama's campaign statement re: Gitmo was unrealistic, though he probably thought he could drum up support for closing that prison if the public got behind it. He was wrong. There is only so much a sitting president can do. He is not a dictator, and in some cases, he can only be a cheerleader for causes when he needs the cooperation of Congress to achieve goals.
Maybe, or maybe not:
Ben Nelson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Nelson)
That seems like the voting record of someone who doesn't always tow the party line (and whie it might make an interesting exercise to analyze every republican, that's way to much work).Every Republican? Ever heard of a guy called Ron Paul?
But never mind him, I'm curious where, in general, you get the idea that Republicans "toe the party line" as compared to Democrats.
By the way, folks, the phrase is "toe the line". It comes from dart competitions, when the toes of your leading foot aren't allowed to cross the throwing line. The rule is there to keep competitors from inching closer to the dart-board. Off-topic, I know, but sometimes these things grate on my nerves.
I stand corrected! :redface:
Jimmy Snyder
Mar2-12, 01:37 PM
I was in on the negotiations, so I'm in a good position to tell you exactly what happened. Originally, the bid was a conservative $50,000. As usual, the military did everything in it's power to keep costs down. However, the liberal press put their hands into the process and the price tag went up to $100,000. Then the Israeli lobby had their say and it went to $200,000. Next the Gay-Lesbian alliance spoke up and it went to $400,000. Finally President Obama said it should be $744,000 and that's where we are today.
I was in on the negotiations, so I'm in a good position to tell you exactly what happened. Originally, the bid was a conservative $50,000. As usual, the military did everything in it's power to keep costs down. However, the liberal press put their hands into the process and the price tag went up to $100,000. Then the Israeli lobby had their say and it went to $200,000. Next the Gay-Lesbian alliance spoke up and it went to $400,000. Finally President Obama said it should be $744,000 and that's where we are today.
Insightful:rofl:
This is all plausible, but to do what you think he should have done, the veto would only have been the first step. He'd still need to get Congress to appropriate the funds to shut down Gitmo and transfer prisoners stateside. And there's no way that's going to happen.Back in 2009 with Pelosi Obama only needed a repeat of the previous non-specific funding bill. He declined to push for it in this case, though has done so in other very similar circumstances*. I suspect the flaws in his Gitmo plan - civilian show trials, AQ in the prison population - would have become painfully apparent for years should he have stayed the course.
* Obama threatens veto if pipeline decision is added to payroll tax cut
(http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/197901-obama-would-reject-gop-bid-to-tie-payroll-tax-cut-bill-to-keystone-pipeline-decision)
Obama Threatens Veto of Defense Authorization Bill (http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/obama-threatens-veto-of-defense-authorization-bill-20111117)
Huffington Post (AOL) has a timely article on the soccer field.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/01/guantanamo-soccer-field_n_1314836.html
Chain-link fence (check) topped with razor-wire (check) with guard towers (check) and security cameras (I hadn't thought of that, but there appear to be plenty of them in the limited field of view of the photo). Plus everything had to be shipped in and erected on-site in a country that is quite hostile to our presence there. Comparing this soccer-field with a HS soccer-field in one's home-town is way past reasonable. And laying it all at Obama's feet is wrong, since he needs Congress to cooperate before closing the Gitmo prison.
Huffington Post (AOL) has a timely article on the soccer field.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/01/guantanamo-soccer-field_n_1314836.html
Chain-link fence (check) topped with razor-wire (check) with guard towers (check) and security cameras (I hadn't thought of that, but there appear to be plenty of them in the limited field of view of the photo). Plus everything had to be shipped in and erected on-site in a country that is quite hostile to our presence there. Comparing this soccer-field with a HS soccer-field in one's home-town is way past reasonable. And laying it all at Obama's feet is wrong, since he needs Congress to cooperate before closing the Gitmo prison.
The first link said the prisoners missed their small patch of dirt that had been used to play soccer. Did they really need a 28,000 square foot facility? Is the expense of $744,000 reasonable?
The first link said the prisoners missed their small patch of dirt that had been used to play soccer. Did they really need a 28,000 square foot facility? Is the expense of $744,000 reasonable?Ask the Pentagon, and the intelligence agencies that are handling these prisoners. Apparently, they thought so, and we here on PF are not on the "need to know" list.
Office_Shredder
Mar2-12, 02:28 PM
The first link said the prisoners missed their small patch of dirt that had been used to play soccer. Did they really need a 28,000 square foot facility? Is the expense of $744,000 reasonable?
You say 28,000 square feet as if they're living in the lap of luxury. Let's take a look at the playing field
http://www.kckrs.com/the-us-government-is-building-a-744000-soccer-field-for-guantanamo-bay-detainees/
28,000 square feet is half the area of a football field. It's not big, it's actually quite small
You say 28,000 square feet as if they're living in the lap of luxury. Let's take a look at the playing field
http://www.kckrs.com/the-us-government-is-building-a-744000-soccer-field-for-guantanamo-bay-detainees/
28,000 square feet is half the area of a football field. It's not big, it's actually quite small
After viewing the photo - I'd describe it as prison-chic - certainly not the lap of luxury.:smile:
Do you honestly think an expense of $744,000 (as a taxpayer) is reasonable or would you have preferred they found another way to let them play ball in an existing area - given the small area required?
Office_Shredder
Mar2-12, 02:45 PM
Do you honestly think an expense of $744,000 (as a taxpayer) is reasonable or would you have preferred they found another way to let them play ball in an existing area - given the small area required?
Obviously I would have preferred them to have another solution which is equal in every way except it costs less, but that seems like a bit of a strawman. Was there such an available space? Is the cost of the field offset by a decreased need for security/decreased medical costs/increased safety? It's impossible for us to know because we simply don't have enough information
Obviously I would have preferred them to have another solution which is equal in every way except it costs less, but that seems like a bit of a strawman. Was there such an available space? Is the cost of the field offset by a decreased need for security/decreased medical costs/increased safety? It's impossible for us to know because we simply don't have enough information
The original story discussed a small patch of dirt - I don't know if it's still available or not?
Either way - the longer this issue is discussed - the campaign will be reminded that Gitmo is still open and the prior campaign promise is unfullfilled.
HowardVAgnew
Mar2-12, 03:00 PM
I can't vote for Obama for two big reasons: His anti-church/state-separation campaign by way of supporting faith-based initiatives where certain religious institutions are funded with tax dollars, and his running mate's support of a federal mandate to ban majority religion-disapproved marriages.
That said ... yeah, the extreme divisiveness and refusal to cooperate especially on the right means it takes an extremely yielding diplomat to get anything accomplished at all. I like Ron Paul especially for his rationality on foreign affairs (but his economic doctrine is a religion whose reality has been disproven many times over), but -- much as I would like to challenge him on his economic doctrine -- if I had a chance to interview him but could only address one topic, it would be how he could expect to enact any of his proposals with such a deadlocked Congress (especially with his own party where they differ so vastly with his ideals).
I think a lot of people over-estimate a president's power to get things done. Even when Democrats had a majority in both the House and Senate, Republicans effectively killed almost all legislative efforts through filibustering ... the president has no power to overcome the willful minority preventing bills from coming up for a vote in Congress. The President can propose legislation, but cannot enact legislation on his (/her if we ever get a female president) own without it passing through the mine field of minority-party filibustering and other dirty obstructive tricks in Congress.
I would certainly love to hold Newt's feet to the fire for a lot of the hypocritical flip-flops, but if I could interview him and somehow force him to answer just one question, it would probably be why he railed so loudly against Democrats for filibustering when he was in Congress and calling it dirty tricks, yet I have not heard one word of complaint from him on his own party when they were voted out of a majority by the American people yet hold the nation hostage by filibustering necessary legislation and budget approvals to keep the country running.
I can't vote for Obama for two big reasons: His anti-church/state-separation campaign by way of supporting faith-based initiatives where certain religious institutions are funded with tax dollars, and his running mate's support of a federal mandate to ban majority religion-disapproved marriages.
Care to support and clarify a bit?
...Ron Paul especially for his rationality on foreign affairs (but his economic doctrine is a religion whose reality has been disproven many times over), ...
I'd say the idea of borrowing $1.3T a year for out of control entitlement spending is the dis-proven religion.
(Over in the RP thread, perhaps you could briefly mention an aspect of Paul's economic position that has been disproved many times)
Gokul43201
Mar2-12, 05:30 PM
Do you honestly think an expense of $744,000 (as a taxpayer) is reasonable or would you have preferred they found another way [...]?I think it's probably not reasonable. I think it would be a lot cheaper if they shut down Gitmo and held these people locally.
<\glib>
The original story discussed a small patch of dirt - I don't know if it's still available or not?
Either way - the longer this issue is discussed - the campaign will be reminded that Gitmo is still open and the prior campaign promise is unfullfilled.
The latter is the real problem. 171 detainees, of which 5 have actually been convicted of anything. In fact, about half have been cleared for release, but can't currently be released to their home country and we don't want them released in the US (doesn't matter if they were innocent - just being suspects carries too strong a taint for most people).
Given that we're detaining innocent people (in addition to the 5 guilty people), I don't think it's too much to ask that they at least be detained in humane conditions.
The latter is the real problem. 171 detainees, of which 5 have actually been convicted of anything. In fact, about half have been cleared for release, but can't currently be released to their home country and we don't want them released in the US (doesn't matter if they were innocent - just being suspects carries too strong a taint for most people).
Given that we're detaining innocent people (in addition to the 5 guilty people), I don't think it's too much to ask that they at least be detained in humane conditions.
I don't think we're trying hard enough to give them back and there's NO logical reason to release them inside the US.
russ_watters
Mar3-12, 11:12 AM
...and we don't want them released in the US (doesn't matter if they were innocent - just being suspects carries too strong a taint for most people). Er, well, that and they aren't citizens nor legal immigrants. Given that we're detaining innocent people (in addition to the 5 guilty people), I don't think it's too much to ask that they at least be detained in humane conditions. Guilty or innocent of what*? If we're talking about people who were merely foreign fighters that were "innocent" of terrorism or war crimes charges, they are still foreign fighters and shouldn't just be released - much less released into the US.
*It is a logical fallacy to label anyone who is not convicted "innocent" in this context.
HowardVAgnew
Mar3-12, 11:31 AM
Care to support and clarify a bit?
It should not be news to anyone who has followed Obama and Biden since the campaign days:
Faith Based Initiatives, a carryover from the Bush era, seeks to "theocratize" social services by replacing, say, government-run non-religious homeless shelters with church-run mission shelters funded by taxpayers. It replaces a genuine social safety network with subsidized religious organizations ... I lived in a mission shelter for a few months and while I was grateful for a shower and a bed to sleep on, I was effectively barred from getting work by rules which required attendance of 2-hour religious services three times per day and was required to work in exchange for the room and board, bundling magazines for recycling. While that seems fair, consider the shelter, being religious, pays no taxes, the operators of the shelter had no other source of funds yet were able to maintain expensive clothes and a late-model expensive car from the money they personally pocketted from a combination of donations to the shelter and the recycling operation they ran with essentially free labor. I had been promised that I did not actually need to be Christian myself, but I was very loudly and verbally chastized when I answered a question yelled loudly at me whether I am Christian.
As for Biden: He voted to support the "Defense of Marriage Act" in 1996, and several times throughout the presidential campaign of 2008 said he would support a federal-level ban on gay marriage.
Do you need more clarification?
HowardVAgnew
Mar3-12, 11:45 AM
I'd say the idea of borrowing $1.3T a year for out of control entitlement spending is the dis-proven religion.
(Over in the RP thread, perhaps you could briefly mention an aspect of Paul's economic position that has been disproved many times)
Spending on social safety network programs is at among its lowest in decades, and the results are devastating. The Lasseiz-faire economic doctrine (the notion that everyone is better off if the market is free of taxes and regulation; by some interpretations by also prohibiting organized labor and not providing any social safety network and nothing owned by 'the public') has been tried many times. Child labor laws, ending company stores, breaking up monopolies like Standard Oil and AT&T, raising and implementing taxes, Roosevelt's New Deal and Kennedy's Medicare and Medicaid all chipped away at the "anything for profit is allowed" lasseiz-faire doctrine pushed by conservatives like Ron Paul. Another popular name for it is "trickle-down" economic theory ... under Reagan and W. Bush, taxes were cut and promised to equate to more jobs and more tax revenue because businesses would have more money to hire people and thus would hire more people and magically create new tax revenue at the same time, but both times (and previous attempts in previous administrations) it failed. Further, despite raising taxes several times, the economy actually improved under Clinton; if the lasseiz-faire/trickle down theory were correct, that should be impossible. The reality of economics is whatever is allowed to generate wealth will be exploited and in the end, the highest profit for the lowest expense will defeat any differing way (such as responsibility in avoiding negative externalities) without some sort of watch dog, and the overall well-being of a society is not so much weather it has a few very wealthy people, but whether the needs of the many are met.
