111th Congress the most productive in decades

[Al68]

Have you not heard of recission? If not, you are perhaps the least informed person on this forum. Do you not know that Anthem/Wellpoint has been in a running battle with CA regulators for dumping patients with serious illnesses? Let's not pretend this is not happening, OK?

LOL. Translation: you will not support your claims, and any and all arguments based on them are therefore invalid.

And this is the ultimate end-run around the free-market system. Promise insurance coverage until it comes time to pay up, then drop the patients on any technicality.

If you're referring to fraud, you're engaging in an obvious strawman argument, since no one is advocating fraud, or opposing enforcing anti-fraud laws.

If you're referring to an insurance company not covering something that both parties agreed was not included in the contract, then your claim is self-evidently false, since no promised coverage is denied.

Wild unsupported claims, non-sequitors, and classically fallacious logic may convince the <80 IQ crowd, but the rest of can see right through it.

 

[Char. Limit]

LOL.

Do you have to begin every single post you make with LOL? I'm starting to wonder if you're dying from laughter, you never seem to stop. If you're trying to make the other guy sound ludicrous, it doesn't help when you do it with EVERY post.

 

[Al68]

Do you have to begin every single post you make with LOL? I'm starting to wonder if you're dying from laughter, you never seem to stop. If you're trying to make the other guy sound ludicrous, it doesn't help when you do it with EVERY post.

What if every post I reply to is ludricrous?

Seriously, point well taken, thank you. I'm not quite dying from laughter yet.

 

[OmCheeto]

They "work," sure, but they have their own share of problems as well.

Solvable problems are what make science geeks like myself not shoot ourselves in frustration dealing with stupidity.

A lifelong series of homework problems that we obsessively try and solve to keep our minds from being sucked into the mind numbing continuous media vortex of is Anna Nicole Smith still dead?

---------------------------------
Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens

 

[Al68]

Solvable problems are what make science geeks like myself not shoot ourselves in frustration dealing with stupidity.

A lifelong series of homework problems that we obsessively try and solve to keep our minds from being sucked into the mind numbing continuous media vortex of is Anna Nicole Smith still dead?

Times two. I have to agree with all of that.

---------------------------------
Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens

Justiz vielleicht? Haben die Goetter nicht schaffen Dummheit?

 

[bobc2]

Nope, no such theory was advanced by bobc2. He never said "pawns of." He was referring to the obvious ideology of the members of the Democratic Party themselves.

And there's no "theory" involved, only the semantic issue of the meaning of the word "Marxist." Bobc2 was clearly using the word generically to describe people with left-wing economic ideology. The word's capitalization reflects the word's origin, not an implied specific official political group.

Thanks, Al68, that's what I intended to convey.

I can cite references in support of my comments, providing names, etc., (about the Socialist/Marxist participation and outside influence on the Obama administration) than should be reasonably posted here (some of Obama's folks have been members of Socialist Organizations and some have not formally registered as Socialists but embrace the agenda).

Obama is a tough guy to analyze -- if he privately embraces Socialism, he would understand the importance of not showing that in public. He certainly attended New Party meetings (Socialists) prior to his election to the Illinoise Senate and teamed up with another Socialist Senator, but he never joined any of the Socialist organizations. By the way, one of the founders of the New Party was the former SDS national secretary, Carl Davidson. Davidson had also been a key player in the DSA (Democratic Socialists of America). Another New party founder, Joel Rogers (Univ of Wisconsin prof), was also a founder of the Apollo Alliance--the organization involved in drafting the Obama 2009 Stimulus Bill and Cap and Trade. His wife worked in the same law firm that Obama had worked in.

Sorry this is not a good time for me to be posting. I'll get back when I can.

 

[turbo]

Thanks, Al68, that's what I intended to convey.

I can cite references in support of my comments, providing names, etc., (about the Socialist/Marxist participation and outside influence on the Obama administration) than should be reasonably posted here (some of Obama's folks have been members of Socialist Organizations and some have not formally registered as Socialists but embrace the agenda).

Obama is a tough guy to analyze -- if he privately embraces Socialism, he would understand the importance of not showing that in public. He certainly attended New Party meetings (Socialists) prior to his election to the Illinoise Senate and teamed up with another Socialist Senator, but he never joined any of the Socialist organizations. By the way, one of the founders of the New Party was the former SDS national secretary, Carl Davidson. Davidson had also been a key player in the DSA (Democratic Socialists of America). Another New party founder, Joel Rogers (Univ of Wisconsin prof), was also a founder of the Apollo Alliance--the organization involved in drafting the Obama 2009 Stimulus Bill and Cap and Trade. His wife worked in the same law firm that Obama had worked in.

Sorry this is not a good time for me to be posting. I'll get back when I can.