It should not be news to anyone who has followed Obama and Biden since the campaign days:
Faith Based Initiatives, a carryover from the Bush era, seeks to "theocratize" social services by replacing, say, government-run non-religious homeless shelters with church-run mission shelters funded by taxpayers. It replaces a genuine social safety network with subsidized religious organizations ... I lived in a mission shelter for a few months and while I was grateful for a shower and a bed to sleep on, I was effectively barred from getting work by rules which required attendance of 2-hour religious services three times per day and was required to work in exchange for the room and board, bundling magazines for recycling. While that seems fair, consider the shelter, being religious, pays no taxes, the operators of the shelter had no other source of funds yet were able to maintain expensive clothes and a late-model expensive car from the money they personally pocketted from a combination of donations to the shelter and the recycling operation they ran with essentially free labor. I had been promised that I did not actually need to be Christian myself, but I was very loudly and verbally chastized when I answered a question yelled loudly at me whether I am Christian.
As for Biden: He voted to support the "Defense of Marriage Act" in 1996, and several times throughout the presidential campaign of 2008 said he would support a federal-level ban on gay marriage.
Do you need more clarification?
Your clarification is fine - now - can you support?
Spending on social safety network programs is at among its lowest in decades, and the results are devastating. The Lasseiz-faire economic doctrine (the notion that everyone is better off if the market is free of taxes and regulation; by some interpretations by also prohibiting organized labor and not providing any social safety network and nothing owned by 'the public') has been tried many times. Child labor laws, ending company stores, breaking up monopolies like Standard Oil and AT&T, raising and implementing taxes, Roosevelt's New Deal and Kennedy's Medicare and Medicaid all chipped away at the "anything for profit is allowed" lasseiz-faire doctrine pushed by conservatives like Ron Paul. Another popular name for it is "trickle-down" economic theory ... under Reagan and W. Bush, taxes were cut and promised to equate to more jobs and more tax revenue because businesses would have more money to hire people and thus would hire more people and magically create new tax revenue at the same time, but both times (and previous attempts in previous administrations) it failed. Further, despite raising taxes several times, the economy actually improved under Clinton; if the lasseiz-faire/trickle down theory were correct, that should be impossible. The reality of economics is whatever is allowed to generate wealth will be exploited and in the end, the highest profit for the lowest expense will defeat any differing way (such as responsibility in avoiding negative externalities) without some sort of watch dog, and the overall well-being of a society is not so much weather it has a few very wealthy people, but whether the needs of the many are met.
Please support - my bold.
DrClapeyron
Mar3-12, 01:50 PM
I would vote for Obama if it weren't for a coworker's constant political talk. Is it me or do people who claim to be apolitical bring up politics more than anyone else? That and Obama never made the bank executives take a drug test when he gave them their welfare checks.
I would vote for Obama if it weren't for a coworker's constant political talk. Is it me or do people who claim to be apolitical bring up politics more than anyone else? That and Obama never made the bank executives take a drug test when he gave them their welfare checks.
It seems that every business owner (over the past 2-3 years) I talk with wants to discuss Obamacare and politics in general. Further, my industry is (currently) absolutely obsessed with politics.
Gokul43201
Mar3-12, 04:05 PM
Spending on social safety network programs is at among its lowest in decades, and the results are devastating. ...
Please support - my bold.
From what I've seen, welfare spending has been roughly flat (say a 5-10 yr moving average) since the Nixon/Ford era, and tracks well with unemployment rate (Fig 2). So spending spikes during recessions and drops during better times. And this has happened through Dem and Rep administrations as well as Dem and Rep Congresses. If Fig 1 is close to correct for 2011 spending (it may not be), welfare spending is near a local maximum, not terribly unusual, given the depth of the recent recession and financial crisis.
Fig 1: Federal welfare spending as a fraction of GDP (numbers beyond 2010 are projections)
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/usgs_line.php?title=Welfare&year=1975_2017&sname=US&units=p&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&col=c&spending0=4.06_4.50_3.80_3.22_2.96_3.61_3.09_3.88_ 4.12_3.29_3.52_3.13_3.07_2.98_2.97_3.01_3.49_3.99_ 4.02_3.79_3.79_3.57_3.37_3.11_2.99_2.97_3.10_3.62_ 3.78_3.46_3.25_3.10_3.02_3.48_4.47_5.41_4.98_4.35_ 3.78_3.46_3.34_3.30_2.58&legend=&source=i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_i_a_i_a_a_a_a_a_a_e_g_g_g_g_g_g_g
Fig 2: US unemployment rate
http://www.buoyanteconomies.com/Impact2.gif
I think welfare spending in constant dollars, per head (not pct GDP), tells me more of the picture.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/usgs_line.php?title=Welfare&year=1960_2011&sname=US&units=d&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&col=c&spending0=90_95_207_197_193_174_160_156_173_179_20 5_312_361_328_352_513_589_523_465_446_554_578_577_ 645_536_618_525_513_510_515_538_618_727_742_741_73 2_726_718_704_698_711_737_871_917_864_854_826_820_ 975_1236_1465_1335&legend=&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_ab
Welfare spending per person is at an all time high, at the federal level double what it was back in 2000. I agree spending does tend to spike with recessions ('79-80, '90-91, '01, and '08), though nothing like now, even though unemployment in '80 was just as bad/worse.
State
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/usgs_line.php?title=State%20Welfare%20Spending&year=1960_2011&sname=US&units=d&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&col=c&spending0=150_182_163_164_150_149_125_140_141_151_ 185_256_265_275_262_364_440_377_326_289_328_364_36 8_398_342_349_348_358_353_376_383_432_423_437_398_ 427_386_370_325_325_332_354_438_475_435_380_368_36 0_383_483_691_634&legend=&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_a_a_a_i_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_g
Gokul43201
Mar3-12, 06:41 PM
I think welfare spending in constant dollars, per head (not pct GDP), tells me more of the picture.I guess the difference is because GDP has generally been growing much faster than the population. I think both figures are useful to look at. The spending vs GDP plot tells you something about government frugality (or lack thereof) in the context of welfare spending, while the per capita plot tells you about the benefits to recipients. So it's possible for the government to actually spend less (over time) as a fraction of GDP, and still have more money available for individuals to make the best of bad times. That sounds to me like the way to go, at least for the next few years.
I have to wonder if someone forgot to brief the President? On March 1, 2012 President Obama assured union supporters:
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/01/obama-ill-buy-a-chevy-volt-after-my-presidency-ends/
"Obama: I’ll Buy A Chevy Volt After My Presidency Ends"
But, over the weekend there was a different type of announcement:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/03/business/gm-suspends-production-of-chevrolet-volt.html?_r=1
"General Motors said on Friday that it planned to halt production of the Chevrolet Volt for five weeks beginning later this month because dealers had more than they needed.
The suspension, which will result in temporary layoffs for 1,300 workers at the Detroit plant that builds the Volt, is another troubling sign for the plug-in hybrid, whose sales fell short of G.M.’s targets in 2011. G.M. officials had already backed away from projections that they could sell 45,000 Volts in the United States this year, instead saying that production would match demand. "
Congressman Darrell Issa said this about the announcement.:
"“Even as gas prices continue to climb, President Obama’s attempt to manipulate the free market and force consumers into purchasing electric vehicles like the G.M. Volt has failed,” Representative Darrell Issa, Republican of California, said in a statement. “Now some 1,300 workers will pay the price for this misguided experiment.”"
IMO - certainly hope the plant is operational in November 2012.:smile:
I have to wonder if someone forgot to brief the President? On March 1, 2012 President Obama assured union supporters:
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/01/obama-ill-buy-a-chevy-volt-after-my-presidency-ends/
"Obama: I’ll Buy A Chevy Volt After My Presidency Ends"
But, over the weekend there was a different type of announcement:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/03/business/gm-suspends-production-of-chevrolet-volt.html?_r=1
"General Motors said on Friday that it planned to halt production of the Chevrolet Volt for five weeks beginning later this month because dealers had more than they needed.
The suspension, which will result in temporary layoffs for 1,300 workers at the Detroit plant that builds the Volt, is another troubling sign for the plug-in hybrid, whose sales fell short of G.M.’s targets in 2011. G.M. officials had already backed away from projections that they could sell 45,000 Volts in the United States this year, instead saying that production would match demand. "
Congressman Darrell Issa said this about the announcement.:
"“Even as gas prices continue to climb, President Obama’s attempt to manipulate the free market and force consumers into purchasing electric vehicles like the G.M. Volt has failed,” Representative Darrell Issa, Republican of California, said in a statement. “Now some 1,300 workers will pay the price for this misguided experiment.”"
IMO - certainly hope the plant is operational in November 2012.:smile:
Those seem to be extraordinarily dumb comments by both the President and Rep Issa. Obama in one sentence ties all of his political opposition to the Volt. And for Issa he needs to consider that there might well have been no plant jobs at all without that Volt plant, and not just a five week outage.
Those seem to be extraordinarily dumb comments by both the President and Rep Issa. Obama in one sentence ties all of his political opposition to the Volt. And for Issa he needs to consider that there might well have been no plant jobs at all without that Volt plant, and not just a five week outage.
Agreed. Not only that, how excactly is Obama "forcing" people to buy a Volt?
Office_Shredder
Mar6-12, 11:26 AM
I'm confused. What's wrong with Obama's comment exactly? He's going to buy a Volt, but apparently it isn't super popular so his credibility as a President is dinged?
skeptic2
Mar6-12, 11:54 AM
From what I've seen, welfare spending has been roughly flat (say a 5-10 yr moving average) since the Nixon/Ford era, and tracks well with unemployment rate (Fig 2). So spending spikes during recessions and drops during better times. And this has happened through Dem and Rep administrations as well as Dem and Rep Congresses. If Fig 1 is close to correct for 2011 spending (it may not be), welfare spending is near a local maximum, not terribly unusual, given the depth of the recent recession and financial crisis.
Fig 1: Federal welfare spending as a fraction of GDP (numbers beyond 2010 are projections)
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/usgs_line.php?title=Welfare&year=1975_2017&sname=US&units=p&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&col=c&spending0=4.06_4.50_3.80_3.22_2.96_3.61_3.09_3.88_ 4.12_3.29_3.52_3.13_3.07_2.98_2.97_3.01_3.49_3.99_ 4.02_3.79_3.79_3.57_3.37_3.11_2.99_2.97_3.10_3.62_ 3.78_3.46_3.25_3.10_3.02_3.48_4.47_5.41_4.98_4.35_ 3.78_3.46_3.34_3.30_2.58&legend=&source=i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_i_a_i_a_a_a_a_a_a_e_g_g_g_g_g_g_g
Fig 2: US unemployment rate
http://www.buoyanteconomies.com/Impact2.gif
Did unemployment really reach 11% under Reagan?
I'm confused. What's wrong with Obama's comment exactly? He's going to buy a Volt, but apparently it isn't super popular so his credibility as a President is dinged?
The President has (IMO) funded the Volt with taxpayer funds - including the GM bailout and tax credits for EV's. I think a few stimulus dollars were also spent developing charging stations - not certain? The failure (to meet sales expectations) of the $41,000 EV that travels 25 (?) miles on a charge - absolutely "dings" him.
Office_Shredder
Mar6-12, 12:19 PM
Did unemployment really reach 11% under Reagan?
Yes.
I'm confused. What's wrong with Obama's comment exactly? He's going to buy a Volt, but apparently it isn't super popular so his credibility as a President is dinged?I meant the other way around: it won't impact Obama it will impact the car sales (IMO). Assuming for the moment the country is 50:50 split on liking/disliking Obama, I posit that the like-half won't be moved at all on decision to buy the car. Not true for the dislike-half. The Chevy Volt is early yet and still in the definition stage of American iconography, unlike (say) an F150 or a Prius. That is, now that he's said he'll buy the car, it's fair game to be called the ObamaCar just like the AHCA is ObamaCare. If he was an immensely popular president, a Reagan, an FDR, maybe this would be to the good for Chevy. As it is, I imagine Chevy sales managers are pulling their hair out.
I guess that most politicians, who are as a lot somewhat arrogant, nonetheless get this kind of thing: not to hang their political fortunes around the neck of some nascent private enterprise or product. That Obama doesn't is yet another comment on the man's immense self regard that has been so evident in his me-myself-and-I laden speeches.
Office_Shredder
Mar6-12, 03:58 PM
OK I buy that mheslep
Char. Limit
Mar6-12, 04:10 PM
IMO - certainly hope the plant is operational in November 2012.:smile:
Actually, he said after his presidency ends. So he's got over 4 years.
EDIT: As to why I think Obama will be re-elected:
1. I haven't seen a really strong Republican contender actually run the front. Maybe if Jeb Bush joined, but it's a bit late for that.
2. He's an incumbent, and historically, incumbents have a good chance of re-election.
2. He's an incumbent, and historically, incumbents have a good chance of re-election.
Except when unemployment stays high.
Char. Limit
Mar6-12, 04:50 PM
Except when unemployment stays high.
Seems to be going down to me. Do you have a different source saying it's not?
Except when unemployment stays high.Wrong. The fact that employment has been rising steadily was on tv earlier today.
The number of people seeking unemployment benefits in the U.S. fell to the lowest point in almost four years last week, the latest signal that the job market is steadily improving.
Weekly applications for unemployment benefits dropped 13,000 to a seasonally adjusted 348,000, the Labor Department said Thursday. It was the fourth drop in five weeks and the fewest number of claims since March 2008 — six months before Lehman Brothers collapsed and only a few months into the Great Recession.
The four-week average, which smooths out fluctuations in the weekly data, fell for the fifth straight week to 365,250. The average has fallen nearly 13 percent in the past year.
The consistent decline indicates that companies are laying off fewer workers, and hiring is likely picking up further. When applications drop below 375,000, it usually signals that hiring is strong enough to lower the unemployment rate.
Jeremy Lawson, a senior economist at BNP Paribas, said the report points to solid hiring this month, similar to the average net gain of about 200,000 in the past three months.
http://news.yahoo.com/us-unemployment-applications-drop-4-low-133936693.html
The point that employment is now going up does not contradict the separate point that employment is at a historic low (last time was 1983 (http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=country:US&fdim_y=seasonality:S&dl=en&hl=en&q=unemployment)), and that employment at these levels factors into elections.
The Republicans have been steadfast in stalling public-works projects (you know, the bridges, highways, etc) that could employ workers on short notice that might possibly help Obama's chances. That will not go unnoticed when the primary process is done, and the general election enters its early stages. The Democrats are not stupid enough to ignore the advantages that could accrue from decrying and detailing the stalling and obstructionism used in Congress to game the system using arcane rules.
Unemployment is still 'high' compared to long term averages, right? Just because it's going down doesn't mean he's safe from the historical perspective. I was addressing CharLimit's statement about incumbency being a good bet, but there's more to it than just being the man with the stuck currently.
Here's something that ought to keep President Obama up at night: No president since FDR has won re-election with unemployment over 7.2%.
http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/05/no-president-since-fdr-has-won-re-election-with-unemployment-over-7-2-is-president-obama-doomed/
The point that employment is now going up does not contradict the separate point that employment is at a historic low (last time was 1983 (http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=country:US&fdim_y=seasonality:S&dl=en&hl=en&q=unemployment)), and that employment at these levels factors into elections.IMO, Obama might be awesome, but he's not magic.
The Republicans have been steadfast in stalling public-works projects (you know, the bridges, highways, etc) that could employ workers on short notice that might possibly help Obama's chances. That will not go unnoticed when the primary process is done, and the general election enters its early stages. The Democrats are not stupid enough to ignore the advantages that could accrue from decrying and detailing the stalling and obstructionism used in Congress to game the system using arcane rules.
Like the Keystone pipeline?
Do you honestly believe that 'keeping unemployement high' is why these projects are being turned down? That's quite an indictment.
Jimmy Snyder
Mar6-12, 05:25 PM
Currently Obama is polling well against each of the Republican candidates and against generic Republican too. If the employment picture improves from here, it could be a problem for Republicans.
Anyone see Obama's speech today? He interrupted my tv show. :devil:
Gokul43201
Mar6-12, 06:39 PM
Gallup did a poll last week (with a fairly large sample size - don't recall the actual number), and estimated a seasonally adjusted Feb unemployment number of 8.6%, which is an increase from the 8.3% in Jan. And last I checked, Intrade was going at 8.4% or 8.5%. BLS numbers for Feb should be here soon - we'll see how it goes. The Jan dip was encouraging, but historically expected because of its Jan-ness.
The way I see it, if the unemp numbers are still in the 8's come November, Obama is toast. If it's at 7 or better, the Republicans are toast. If unemployment is in between, then it comes to gas prices. If gas is close to $5, Obama will need unemployment to be in the 6's or he'll have a hard time getting re-elected.
Basically, the outcome of election will likely come down to a bunch of factors that are only weakly related to who the people in the race are.
The Republicans have been steadfast in stalling public-works projects (you know, the bridges, highways, etc) that could employ workers on short notice that might possibly help Obama's chances. That will not go unnoticed when the primary process is done, and the general election enters its early stages. The Democrats are not stupid enough to ignore the advantages that could accrue from decrying and detailing the stalling and obstructionism used in Congress to game the system using arcane rules.
Can you name any of these projects (that Republicans are stalling)?
Gallup did a poll last week (with a fairly large sample size - don't recall the actual number), and estimated a seasonally adjusted Feb unemployment number of 8.6%, which is an increase from the 8.3% in Jan. And last I checked, Intrade was going at 8.4% or 8.5%. BLS numbers for Feb should be here soon - we'll see how it goes. The Jan dip was encouraging, but historically expected because of its Jan-ness.
The way I see it, if the unemp numbers are still in the 8's come November, Obama is toast. If it's at 7 or better, the Republicans are toast. If unemployment is in between, then it comes to gas prices. If gas is close to $5, Obama will need unemployment to be in the 6's or he'll have a hard time getting re-elected.
Basically, the outcome of election will likely come down to a bunch of factors that are only weakly related to who the people in the race are.Agreed.
Can you name any of these projects (that Republicans are stalling)?Miss this?
http://thehill.com/video/administration/180469-obama-a-bridge-between-ohio-and-kentucky-
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/214161-republicans-blocking-highway-bill-for-political-reasons-says-reid-
Unemployment is still 'high' compared to long term averages, right? Just because it's going down doesn't mean he's safe from the historical perspective. I was addressing CharLimit's statement about incumbency being a good bet, but there's more to it than just being the man with the stuck currently.
http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/05/no-president-since-fdr-has-won-re-election-with-unemployment-over-7-2-is-president-obama-doomed/
There have been only 4 presidents who could have beeen reelected (Johnson, Ford, Carter, and Bush #1) but were not. Johnson chose not to run for relection, and both Carter and Bush faced strong and charismatic opposition. This leaves only Ford. The statistic is meaningless.
Jimmy Snyder
Mar7-12, 08:37 AM
There have been only 4 presidents who could have beeen reelected (Johnson, Ford, Carter, and Bush #1) but were not. Johnson chose not to run for relection, and both Carter and Bush faced strong and charismatic opposition. This leaves only Ford. The statistic is meaningless.
There was no way that Ford could have been reelected.
Miss this?
http://thehill.com/video/administration/180469-obama-a-bridge-between-ohio-and-kentucky-
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/214161-republicans-blocking-highway-bill-for-political-reasons-says-reid-
Nice try - some additional info on the Brent Spence Bridge.
http://www.brentspencebridgecorridor.com/
Voters thought it was going to be a beneficiary of the Stimulus Bill. From the campaign of Josh Mandel - regarding comments by Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH).
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2011/sep/30/josh-mandel/josh-mandel-says-sherrod-brown-promised-ohio-river/
"Don’t buy their promises.
One particular bridge spanning the Ohio River comes with a claim of a broken promise that Josh Mandel’s camp is pressing as an election issue.
"Sherrod Brown promised that the first stimulus bill would fund the Brent Spence Bridge … and now he is embarrassed to stand there with the president after both of them broke their promise," Mandel’s campaign said in a news release.
Mandel, currently Ohio’s treasurer, is a Republican who wants to oust Brown, a Democrat, from his U.S. Senate seat in the 2012 election. The news release, distributed Sept. 28,2011, by Mandel campaign spokesman Joe Aquilino, criticized Brown on several fronts.
The reference to the Brent Spence Bridge, which carries traffic for Interstates 71 and 75 across the Ohio River, refers both the federal stimulus package Congress approved two years ago and to a recent visit President Barack Obama made to promote a second stimulus bill. Brown was not present, saying he had congressional business to attend to in Washington.
Before Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, better known simply as the stimulus act, lawmakers across the country were discussing whether the federal government should funnel billions of dollars into bridge, road and sewer projects. Brown believed so, saying that by funding "shovel-ready projects," the government could begin filling the country’s extensive infrastructure needs while putting Americans back to work.
Among Browns comments then was one that referred to the Brent Spence Bridge. Transportation planners say the 48-year-old bridge needs to be replaced. It is cramped, has poor visibility and carries more than twice the 80,000 vehicles a day it was designed for, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer. But coming up with the estimated $2.4 billion is a problem that has has dogged local and state governments in Ohio and Kentucky.
Enter Brown. In an appearance on MSNBC’s "Morning Joe" program on Jan. 28, 2009, Brown said that "we do need to do direct spending on job creation. That means shovel-ready projects for water and sewer systems, whether it's the Brent Spence Bridge in Cincinnati that will put a lot of people to work and help with economic development, or whether it's a water and sewer system in Defiance, Ohio or in Nashville. It's pretty clear to me that we need direct spending on projects that are ready to go, particularly, green projects that put people to work immediately but also help longer term and economic development.""
further down in the article
"Facing questions about the bridge, a White House spokesman stressed the same day as Obama’s speech that the Brent Spence project is merely "an example" of the kind of project that could get funding in Obama’s new $447 billion stimulus proposal.
Many details remain to be worked out, including how a particular component, a $10 billion infrastructure bank, would work. It is not clear whether this -- or a bigger infrastructure bank that Brown proposes -- could be used toward the eventual Brent Spence project.
So let’s stipulate: Brown said in 2009 that the Brent Spence Bridge was the kind of project the first stimulus could pay for, using it as an example of a shovel-ready project. He clearly suggested that the bridge could be built with stimulus money.
It didn’t happen. And the project was not shovel-ready."
Nice try - some additional info on the Brent Spence Bridge.
http://www.brentspencebridgecorridor.com/
Voters thought it was going to be a beneficiary of the Stimulus Bill. From the campaign of Josh Mandel - regarding comments by Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH).
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2011/sep/30/josh-mandel/josh-mandel-says-sherrod-brown-promised-ohio-river/
"Don’t buy their promises.
One particular bridge spanning the Ohio River comes with a claim of a broken promise that Josh Mandel’s camp is pressing as an election issue.
"Sherrod Brown promised that the first stimulus bill would fund the Brent Spence Bridge … and now he is embarrassed to stand there with the president after both of them broke their promise," Mandel’s campaign said in a news release.
Mandel, currently Ohio’s treasurer, is a Republican who wants to oust Brown, a Democrat, from his U.S. Senate seat in the 2012 election. The news release, distributed Sept. 28,2011, by Mandel campaign spokesman Joe Aquilino, criticized Brown on several fronts.
The reference to the Brent Spence Bridge, which carries traffic for Interstates 71 and 75 across the Ohio River, refers both the federal stimulus package Congress approved two years ago and to a recent visit President Barack Obama made to promote a second stimulus bill. Brown was not present, saying he had congressional business to attend to in Washington.
Before Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, better known simply as the stimulus act, lawmakers across the country were discussing whether the federal government should funnel billions of dollars into bridge, road and sewer projects. Brown believed so, saying that by funding "shovel-ready projects," the government could begin filling the country’s extensive infrastructure needs while putting Americans back to work.
Among Browns comments then was one that referred to the Brent Spence Bridge. Transportation planners say the 48-year-old bridge needs to be replaced. It is cramped, has poor visibility and carries more than twice the 80,000 vehicles a day it was designed for, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer. But coming up with the estimated $2.4 billion is a problem that has has dogged local and state governments in Ohio and Kentucky.
Enter Brown. In an appearance on MSNBC’s "Morning Joe" program on Jan. 28, 2009, Brown said that "we do need to do direct spending on job creation. That means shovel-ready projects for water and sewer systems, whether it's the Brent Spence Bridge in Cincinnati that will put a lot of people to work and help with economic development, or whether it's a water and sewer system in Defiance, Ohio or in Nashville. It's pretty clear to me that we need direct spending on projects that are ready to go, particularly, green projects that put people to work immediately but also help longer term and economic development.""
further down in the article
"Facing questions about the bridge, a White House spokesman stressed the same day as Obama’s speech that the Brent Spence project is merely "an example" of the kind of project that could get funding in Obama’s new $447 billion stimulus proposal.
Many details remain to be worked out, including how a particular component, a $10 billion infrastructure bank, would work. It is not clear whether this -- or a bigger infrastructure bank that Brown proposes -- could be used toward the eventual Brent Spence project.
So let’s stipulate: Brown said in 2009 that the Brent Spence Bridge was the kind of project the first stimulus could pay for, using it as an example of a shovel-ready project. He clearly suggested that the bridge could be built with stimulus money.
It didn’t happen. And the project was not shovel-ready."
You forgot the rest of the article from Politifact (my bold).
Does this make it a broken promise? PolitiFact Ohio discussed this with the National Republican Senatorial Committee, whose spokesman, Jahan Wilcox, says that Brown certainly made a strong suggestion that a casual listener might equate to a promise.
We agree. That’s an element of truth that that factors into why we are not ruling Mandel’s claim about a broken promise to be entirely False.
But Mandel used a strong word: promise. He did not say Brown broke his suggestion. He said Brown broke a promise. Brown never made a promise, which is a critical difference. It is why Mandel’s claim gets a rating of Mostly False.
You forgot the rest of the article from Politifact (my bold).
Did the Republicans block the bridge - did Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) promise the bridge - would the bridge have been included in Stimulus II? Like I said - nice try - to blame Republicans for blocking this project.
In the news - IMO - you couldn't make this stuff up if you tried.:rofl:
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/obama-proposes-raising-volt-tax-credit-10000/415346
"Obama promotes proposed $10,000 Volt tax credit"
"According to the White House, Obama will proposes that the tax credit is "available at the point-of-sale by making it transferable to the dealer or financier, allowing consumers to benefit when they purchase a vehicle rather than when they file their taxes."
The president first proposed an update to the tax credit in February.
Last week, General Motors announced plans to temporarily suspend production of the Volt and the layoffs of 1300 employees due to sluggish sales.
The MSRP for a Chevy Volt is estimated at $39,145. But even with a $10,000 tax credit, you could own a Chevy Impala full size car for $25,760, $4000 cheaper than the subsidized Volt."
my bold
This isn't a tax credit - it's a rebate paid at the point of sale by the Government?
In the news - IMO - you couldn't make this stuff up if you tried.:rofl:
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/obama-proposes-raising-volt-tax-credit-10000/415346
"Obama promotes proposed $10,000 Volt tax credit"
"According to the White House, Obama will proposes that the tax credit is "available at the point-of-sale by making it transferable to the dealer or financier, allowing consumers to benefit when they purchase a vehicle rather than when they file their taxes."
The president first proposed an update to the tax credit in February.
Last week, General Motors announced plans to temporarily suspend production of the Volt and the layoffs of 1300 employees due to sluggish sales.
The MSRP for a Chevy Volt is estimated at $39,145. But even with a $10,000 tax credit, you could own a Chevy Impala full size car for $25,760, $4000 cheaper than the subsidized Volt."
my bold
This isn't a tax credit - it's a rebate paid at the point of sale by the Government?Apparently you can make it up. I can't believe you fell for this WhoWee, you should know to double check sources.
Obama urges shift to new energy technologies
By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press – 3 hours ago
President Barack Obama on Wednesday made his most urgent appeal yet for the U.S. to wean itself from oil, calling it a "fuel of the past" and demanding that the country broaden its approach to energy.
Mindful of the political dangers of high gas prices, he said shrinking demand for oil must drive the solution.
Obama, promoting his energy policies in a politically prominent state that will host the Democratic National Convention, called on Congress to provide $1 billion in grants to local communities to encourage greater use of fuel-efficient technologies. The administration's goal is to make electric vehicles as affordable and convenient as gasoline-powered vehicles by 2020.
The president also proposed greater tax incentives to encourage the purchase and use of more fuel-efficient vehicles.
Obama's $1 billion incentive for local communities is designed to promote use of advanced technologies such as more charging stations for electric vehicles. Obama has called for 1 million plug-in vehicles on American roads by 2015.
Obama also was calling for increasing a tax incentive to $10,000 from $7,500 for people who purchase certain advanced vehicles.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hlnm93loFhEFqHFBl9GopmsSyZlQ?docId=ffa64da68 d074eacb78b68005c9a400d
I'm missing how the AP article contradicts the Washington Examiner article? Both state that Obama is calling for a raise of the tax incentive on EV's such as the Volt to $10K.
I'm missing how the AP article contradicts the Washington Examiner article? Both state that Obama is calling for a raise of the tax incentive on EV's such as the Volt to $10K.Because the article WhoWee posted, which is not mainstream, more or less skewed the truth to make it seem that Obama was wanting the government to pay people to specifically buy the Volt. That's absolutely false.
Starting with the false headline Obama promotes proposed $10,000 Volt tax credit It is not a "Volt" tax credit.
Then WhoWee stated it wasn't a tax credit, it was an instant rebate at point of sale, yet he furnished no proof of this and I find no proof of it.
Whowee knows better than to post such misinformation as contained in that article. He used to be so good at checking sources and being a great example of how people should vet the information before they post and if it's questionable to not post it.
Gokul43201
Mar7-12, 07:07 PM
No contradiction that I can tell. However, both the Examiner's headline and WhoWee's choice of quotes make it look like Obama is singling out the Chevy Volt for special treatment (noteworthy, if it were true), while in fact, the tax benefit applies for all high-efficiency vehicles, including natural-gas-powered commercial trucks.
Gokul43201
Mar7-12, 07:17 PM
Then WhoWee stated it wasn't a tax credit, it was an instant rebate at point of sale, yet he furnished no proof of this and I find no proof of it.I've seen that corroborated (I use that loosely, I can't be sure they're independent sources) by another source: http://wot.motortrend.com/obama-asks-congress-to-raise-tax-credit-on-cleaner-cars-include-commercial-trucks-177641.html
I've seen that corroborated (I use that loosely, I can't be sure they're independent sources) by another source: http://wot.motortrend.com/obama-asks-congress-to-raise-tax-credit-on-cleaner-cars-include-commercial-trucks-177641.htmlToday's article on CNN mentions nothing about it being an "instant rebate", just an increase of the current tax credit.
It will be interesting to see how it pans out.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/07/autos/alternative-fuel-cars/index.htm
Because the article WhoWee posted, which is not mainstream, more or less skewed the truth to make it seem that Obama was wanting the government to pay people to specifically buy the Volt. That's absolutely false.
Starting with the false headline It is not a "Volt" tax credit.The headline was incomplete, misleading perhaps, but not absolutely false. There are exactly 11 EV's currently for sale in the US that qualify the credit. (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/taxevb.shtml) Of these, only the Chevy Volt (~6000) and Nissan Leaf (~8000) (http://www.plugincars.com/chevy-volt-sales-nissan-leaf-november-2011-110656.html)have annual sales above one thousand units per year.
Then WhoWee stated it wasn't a tax credit, it was an instant rebate at point of sale, yet he furnished no proof of this and I find no proof of it. The Examiner reference Whowee quoted may not have been acceptable, but it is nonetheless correct according the WhiteHouse website:
The President is proposing to transform the existing $7,500 tax credit for electric vehicles into a rebate that will be available to all consumers immediately at the point of sale.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/other/fact-sheet-one-million-advanced-technology-vehicles.pdf
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/other/fact-sheet-one-million-advanced-technology-vehicles.pdf
That was proposed in 2008 and never happened.
The headline was incomplete, misleading perhaps, but not absolutely false. There are exactly 11 EV's currently for sale in the US that qualify the credit. (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/taxevb.shtml) Of these, only the Chevy Volt (~6000) and Nissan Leaf (~8000) (http://www.plugincars.com/chevy-volt-sales-nissan-leaf-november-2011-110656.html)have annual sales above one thousand units per year.This has absolutely nothing to do with sales volume.
The truth. Obama urges shift to new energy technologies
By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press – 3 hours ago
President Barack Obama on Wednesday made his most urgent appeal yet for the U.S. to wean itself from oil, calling it a "fuel of the past" and demanding that the country broaden its approach to energy.
Mindful of the political dangers of high gas prices, he said shrinking demand for oil must drive the solution.
Obama, promoting his energy policies in a politically prominent state that will host the Democratic National Convention, called on Congress to provide $1 billion in grants to local communities to encourage greater use of fuel-efficient technologies. The administration's goal is to make electric vehicles as affordable and convenient as gasoline-powered vehicles by 2020.
The president also proposed greater tax incentives to encourage the purchase and use of more fuel-efficient vehicles.
Obama's $1 billion incentive for local communities is designed to promote use of advanced technologies such as more charging stations for electric vehicles. Obama has called for 1 million plug-in vehicles on American roads by 2015.
Obama also was calling for increasing a tax incentive to $10,000 from $7,500 for people who purchase certain advanced vehicles.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hlnm93loFhEFqHFBl9GopmsSyZlQ?docId=ffa64da68 d074eacb78b68005c9a400d
http://www.gallup.com/poll/153161/Unemployment-February.aspx
Gallup is reporting an increase in unemployment and underemployment for last month.
Regardless of what the government reports, Gallup's unemployment and underemployment measures show a sharp deterioration in job market conditions since mid-January. This is consistent with a similar decline in Gallup's Job Creation Index to +13 in the second week of February, from +16 for January. It is also consistent with an economy that continues to struggle with modest growth, particularly as gas prices surge. Further, it suggests that it is premature to assume the condition of the economy will not remain a major issue for Americans both financially and politically in 2012.
Figures from Reuters today.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Employment grew solidly for a third straight month in February, a sign the economic recovery was broadening and in less need of further monetary stimulus from the Federal Reserve.
Employers added 227,000 jobs to their payrolls last month, the Labor Department said on Friday, while the unemployment rate held at a three-year low of 8.3 percent - even as more people returned to the labor force.
Economists polled by Reuters expected payrolls to increase 210,000 last month and the jobless rate to be unchanged.
It marked the first time since early 2011 that payrolls have grown by more than 200,000 for three months in a row - bolstering President Barack Obama's chances for re-election.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/february-jobs-gains-seen-strong-060614362.html
Figures from Reuters today.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/february-jobs-gains-seen-strong-060614362.htmlUnderstand roughly that many jobs need to be created for the employment rate to cover population growth (i.e. immigration) and just stand still. Remember that 2.6 million jobs were lost in 2008 (http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/09/news/economy/jobs_december/); substantially stronger growth will be required to gain them back.
Understand roughly that many jobs need to be created for the employment rate to cover population growth (i.e. immigration) and just stand still. Remember that 2.6 million jobs were lost in 2008 (http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/09/news/economy/jobs_december/); substantially stronger growth will be required to gain them back.We agree on this point. I personally don't think we can create enough jobs to accomodate the population growth. There are just too many people needing jobs now. IMO, high unemplyment is something we will have to accept for quite awhile. Companies have learned to do with fewer employees, especially at management levels, IMO.
Gokul43201
Mar9-12, 01:12 PM
Understand roughly that many jobs need to be created for the employment rate to cover population growth (i.e. immigration) and just stand still. We can quantify the "many", at least approximately. Pop growth rate is close to 1% (I think). How big is the labor force? Around 150M? So, to stand still, we need to add 1.5M jobs a year or about 125,000 a month. If we can add 200,000 a month consistently, that is definitely better than stand-still. At that rate, unemp should drop by about 0.6% a year or thereabouts, probably not fast enough to give Obama much cushion, come November. At 400,000 a month he'd be sitting pretty. But in the game of expectations management I suppose most anything is possible. Dropping into the 7's could be hailed as a big deal, if orchestrated cleverly.
Remember that 2.6 million jobs were lost in 2008 (http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/09/news/economy/jobs_december/); substantially stronger growth will be required to gain them back."...substantially stronger growth will be required to gain them back" as quickly.
We agree on this point. I personally don't think we can create enough jobs to accomodate the population growth. There are just too many people needing jobs now. IMO, high unemplyment is something we will have to accept for quite awhile. Companies have learned to do with less employees, especially at management levels, IMO.I don't see why not. In the Reagan years, '82-'89, 20 million US jobs were created, with a much smaller economy ($3T to $5.7T) than the US has now ($15T).
http://www.presidentreagan.info/jobs.cfm
Gokul43201
Mar9-12, 01:33 PM
I don't see why not. In the Reagan years, '82-'89, 20 million US jobs were created, with a much smaller economy ($3T to $5.7T) than the US has now ($15T).
http://www.presidentreagan.info/jobs.cfmRecovery from a run-of-the-mill recession tends to be historically much faster than recoveries from financial crises. Don't have the time to cite sources now, but if that statement doesn't sound reasonable to you, I can look for references later.
Recovery from a run-of-the-mill recession tends to be historically much faster than recoveries from financial crises. Don't have the time to cite sources now, but if that statement doesn't sound reasonable to you, I can look for references later.The '80 recession was bad. Unemployment over 10% (as you posted earlier), inflation was 9.4%. I generally agree that the recession of 2008 was(is?) the worst since the 30's, but not with the Obama excusing hyperbole that '08 destroyed the world and that everything else by comparison was run-of-the-mill.
With regards to financial panics, I can find six prior 1819, 1837, 1873 (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1800_1900USd_13s1lo011mcn__GDP_Per_ Capita), 1901, 1907, 1929, and now 2008 (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1900_2012USd_13s1lo011mcn__GDP_Per_ Capita). One can ~see the financial panics, but in most cases they seem momentary to me, except for '29 and now.
Pythagorean
Mar9-12, 05:46 PM
Not to mention the global economy has undergone rapid changes in the last 20 years, globalization has become stronger, communication across the globe faster.
I don't see why not. In the Reagan years, '82-'89, 20 million US jobs were created, with a much smaller economy ($3T to $5.7T) than the US has now ($15T).
http://www.presidentreagan.info/jobs.cfm
The high unemployment around '80-'81 was partially caused by anti-inflation measures, plus older factories were being closed in the rust belt as newer factories were being built in states with lower taxes/wages. Nationwide, unemployment was high, but unemployment wasn't evenly distributed.
Unemployment caused by government measures (or by the federal reserve hiking up interest rates) are more likely to be effected by government measures to lower unemployment.
But, even with more jobs being created overall in the 80's, true changes in the economic environment (manufacturing moving out of the rust belt states) were a permanent disaster for the rust belt, with unemployment mainly decreasing because younger people moved places where there were more jobs (Buffalo - population decreasing from 580,000 in 1950 to only 261,000 in 2010; Cleveland - population 914,000 in 1950 to 397,000 in 2010; etc).
High unemployment in 2008-2011 was caused by market forces that will be longer lasting. Some of those market forces are entirely domestic and seemingly should correct itself much faster than it has, but a big piece of that unemployment is do to jobs moving overseas and that part will definitely take longer to recover from (and may be permanent). And I don't think moving to China, India, etc, is nearly as attractive an option as merely moving to a new state.
Jimmy Snyder
Mar10-12, 11:17 AM
But, even with more jobs being created overall in the 80's, true changes in the economic environment (manufacturing moving out of the rust belt states) were a permanent disaster for the rust belt, with unemployment mainly decreasing because younger people moved places where there were more jobs (Buffalo - population decreasing from 580,000 in 1950 to only 261,000 in 2010; Cleveland - population 914,000 in 1950 to 397,000 in 2010; etc).
The numbers don't support your argument. I'm using wiki which has slightly different numbers from yours.
The population in Buffalo in 1950 was 358,000. So the decrease from 1950 to 1980 was 38% but the decrease from 1980 to 2010 was only 27%.
wiki Buffalo, NY (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo,_New_York)
The population in Cleveland in 1950 was 915,000 and in 1980 was 573,000. So the decrease from 1950 to 1980 was 37% but the decrease from 1980 to 2010 was only 31%.
wiki Cleveland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland)
In other words, the population decline in these cities was faster before Reagan than after for the time period that you chose. Perhaps using different time periods will support your argument, but these don't.
The numbers don't support your argument. I'm using wiki which has slightly different numbers from yours.
The population in Buffalo in 1950 was 358,000. So the decrease from 1950 to 1980 was 38% but the decrease from 1980 to 2010 was only 27%.
wiki Buffalo, NY (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo,_New_York)
The population in Cleveland in 1950 was 915,000 and in 1980 was 573,000. So the decrease from 1950 to 1980 was 37% but the decrease from 1980 to 2010 was only 31%.
wiki Cleveland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland)
In other words, the population decline in these cities was faster before Reagan than after for the time period that you chose. Perhaps using different time periods will support your argument, but these don't.
The point is that government policies can only have a limited impact on unemployment; not that Regan was ineffective. Government policies won't change the underlying problems in a community's economic environment. And, in this case, I used a declining population as the indicator that these communities had serious uncorrectable problems, since high unemployment could be due to either temporary problems, long term or permanent problems, or a combination of both.
Given your numbers (which are correct), one could argue that Reagan's policies lessened the impact of the Rust Belt's underlying problems, but he definitely couldn't eliminate them because those cities had/have problems that go beyond anything that government can control.
Likewise, given increases in productivity while unemployment remains high suggests the current unemployment problem is beyond the scope of things that government policies can correct on their own. High unemployment may be a long term problem that has to be corrected by changes in the market and in changes in the behavior of Americans - things that take longer to happen than just lowering tax rates and interest rates.
There is very little a president can do on his own, but with some cooperation from Congress, we could get thousands of infrastructure projects going, fixing up roads and bridges that are deteriorating before our eyes. Such projects don't just employ the steelworkers, earth-movers, pavers, etc at the job-sites. The money ripples out to cement kilns, gravel providers, asphalt plants, steel mills, and the businesses in communities where those businesses are located. Just think how Caterpillar would react if the demand for their heavy equipment doubled (or more) practically overnight.
Such spending would be a whole lot smarter and more effective than bailing out gamblers on Wall Street.
mheslep
Mar10-12, 03:13 PM
The high unemployment around '80-'81 was partially caused by anti-inflation measures, plus older factories were being closed in the rust belt as newer factories were being built in states with lower taxes/wages. Nationwide, unemployment was high, but unemployment wasn't evenly distributed.Agreed.
...High unemployment in 2008-2011 was caused by market forces that will be longer lasting. Some of those market forces are entirely domestic and seemingly should correct itself much faster than it has, but a big piece of that unemployment is do to jobs moving overseas and that part will definitely take longer to recover from (and may be permanent). And I don't think moving to China, India, etc, is nearly as attractive an option as merely moving to a new state.I agree that in the background competition from China has slowed US manufacturing growth, and continues to do so. China however was a small part of the couple million jobs that suddenly disappeared beginning in the fall of 2008. I don't think all those jobs suddenly went to China. The US suffered a financial panic from bad risks taken in the housing market that were suddenly exposed. Credit was cut off to many. With the housing bubbled made suddenly apparent, housing and commercial construction suddenly stopped.
Since the panic, I argue that the recovery has been anemic due to the impact of uncertainty on US investment. This uncertainty has come about from unprecedented deficit spending by the federal government on top of a 100% GDP debt, galloping regulation (http://www.economist.com/node/21547784), and unpredictable hiring costs due to the health care law and the whims of Sec. Sebelius.
OmCheeto
Mar11-12, 10:06 PM
We agree on this point. I personally don't think we can create enough jobs to accomodate the population growth. There are just too many people needing jobs now. IMO, high unemplyment is something we will have to accept for quite awhile. Companies have learned to do with fewer employees, especially at management levels, IMO.
:bugeye:
My boss called me seconds before I was to leave work on Friday. He gave me the go ahead to buy the machine I wanted, that will eliminate 30% of my staff.
I am, the 1%......
:cry:
Unless of course, I'm part of that 30%. I've been thinking a lot lately, and yesterday I ran my numbers through my spreadsheet, and they said my idea will work. Has anyone filed a patent lately? And where do I get a business license? Is anyone here at the forum running an S class corporation? I also need to know about liability insurance. Can multiple patents that build upon one after the other be filed at the same time, or do I have to file them sequentially? Can I go public with a 100 billion dollar IPO with just an idea? Can I employ 10 million people as an S class corporation? Does anyone know what my mini-rant has to do with Obama's candidacy?...
http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/2/16/129108479903934925.jpg
Ah ha! Cheezeburger.com!
Yes, I know. The graph is ancient news. But I wished for an L-shaped recovery, and now I've got it, and I've got everyone by the proverbial euphemistic metonymies. :devil:
CAC1001
Mar16-12, 09:45 PM
Recovery from a run-of-the-mill recession tends to be historically much faster than recoveries from financial crises. Don't have the time to cite sources now, but if that statement doesn't sound reasonable to you, I can look for references later.
Recoveries from financial crises can be quick as well, it depends on the financial crises. The 1929 stock market crash had a pretty fast recovery initially (an entire year went by before the depression started, which was due to a combination of bad policies), and the 1987 stock market crash was twice the size of the 1929 crash. The 2000 crash was even larger. But in all of these, the economy only experienced a minor recession. What hurt the economy really badly with this recent crisis was that it was a real-estate bubble, and real-estate crashes tend to be extremely hard blows to an economy.
I do wonder if part of the current economy's performance is due to this administration and uncertainty created by its policies such as the healthcare bill, the increased debt from the stimulus, increased regulations, and so forth. I also wonder if the administration is over-regulating aspects of the economy through the EPA. One thing I think that is a huge drag on the national economy, that the president unfortunately has little control over, is California. California's is the largest economy in the nation, but their government there is destroying it by regulating so much (LINK1 (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/14/opinion/la-oe-cox-malanga-california-business-20111114), LINK2 (http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/28/news/economy/California_companies/index.htm?iid=HP_LN&hpt=hp_t2)). Until California can fix itself (which will probably never happen anytime soon), the whole nation is going to be dragged by it.
There is very little a president can do on his own, but with some cooperation from Congress, we could get thousands of infrastructure projects going, fixing up roads and bridges that are deteriorating before our eyes. Such projects don't just employ the steelworkers, earth-movers, pavers, etc at the job-sites. The money ripples out to cement kilns, gravel providers, asphalt plants, steel mills, and the businesses in communities where those businesses are located. Just think how Caterpillar would react if the demand for their heavy equipment doubled (or more) practically overnight.
Such spending would be a whole lot smarter and more effective than bailing out gamblers on Wall Street.
Longer-term, this could be great for economic growth, but short-term, this will not create any economic growth because to finance it, the government either would have to tax the current economy and then re-inject the money back into it, or tax the future economy (take on debt), or do some combination of the two. So there's no net wealth creation. You also run into the major problems regarding the environment. 2012 is not the 1930s, when there was no EPA and if they decided they were going to build a road, well they just went ahead and built the road. Today, you decide to build a road, and you'll get the EPA and who-knows how many environmental organizations first demanding that every mile (or fraction of a mile) be assessed thoroughly to see what the environmental impact of the road will be. And if it is found that building said road will harm some obscure plant or bug or whatnot, the whole project could be scrapped.
Longer-term, this could be great for economic growth, but short-term, this will not create any economic growth because to finance it, the government either would have to tax the current economy and then re-inject the money back into it, or tax the future economy (take on debt), or do some combination of the two. So there's no net wealth creation. You also run into the major problems regarding the environment. 2012 is not the 1930s, when there was no EPA and if they decided they were going to build a road, well they just went ahead and built the road. Today, you decide to build a road, and you'll get the EPA and who-knows how many environmental organizations first demanding that every mile (or fraction of a mile) be assessed thoroughly to see what the environmental impact of the road will be. And if it is found that building said road will harm some obscure plant or bug or whatnot, the whole project could be scrapped.Nothing happens in a vacuum. If you put a few million people back to work with some short-term borrowing/stimulus, those are people who will be paying taxes instead of relying on unemployment. Once they are back on their feet, they will spend money in their own communities, employing even more people, who also will have taxable incomes. Main Street should have been bailed out instead of Wall Street, IMO, for just this reason.
Gokul43201
Mar16-12, 10:44 PM
Here's the paper I was talking about earlier where I'd read about recovery times from financial crises: http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/rogoff/files/Aftermath.pdf
On the other hand, I recently came across a paper that claims the current recession is essentially unrelated to the financial crisis of 2007. Again, I'll need some time to find it (and to read more than just the introduction and conclusions)
CAC1001
Mar16-12, 11:41 PM
Here's the paper I was talking about earlier where I'd read about recovery times from financial crises: http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/rogoff/files/Aftermath.pdf
Thanks, that looks very interesting.
On the other hand, I recently came across a paper that claims the current recession is essentially unrelated to the financial crisis of 2007. Again, I'll need some time to find it (and to read more than just the introduction and conclusions)
The crisis of 2007 or 2008? Because 2007 was the housing bubble bursting, 2008 was the financial system collapsing due to the housing bubble having burst.
CAC1001
Mar16-12, 11:44 PM
Nothing happens in a vacuum. If you put a few million people back to work with some short-term borrowing/stimulus, those are people who will be paying taxes instead of relying on unemployment. Once they are back on their feet, they will spend money in their own communities, employing even more people, who also will have taxable incomes. Main Street should have been bailed out instead of Wall Street, IMO, for just this reason.
Yes, but they'll be paying taxes to the government with money that the government got either by taxing or borrowing, so there's no real net change. It would be an artificial demand. True demand can only come from the private-sector. There is also the problem of whether such government "demand" could crowd out private-sector investment. An alternative though could be an infrastructure bank that is a government entity that utilizes private-sector funds to finance infrastructure projects. This gives the benefit of infrastructure work without the government having to either tax or take on debt.
ParticleGrl
Mar17-12, 12:48 PM
Yes, but they'll be paying taxes to the government with money that the government got either by taxing or borrowing, so there's no real net change.
It depends entirely on what was happening with the taxed or borrowed money. If the workers were paid with money from bond issues, and banks bought the bonds with money from reserves, then its essentially just newly printed money- this is one of the primary mechanisms by which the money base increases.
True demand can only come from the private-sector.
Thats clearly nonsense, like its sister claim that the government can't create value. Remember that an economy is just a system for organizing labor and the products of that labor. Clearly, the government can employ labor, and can use the products of labor. Many of the people employed by the government will be doing valuable things (scientific research, for instance).
All of the demand for 'people who make laws' for instance, will be in the government.
Now, it is true that the mix of labor/resources will be different with and without government- but that doesn't mean the government is 'artificial' in any way. Its just a different societal choice. Historically, in fact, markets governed by democratic governments with strong institutions have been better at producing wealth than weak governments.
Longer-term, this could be great for economic growth, but short-term, this will not create any economic growth because to finance it, the government either would have to tax the current economy and then re-inject the money back into it, or tax the future economy (take on debt), or do some combination of the two. So there's no net wealth creation.
This is also nonsense. If I borrow money now, invest it, and the investment gains value, then I've created wealth. THATS HOW WEALTH CREATION WORKS. To see that your argument is nonsense- note that it implies equally to the private sector. Your argument implies that no wealth can be created ever, and everything is 0 sum.
Further, if I can pay for things NOW and tax the FUTURE economy, this will obviously have a big short term boost unless people respond to the taxes they have to pay several years down the road. All empirical evidence suggests that people don't respond like that- changes in taxes NOW have changes in consumption NOW.
CAC1001
Mar17-12, 07:47 PM
It depends entirely on what was happening with the taxed or borrowed money. If the workers were paid with money from bond issues, and banks bought the bonds with money from reserves, then its essentially just newly printed money- this is one of the primary mechanisms by which the money base increases.
Yes, but it's still ultimately government taking money out of the economy in one form and injecting it back in in another form. That isn't going to create economic growth.
Thats clearly nonsense, like its sister claim that the government can't create value.
There is nothing nonsense about it. True demand only comes from the private sector. The government cannot create any demand, because it's "demand" is demand that it must take out of the private sector in one form and injected back in. As for creating value, maybe in a very few limited circumstances, but for the most part, government is absolutely awful at this. If government could actually create value, then socialism would work.
Remember that an economy is just a system for organizing labor and the products of that labor. Clearly, the government can employ labor, and can use the products of labor. Many of the people employed by the government will be doing valuable things (scientific research, for instance).
Government can employ labor only in that it must first take wealth from the private-sector and use that wealth to pay its labor. Government doing scientific research could be a form of value creation, but even then, it's still the private-sector that will determine whether that research is of actual commercial value, and if so, will adopt that research and use it to create new products and services.
All of the demand for 'people who make laws' for instance, will be in the government.
And all of those people are funded with wealth taken out of the private-sector in some form.
Now, it is true that the mix of labor/resources will be different with and without government- but that doesn't mean the government is 'artificial' in any way. Its just a different societal choice. Historically, in fact, markets governed by democratic governments with strong institutions have been better at producing wealth than weak governments.
Government in every form is always a leech on society. That is why it requires taxes to operate. Of course societies with democratic governments and strong institutions do better than weak governments. Weak governments means lots more corruption, lack of law and order, and thus a chaotically functioning economy.
This is also nonsense. If I borrow money now, invest it, and the investment gains value, then I've created wealth. THATS HOW WEALTH CREATION WORKS. To see that your argument is nonsense- note that it implies equally to the private sector. Your argument implies that no wealth can be created ever, and everything is 0 sum.
I think you're missing my point. It's like the different between a person using credit-card debt to fund a lifestyle versus using credit card debt to make actual investments. As I said, longer term, government borrowing money or taxing money to repair and/or build new infrastructure could be seen as an investment in that the infrastructure can facilitate additional economic growth that will then generate additional tax revenue, so that it pays for itself (and this is assuming that the infrastructure does this in the longer-term). But in the short-term, borrowing or taxing to build infrastructure is not unto itself any creation of wealth. All of the companies and workers that would get lots of money from such infrastructure projects, that isn't wealth that was created, it's just a redistribution of money from one sector of the private economy to another.
The arguments for stimulus are never that said stimulus will result in infrastructure that will then pay for itself down the line by generating additional economic growth, it's that the actual infrastructure programs themselves are economic stimulus, which is not true. It would be like saying the government should build a bunch of shopping malls in the Nevada desert. If those malls will generate income down the line, then it can be an investment. But the stimulus argument is that just the act of constructing the shopping malls, irregardless of whether or not they will be used, is stimulative of the economy. One other thing to keep in mind is that even with regards to trying to pursue legitimate investments, the government is extraordinarily inept at doing this sort of thing, because politics play a role and it's the old "a person spending someone else's money is never as careful as someone spending their own money."
Further, if I can pay for things NOW and tax the FUTURE economy, this will obviously have a big short term boost unless people respond to the taxes they have to pay several years down the road. All empirical evidence suggests that people don't respond like that- changes in taxes NOW have changes in consumption NOW.
There's nothing obvious about it. If anything, it can have a large negative drag on the economy, because if people see the debt being increased by a very large amount, it can cause them to behave in ways that make the attempt at stimulus counter-productive. For example, people may fear inflation in the near-future as a result of the debt, and cut back on their spending. If that happens, then the attempt to increase demand in the economy actually decreased it. It depends on how much is being spent and how large the debt already is. People also may hoard the money. The other thing you're ignoring is that there is not going to be any net economic growth from such spending. If you take on a bunch of debt to inject a bunch of money into the current economy, yes it could increase consumer spending now, but at the expense of what spending will be in the future economy. It also can hamstring the current economy due to the debt being increased.
For example, if the debt was low, and the government sent all 300 million Americans a check for $20,000 (equivalent ot a $6 trillion stimulus), that could make the current economy boom, because everyone gets a lot of money to spend and the debt isn't high enough where adding an extra $6 trillion hamstrings it. BUT, that $6 trillion isn't any free lunch. It is money that is just being spent NOW as opposed to later, and it won't be there to spend later, as we shorted the future economy of it. Yes, if "invested" it could yield true economic growth, but good luck at getting the government to properly invest $6 trillion, as the government is notoriously bad at allocating capital.
Another problem that can occur is that if the taking on of debt to spend money in the current economy is stimulative, you might end up preventing the actual private economy from recovering because you are replacing the private-demand with an artificial government demand that is funded by shorting the future private economy. So if for example the private economy is in a recession that it will naturally cycle out of and recover, and then the government decides to inject $6 trillion into it, that is an artificial demand and can stall the private economy from recovering.
ParticleGrl
Mar17-12, 08:20 PM
Yes, but it's still ultimately government taking money out of the economy in one form and injecting it back in in another form. That isn't going to create economic growth.
But empirically, historically, it can. Read Milton Friedman on the money base. If Milton was right, stimulus works, as does expanding the money base.
As for creating value, maybe in a very few limited circumstances, but for the most part, government is absolutely awful at this.
Are courts valuable? How about national labs? Are laws valuable? Is the enforcement of contracts valuable?
When you say "take demand from the private sector" what you mean is that people working in government aren't working in the private sector. The question is- are courts valuable enough that its worth taking some smart people out of the private sector to keep a legal sector working . Is fundamental research valuable enough that its worth taking people out of the private sector, etc. In many cases, I contend the answer is yes. There is nothing artificial about this.
Weak governments means lots more corruption, lack of law and order, and thus a chaotically functioning economy.
Therefore- government is valuable and the existence of government creates value. You agree.
But in the short-term, borrowing or taxing to build infrastructure is not unto itself any creation of wealth.
Lets say I have lots of unemployed workers and a broken road. Now, lets say I have few unemployed workers and a road being fixed. In which situation is society wealthier?
Money is just a way to allocate stuff,its a shared delusion. You shouldn't get too hung up on national debt. It doesn't make the private sector richer or poorer in the long term- every dollar owed is owed TO SOMEONE. It just redistributes claims in the private sector.
Try and remember the economy is things, and people building things. Ultimately, your argument should come down to things, and the people building them. Government debt is a policy tool, its not debt in the same way credit card debt is.
One other thing to keep in mind is that even with regards to trying to pursue legitimate investments, the government is extraordinarily inept at doing this sort of thing, because politics play a role and it's the old "a person spending someone else's money is never as careful as someone spending their own money."
Government investment has been responsible for most of the high tech products in your home. Without government funded research, there would be no internet, no ipad, no google. To say that this is 'extraordinarily inept' is just silly.
CAC1001
Mar17-12, 09:32 PM
But empirically, historically, it can.
No it can't because it defies economics. That's part of why stimulus has never worked anywhere. The only exception would be if the government managed to legitimately invest the money it was borrowing or using debt to spend, which has happened (such as the New Deal infrastructure which lead to economic growth later on), but really only in cases where there was no infrastructure but a lot of economic growth potential existed if only the infrastructure would be built. Once you have said infrastructure in place, building more infrastructure isn't necessarilly any investment.
Read Milton Friedman on the money base. If Milton was right, stimulus works, as does expanding the money base.
Milton Friedman was very skeptical of Keynesian stimulus. He was one of the main people to call it into question and point out its faults (he pointed out that you could "create jobs" by hiring one group of people to dig holes and another group to fill them back in; you could create even more jobs by equipping everyone with spoons as opposed to shovels). He also called into question the Keynesian idea that expanding the money supply leads to economic growth. He pointed out that expanding the money supply can lead to inflation.
Are courts valuable? How about national labs? Are laws valuable? Is the enforcement of contracts valuable?
Maybe we are having a difference of opinion on the term "value." By value, I mean commercial value, wealth. Functions of government that are valuable are not wealth, they take wealth in order to fund their existence. For example, having a strong military is valuable, but it costs money, it doesn't make money.
When you say "take demand from the private sector" what you mean is that people working in government aren't working in the private sector. The question is- are courts valuable enough that its worth taking some smart people out of the private sector to keep a legal sector working . Is fundamental research valuable enough that its worth taking people out of the private sector, etc. In many cases, I contend the answer is yes. There is nothing artificial about this.
They are valuable enough in the sense of being valuable to the existence of society, but in terms of wealth or commercial value, they are a drag. All government in this sense is a drag. Government itself is an evil, but it's a necessary evil.
Therefore- government is valuable and the existence of government creates value. You agree.
Government is "valuable" in the sense of facilitating a functioning society so that people can live their lives and wealth can be created. But government is not valuable in terms of having any commercial value and government doesn't create commercial value, it provides the functions that facilitate wealth creation (rule of law, protection of private property, infrastructure development, etc...).
Lets say I have lots of unemployed workers and a broken road. Now, lets say I have few unemployed workers and a road being fixed. In which situation is society wealthier?
The road costs money to be repaired which has to come from somewhere. It could facilitate wealth creation in the future maybe, in which case then it could pay for itself, but unless it's a toll road, it isn't valuable in a commercial sense (wealth). If the government is fixing it, then it is just re-distributing private-sector money for a project that may well not generate any money down the line. The road is valuable in the way law and order is valuable, not in the sense of wealth value.
Money is just a way to allocate stuff,its a shared delusion. You shouldn't get too hung up on national debt. It doesn't make the private sector richer or poorer in the long term- every dollar owed is owed TO SOMEONE. It just redistributes claims in the private sector.
Try and remember the economy is things, and people building things. Ultimately, your argument should come down to things, and the people building them. Government debt is a policy tool, its not debt in the same way credit card debt is.
Yes, money is the medium of exchange. But it is representative of the amount of goods and services being produced in society. The government takes, by force, some of all of the goods and services everyone produces by taking away some of their money. The national debt is concerning because with a large debt, if the interest rates go up, it can take up a lot more of the federal budget to continue to service the debt. And most nations do not do well with large amounts of debt on the economy.
Government investment has been responsible for most of the high tech products in your home. Without government funded research, there would be no internet, no ipad, no google. To say that this is 'extraordinarily inept' is just silly.
Nothing silly about it. Ask government bureaucrats to start investing in companies and industries and see the results. Government is horrible at allocating capital. Don't make the mistake of confusing government-funded research with government successfully investing. Yes, government funded a lot of research that led to the development of lots of various electronic and computer technologies, but it was the private-sector that adopted those technologies and made them into the various products and services. Companies formed like Intel, Microsoft, Google, Dell, Apple, etc...(those are the most infamous) along with others. And various private-sector venture capital firms are who financed them. The U.S. government didn't run any venture-capital agency that decided to pick and choose what the companies and industries of the future would be.
Most of the research and development the government funded relating to these technologies was for purposes of national defense, not as a form of industrial policy to drive the economy. The economic growth was a byproduct of it. What is valuable to national defense is not necessarilly valuable in a commercial sense. Developing a new battle tank or fighter plane has no private-sector demand, it's demand from the government, which buys it with wealth taken out of the private-sector. Since electronics and computer technologies were so crucial to the national defense, the government funded research into them, but this also yielded great technology that the private-sector adopted. Also the Internet and GPS facilitated new goods and services.
There's nothing obvious about it. If anything, it can have a large negative drag on the economy, because if people see the debt being increased by a very large amount, it can cause them to behave in ways that make the attempt at stimulus counter-productive. For example, people may fear inflation in the near-future as a result of the debt, and cut back on their spending. If that happens, then the attempt to increase demand in the economy actually decreased it. It depends on how much is being spent and how large the debt already is. People also may hoard the money. The other thing you're ignoring is that there is not going to be any net economic growth from such spending. If you take on a bunch of debt to inject a bunch of money into the current economy, yes it could increase consumer spending now, but at the expense of what spending will be in the future economy. It also can hamstring the current economy due to the debt being increased. .
This doesn't really make a lot of sense for several reasons. First, if inflation is high, it makes people WANT to spend there money, not hoard it. If housing prices are skyrocketing, you buy a house as fast as possible, while you can still afford it, and it could be a good investment, as your loan would, in real dollars, would depreciate in value. Further, government debt is a very small factor in the overall economy. A 1 trillion stimulus might seem like a lot, but when you compare it to 74 trillion in assets, and 14 trillion in GDP, the number looks much smaller. Also when you compare it to the massive decrease in new private debt, that 1 trillion means nothing. Also you can't look at government debt in a vaccuum. That is not the sole driver of the monetary base, nor is it even the largest.
ParticleGrl
Mar17-12, 10:09 PM
No it can't because it defies economics.
Crack open Mankiw's book, or Romer's (the only two I have on my shelf, or I'd reference others). I'm willing to be literally any economics macro book will side with me, so clearly it doesn't 'defy economics'- in facts its LITERALLY textbook economics. Do you know what an IS-LM model is? Some economists might not like the model, but it doesn't "defy economics."
That's part of why stimulus has never worked anywhere.
Show me any study of multipliers that suggests they have NEVER worked. This claim is just ludicrous.
Milton Friedman was very skeptical of Keynesian stimulus.... He also called into question the Keynesian idea that expanding the money supply leads to economic growth. He pointed out that expanding the money supply can lead to inflation.
Have you actually read Friedman's academic work? Friedman believed that failure to print money was THE prime mover behind the great depression. He didn't disagree with Keynes that stimulus could help the economy- he argued that the manipulating the money supply was a better lever! Instead of spend in a recession you increase the monetary base. Instead of tax in a boom, you tighten the money base. Friedman was the original monetarist!
Maybe we are having a difference of opinion on the term "value." By value, I mean commercial value, wealth.
But most importantly, wealth is not money. Wealth is capital, goods, etc. When we say "X creates wealth" we don't mean money, we mean stuff. A new process for building widgets creates wealth if it lets you make more widgets for a given set of inputs. If moving workers around lets you make more widgets and distribute them to a larger portion of society, then that shift of workers creates wealth.
We can measure stuff we have in money, though the results aren't perfect. Do we expect GDP per capita to be higher win countries with stronger institutions or weaker ones? Do we expect strengthening institutions increases GDP per capita? Then we expect government creates wealth.
Functions of government that are valuable are not wealth, they take wealth in order to fund their existence.
My argument is that without functioning government institutions, our country would build a lot less widgets. Therefore, government creates wealth.
Government is "valuable" in the sense of facilitating a functioning society so that people can live their lives and wealth can be created.
Facilitating a functioning society = letting society build more widgets = creating wealth. Wealth is not money!
The government takes, by force, some of all of the goods and services everyone produces by taking away some of their money.
NO! Money is not wealth! The government takes "wealth" out of society by taking WORKERS and WIDGETS. The most scarce asset the government takes out of the private society is labor- but if taking that labor leads to more widgets for all, then its adding to the private sector.
The national debt is concerning because with a large debt, if the interest rates go up, it can take up a lot more of the federal budget to continue to service the debt
If the government raised more taxes and used them to pay on bonds, where did the money go? It went from a taxpayer to a bond holder- which might not be ideal but it isn't pulling resources from the private sector, its just juggling things around in the private sector.
Ask government bureaucrats to start investing in companies and industries and see the results.
Half of silicon valley, including google. Such a terrible job....
Yes, government funded a lot of research that led to the development of lots of various electronic and computer technologies, but it was the private-sector that adopted those technologies and made them into the various products and services.
Then the government created wealth, and an abundance of it. I'm not saying it did it in a vacuum, of course the private sector helped.
If I build an amazing device, and you market and sell the device, which of us created the wealth? Obviously, BOTH of us.
The U.S. government didn't run any venture-capital agency that decided to pick and choose what the companies and industries of the future would be.
Google, as one example, was directly funded at startup from a government grant.
Since electronics and computer technologies were so crucial to the national defense, the government funded research into them, but this also yielded great technology that the private-sector adopted. Also the Internet and GPS facilitated new goods and services.
Purpose doesn't matter wealth is wealth. If having a GPS or an Ipad makes you more wealthy, than the government creates wealth. It does it in partnership with the private sector, sure, but that doesn't mean the government doesn't create wealth.
I think a chunk of your analysis is confused by your strange theory of value.
CAC1001
Mar18-12, 12:25 AM
Crack open Mankiw's book, or Romer's (the only two I have on my shelf, or I'd reference others). I'm willing to be literally any economics macro book will side with me, so clearly it doesn't 'defy economics'- in facts its LITERALLY textbook economics. Do you know what an IS-LM model is? Some economists might not like the model, but it doesn't "defy economics."
Saying that you are creating wealth by taking money out of the economy and injecting it back in defies the basic principles of economics, with the exception of something that is actual investment (such as infrastructure in certain circumstances or financing research that yields results (note these are all long-term stimulative measures)).
Show me any study of multipliers that suggests they have NEVER worked. This claim is just ludicrous.
Nothing ludicrous about it. There is a reason why economists became skeptical of fiscal stimulus in the first place, which is that it wasn't working. If it worked so well, then there'd be no debate about it the way there is. We'd have an enormous body of evidence that it works. Things like socialism or raising interest rates in a recession, we know from experience that these do not work. They as a result aren't really debated anymore. But with fiscal stimulus, it is far less certain, although the evidence really leans against it. Look at Japan, which spent $2 trillion (half their GDP) on fiscal stimulus, and it still didn't stimulate economic growth. One could argue the limited growth they've had is a result of all that spending, but then how much spending is required for healthy growth? 100% of the GDP? (I wouldn't say a stimulus is "working" if one must spend over half the GDP to get miniscule economic growth).
Every economist who has won the Nobel Prize in Economics for work in macreconomics after 1981 (Robert Lucas, Robert Mundell, Fynn Kydland, Edward Prescott, Edmund Phelps) has either completely dismissed or seriously questioned the Keynesian policy of fiscal expansion to increase economic activity and reduce unemployment. All of them won by building on the work of Friedman and how he pointed out the flaws with fiscal stimulus.
Have you actually read Friedman's academic work? Friedman believed that failure to print money was THE prime mover behind the great depression. He didn't disagree with Keynes that stimulus could help the economy- he argued that the manipulating the money supply was a better lever! Instead of spend in a recession you increase the monetary base. Instead of tax in a boom, you tighten the money base. Friedman was the original monetarist!
Friedman disagreed about fiscal stimulus in the form of government spending being able to help the economy. In his Capitalism and Freedom he devotes an entire chapter to debunking this claim even. If anything, he was one of the primary critics of it at the time. In terms of monetary stimulus, he understood as you are saying (about failure to keep the banking system solvent and reducing the money supply caused the Depression). But that doesn't change the fact that he also recognized that increasing the monetary base is not necessarilly going to increase economic growth. He was one of the first to recognize that inflation is tied to the government printing too much money. To quote him:
Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.
The conventional Keynesian belief had been that you could increase economic growth by increasing the money supply. The belief was you could have high unemployment and low inflation or high inflation and low unemployment, because the two are supposedly inversely-related (the classic Phillips curve). So economists sought to balance the two. They were thrown completely off-balance in the 1970s when stagflation hit.
But most importantly, wealth is not money. Wealth is capital, goods, etc. When we say "X creates wealth" we don't mean money, we mean stuff. A new process for building widgets creates wealth if it lets you make more widgets for a given set of inputs. If moving workers around lets you make more widgets and distribute them to a larger portion of society, then that shift of workers creates wealth.
Those extra widgets though are worthless unless there's private-sector demand for them. Moving workers around that are being paid by the government isn't real demand.
We can measure stuff we have in money, though the results aren't perfect. Do we expect GDP per capita to be higher win countries with stronger institutions or weaker ones? Do we expect strengthening institutions increases GDP per capita? Then we expect government creates wealth.
Government doesn't create wealth in this sense, it just facilitates the environment that leads to wealth creation. I am not arguing that good government isn't necessary for wealth creation, it is, but the government itself doesn't actually create the wealth, that's the private-sector.
My argument is that without functioning government institutions, our country would build a lot less widgets. Therefore, government creates wealth.
Any my argument is that while good functioning government institutions are necessary, unto itself, government does not create wealth.
Facilitating a functioning society = letting society build more widgets = creating wealth. Wealth is not money!
Wealth isn't money, but money is representative of wealth.
NO! Money is not wealth! The government takes "wealth" out of society by taking WORKERS and WIDGETS. The most scarce asset the government takes out of the private society is labor- but if taking that labor leads to more widgets for all, then its adding to the private sector.
Not sure I am understanding you here. Money, in the right supply in the economy, represents the wealth in the economy. The government doesn't take workers and widgets, it takes money from people, through taxes. It uses that money (wealth) it takes by force in order to pay its various workers.
If the government raised more taxes and used them to pay on bonds, where did the money go? It went from a taxpayer to a bond holder- which might not be ideal but it isn't pulling resources from the private sector, its just juggling things around in the private sector.
That depends on who holds the bonds. If it's going to a foreign country, then it's taking wealth out of the U.S.'s private sector and sending it to another country. And how much of the federal revenues go towards servicing the interest on the debt is one of the things the credit-rating agencies look at when rating the nation's debt.
Half of silicon valley, including google. Such a terrible job....
Silicon Valley is a private-sector phenomenon. None of the major companies to come out of it came into being due to government bureaucrats making the calls in the way private-sector venture capital firms and banks do.
Then the government created wealth, and an abundance of it. I'm not saying it did it in a vacuum, of course the private sector helped.
If I build an amazing device, and you market and sell the device, which of us created the wealth? Obviously, BOTH of us.
The government didn't create the devices though. The private-sector did that. The government just funded the initial research and development that led to the technologies which the private-sector adopted. It was government-financed research that led to the development of the transistor. But it was Intel corporation that developed the microprocessor.
Government can only do things that can facilitate wealth creation, such as provide for law and order, protect property rights, lay the groundwork for a sound financial and banking system, build infrastructure, finance research into different areas, etc...but the actual wealth creation must be done by the private-sector.
Google, as one example, was directly funded at startup from a government grant.
This is different then government investing money. A company must apply for a grant if it wants one. The grant doesn't mean the government is taking partial ownership of the company in exchange for capital.
Purpose doesn't matter wealth is wealth. If having a GPS or an Ipad makes you more wealthy, than the government creates wealth. It does it in partnership with the private sector, sure, but that doesn't mean the government doesn't create wealth.
Nope, it means that the private-sector has created wealth via the various things put in place by the government.
I think a chunk of your analysis is confused by your strange theory of value.
There are different types of value. Personally, I would value a computer scientist or a medical doctor as being of more value to society than a movie star. But society has decided that it values the entertainment provided by movie stars far more than it values the skills of a computer scientist or medical doctor, so movie stars get paid a lot more. Economic value, versus the other forms of value, are different.
CAC1001
Mar18-12, 12:30 AM
This doesn't really make a lot of sense for several reasons. First, if inflation is high, it makes people WANT to spend there money, not hoard it. If housing prices are skyrocketing, you buy a house as fast as possible, while you can still afford it, and it could be a good investment, as your loan would, in real dollars, would depreciate in value. Further, government debt is a very small factor in the overall economy. A 1 trillion stimulus might seem like a lot, but when you compare it to 74 trillion in assets, and 14 trillion in GDP, the number looks much smaller. Also when you compare it to the massive decrease in new private debt, that 1 trillion means nothing. Also you can't look at government debt in a vaccuum. That is not the sole driver of the monetary base, nor is it even the largest.
Inflation acts as a tax on people, and a tax can decrease demand, not increase it, so it would depend. A $1 trillion stimulus is very large when you already are dealing with a very large amount of debt. And the real debt level faced by the U.S. government is likely far greater than the current $15.5 trillion, because the federal government is on the hook for the social welfare state and for the individual states and all their obligations, which drives the real debt load possibly up to $50 or $60 some trillion.
Inflation acts as a tax on people, and a tax can decrease demand, not increase it, so it would depend. A $1 trillion stimulus is very large when you already are dealing with a very large amount of debt. And the real debt level faced by the U.S. government is likely far greater than the current $15.5 trillion, because the federal government is on the hook for the social welfare state and for the individual states and all their obligations, which drives the real debt load possibly up to $50 or $60 some trillion.
If you want to look at inflation as a tax, you have to view it as a tax on savings, not on material goods. Material goods prices should increase with inflation while your savings doesn't. This discourages saving. It drives demand up. In the opposite view, deflation has been one of the things that all economist fear most, as it decreases demand. Why buy a house if that house is going to be cheaper tomorrow?
Also you can't look at future obligations as how it would effect today. First future debt is hugely related to GDP growth which is extremely hard to predict and has continuosly proven the bears wrong on that aspect. Second, it has no effect on today. It is a tool to help plan for the future. Monetary base effects inflation, i.e. real dollars being spent in the economy right now. Not future dollars possibly being spent in the future effecting today.
CAC1001
Mar18-12, 01:43 AM
If you want to look at inflation as a tax, you have to view it as a tax on savings, not on material goods. Material goods prices should increase with inflation while your savings doesn't. This discourages saving. It drives demand up. In the opposite view, deflation has been one of the things that all economist fear most, as it decreases demand. Why buy a house if that house is going to be cheaper tomorrow?
Inflation on material goods can be a tax as well, because the prices of everything are increasing. If the price of food and gasoline are increasing for example, then it can be a tax.
Also you can't look at future obligations as how it would effect today. First future debt is hugely related to GDP growth which is extremely hard to predict and has continuosly proven the bears wrong on that aspect. Second, it has no effect on today. It is a tool to help plan for the future. Monetary base effects inflation, i.e. real dollars being spent in the economy right now. Not future dollars possibly being spent in the future effecting today.
The debt can very much have an effect on today because it can change people's behavior about the economy. High amounts of debt also create a drag on the economy.
This thread is getting derailed badly. It's supposed to be about Obama's candidacy. If one wants to discuss the the history of the Fed (which IMO shovels free money at Wall Street to keep the banks happy) please start another thread. Obama isn't responsible for the past ~30 years of collusion between the Fed and Wall Street, nor is he able to change that without a Congress that is not bought and paid for.
ParticleGrl
Mar18-12, 01:32 PM
CAC, all I can suggest is that you read some economics textbooks, or take some economics classes. You have very strange views of economics. You are making claims that various things are "against 'basic principles of economics'" despite those same things being in literally every macro-economics textbook. If your argument rests on textbook 101 level economics being 'against the principles of economics' than surely you must agree something is wrong with your argument?
You are also using a very non-standard (and highly ideological) definition of value/value-added (everything the government creates = not 'wealth', everything the private sector creates = 'wealth').
CAC1001
Mar18-12, 01:50 PM
CAC, all I can suggest is that you read some economics textbooks, or take some economics classes. You have very strange views of economics. You are making claims that various things are "against 'basic principles of economics'" despite those same things being in literally every macro-economics textbook. If your argument rests on textbook 101 level economics being 'against the principles of economics' than surely you must agree something is wrong with your argument?
Are you referring to graduate or undergraduate-level economics texts? Because graduate-level economics texts point out most of the flaws with policies such as fiscal stimulus. At the undergraduate-level, things like the IS-LM models and fiscal stimulus and much Keynesianism are taught as standard economic policy. At the graduate level, much of what is taught at the undergraduate level is rejected entirely. So much so that some economists even suggest that if one wants to study economics at the graduate level to not even major in economics as an undergraduate, but to skip it entirely and major in something mathematically-intensive, such as physics or electrical engineering or mathematics. So yes, I would say that, if you are referring to undergraduate macroeconomics texts, much of what is taught in those is wrong.
What I was saying goes against the basic principles of economics is that government taking money out of the economy and injecting it back into the economy (via debt or taxes) is not going to stimulate the economy because it's only moving wealth around. Using taxes or debt to build infrastructure is not going to stimulate the economy. The only exception would be if the infrastructure leads to further economic growth down the line by facilitating business growth and so forth. If you spend $1 trillion to build pyramids, that is just re-distributing wealth to pyramid-building. If those pyramids will somehow lead to massive economic growth in the future, then such building could be an investment.
You are also using a very non-standard (and highly ideological) definition of value/value-added (everything the government creates = not 'wealth', everything the private sector creates = 'wealth').
What is ideological about it? There are different types of value. A police force or a road or a court are not valuable in the same way a business is valuable. A government doesn't make money off of the police force or court or road (with some exceptions if a toll road). If government could create actual wealth, then it wouldn't need to tax. It could be self-funding. But it isn't. In order to build the road or provide the police and court, it must use wealth it takes by force out of the private-sector. It can lay the groundwork so that the private-sector can create more wealth, and it can even aid the private-sector in some ways, but unto itself, government doesn't create wealth.
This thread is getting derailed badly. It's supposed to be about Obama's candidacy. If one wants to discuss the the history of the Fed (which IMO shovels free money at Wall Street to keep the banks happy) please start another thread. Obama isn't responsible for the past ~30 years of collusion between the Fed and Wall Street, nor is he able to change that without a Congress that is not bought and paid for.
I have to agree with turbo here. We need to focus to get this thread back on topic and off of economic theory.
So back on subject, Obama, great president? Or greatest? :tongue:
Char. Limit
Mar18-12, 02:51 PM
I have to agree with turbo here. We need to focus to get this thread back on topic and off of economic theory.
So back on subject, Obama, great president? Or greatest? :tongue:
He's certainly not the greatest president, and I personally wouldn't even call him great, but he's definitely an acceptable president. He inherited some hard times and is pulling through them, albeit slowly.
phoenix:\\
Mar27-12, 10:09 PM
Great?
In my opinion you'd have to compare presidents by the ability to take care of the country s/he is currently leading as opposed to comparing president against other president in a previous era/time. Different factors cause for different approaches. With that said, although different factors cause for different approaches, a certain ideology must be upheld and if one contends against it with a rather unjust law, s/he leading should fight against it and not support it under any provisional conditions it may have, even if it is to be passed eventually. Obama didn't do that with the newest version of the NDAA bill. So, no, he is not a great president. Some things should be fundamentally stood against and his, "well, we will make sure we look into cases where citizens of the United States have been detained under suspicion and make sure they are treated fairly and justly tried under these cases" doesn't help. Unless he was participating in game theory and some psychology that in the event he signs this bill, he may garner some support from his opposition in time of his election, only speaks of the character and is more disgusting and should be against any person's ideology. But that sort of thinking (my thinking) may be archaic and impractical, but that is a value I hold up for myself and I don't like people leading me that have values I disagree with fundamentally.
Great?
In my opinion you'd have to compare presidents by the ability to take care of the country s/he is currently leading as opposed to comparing president against other president in a previous era/time. Different factors cause for different approaches. With that said, although different factors cause for different approaches, a certain ideology must be upheld and if one contends against it with a rather unjust law, s/he leading should fight against it and not support it under any provisional conditions it may have, even if it is to be passed eventually. Obama didn't do that with the newest version of the NDAA bill. So, no, he is not a great president. Some things should be fundamentally stood against and his, "well, we will make sure we look into cases where citizens of the United States have been detained under suspicion and make sure they are treated fairly and justly tried under these cases" doesn't help. Unless he was participating in game theory and some psychology that in the event he signs this bill, he may garner some support from his opposition in time of his election, only speaks of the character and is more disgusting and should be against any person's ideology. But that sort of thinking (my thinking) may be archaic and impractical, but that is a value I hold up for myself and I don't like people leading me that have values I disagree with fundamentally.
It was intended as a joke. I think I have failed once again to convey humor across the internet.
Astronuc
Apr15-12, 11:56 AM
White House Opens Door to Big Donors, and Lobbyists Slip In
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/us/politics/white-house-doors-open-for-big-donors.html
A cross-reference of donor lists and visitor logs show that of those who gave $100,000 or more, about three-quarters of them visited the White House. :rolleyes: :grumpy:
One of the many things that have surely not changed.
ThomasT
May12-12, 07:04 PM
Betty White has endorsed Obama.
Astronuc
May12-12, 08:42 PM
Four reasons Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign had a bad week
http://news.yahoo.com/four-reasons-obama%E2%80%99s-2012-re-election-campaign-had-a-bad-week.html
It's still the economy for many or most.
Four reasons Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign had a bad week
http://news.yahoo.com/four-reasons-obama%E2%80%99s-2012-re-election-campaign-had-a-bad-week.html
It's still the economy for many or most.
It will most likely be the deciding factor, I know it probably will be for me on how I vote.
Last I heard the fed was predicting a summer slow down, I'm not sure what they were basing that on, but if correct it would be very bad news for Obama and his re-election.
mheslep
May14-12, 10:01 AM
Daily tracking polls have started
Gallup: Romney up by 2+
Rasmussen: Romney up by 4+
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
http://www.gallup.com/poll/153902/romney-obama-tight-race-gallup-daily-tracking-begins.aspx
Current polls
National
Politco - Obama - 50%
Romney - 42%
http://www.politico.com/2012-election/presidential-polls/
General Election: Romney vs. Obama
Polling Data
RCP Average 4/27 - 5/12 --
Obama - 47.0
Romney 45.0
Obama +2.0
Rasmussen Tracking 5/10 - 5/12 -
Obama - 44
Romney -48
Romney +4
Gallup Tracking 5/6 - 5/12
Obama - 46
Romney - 45
Obama +1
Associated Press/GfK 5/3 - 5/7
Obama - 50
Romney - 42
Obama +8
Reuters/Ipsos 5/3 - 5/7 959
Obama - 49
Romney - 42
Obama +7
Politico/GWU/Battleground 4/29 - 5/3
Obama - 47
Romney - 48
Romney +1
IBD/CSM/TIPP 4/27 - 5/4
Obama - 46
Romney - 43
Obama +3
Democracy Corps (D) 4/28 - 5/1
Obama - 47
Romney - 47
Tie
See All General Election: Romney vs. Obama Polling Data
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html
SHISHKABOB
May14-12, 12:58 PM
it looks like this election is going to be close. At least, from this point in time and according to those polls.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.