Do you have any support for your claims that members of his administration are Socialist, Marxist, or former SDS members? Please supply verifiable, mainstream quotes. This right-wing mud-slinging is getting out of control! It is tolerated here, much to the detriment of the forum's reputation.

 

[OmCheeto]

Times two. I have to agree with all of that.

Then why do you speak like this?

I think he meant that he hated that government was only going to partially confiscate private estates (above a specified value) at a 35% rate instead of some higher percentage that he favors.

Of course Dems normally describe it using Commiespeak, referring to the unconfiscated amount (or part of it) as if it were a gift from government, as if inherited private property (or a large percentage of it) rightfully belongs to government.

Gee, I wonder if any such advocates of private property confiscation will object to the word "Commiespeak?"

Shall I just report you quick and get an expedited decision?

LOL. Sure. But I did edit my post to capitalize "Commiespeak" and provide a link to the Communist Party USA, since Communist can refer to the official party, not just their ideology. Unless someone objects to using "Commie" as a shortened form of "Communist."

I see no questions, and I see no answers. I only see labels and baseless insinuations.

I have to ask, what part of my post are you agreeing with? The frustration of dealing with stupidity?

 

[CAC1001]

Solvable problems are what make science geeks like myself not shoot ourselves in frustration dealing with stupidity.

I sure hope the healthcare problems are solvable.

 

[bobc2]

This right-wing mud-slinging is getting out of control!

I'm puzzled why you should consider references to Obama's interaction with Socialists as somehow constituting mud-slinging. I'm not using socialism as a kind of insulting label. Certainly there is no law against having socialist views in this country. Rather, you should feel good about Obama's relationships with socialists who have contributed significantly to his success as a career politician. Certainly, Obama has expressed his appreciation to various Socialist organizations in speeches and meetings with them, and I don't think he would consider it mud-slinging for me to recount some of those interactions. In spite of my discust with some of my old SDS friends there were also some very compasionate and concerned members who just thought they knew a way to replace a bad system with a more fair utopian system. I had dinner on one occasion with just my Marxist friend and his wife and Angela Davis (a nationally prominent radical left winger), and she was very poised and civil throughout our discussions, even though I carried very strong personal feelings in opposition to everything she was about at the time. I think she is now a respected University Professor, a career path settled on by many of the old radicals. Again, I did not intend to sling mud or insults.

I'm just interested in clarifying the distinctions between the two dramatically opposed visions of what our country should be. The conservatives have made it fairly clear that they would like to conserve the traditional Capitalistic Free Enterprise system and maintain the minimum size federal government necessary to fullfil responsibilities outlined in the Constitution. Marxists, Socialists, Progressives, or Liberals certainly have a right to lay out a new course for America and make their case to the American people. The courses open to the American people should be made clear, and ideally we should engage in civil discourse.

So, if I've stepped out of the bounds of Civil discourse, then please accept my appologies. Back on original thread point: I think Obama has made astonishingly successful strides in advancing his vision of America. I personally do not think that the larger public understands Obama's vision for America, and of course there is the possibility that I've misread it (but I don't think so). But, in any case there is still much discourse to be had. May the American people make their final choice as fully informed citizens.

 

[OmCheeto]

I sure hope the healthcare problems are solvable.

Well, if there isn't a thread addressing the solutions to healthcare in America, there should be. This forum is rife with problem solvers.

 

[turbo]

Well, if there isn't a thread addressing the solutions to healthcare in America, there should be. This forum is rife with problem solvers.

And rife with problem-perpetuators, unfortunately. It is not more productive to hang "socialist" or "Marxist" labels on Obama than it was to call Bush-Cheney "Nazis", though the former seems to be more tolerated on this forum than the latter.

It would be more productive to look at US revenues, and expenditures, and see how we can achieve balance. That is hindered by party-line rhetoric and ideology, though. I think it is fairly well-established that some people who follow politics closely are loathe to register with either major political party (Ivan and myself among them) because the parties have abandoned core principles and have locked into a pattern of self-preservation instead of serving the common good. So was the 111th congress "productive"? It depends largely on whose ox was gored, IMO.

 

[bobc2]

It is not more productive to hang "socialist" or "Marxist" labels on Obama than it was to call Bush-Cheney "Nazis", though the former seems to be more tolerated on this forum than the latter.

Please don't imply anything negative or disrespectful about terms like "socialist", "Marxist", "Progressive", or "Liberal." Disagree with the concepts of these movements, reject them, but they are no more than concepts to be embraced or rejected. If someone says, "I think we should tax people making over one million dollars at a 80% tax rate", you wouldn't automatically assign to him some derogatory label--it's just his concept of how to achieve equity in our society. You may understand lots of reasons why that's a bad idea and there can be civil discourse about that, leading to some consensus within the population.

Again, one should not take the use of "socialist" or "Marxist" labels as derogatory or insulting. Those are simply labels used to help convey ones position when having discussions about approaches to governing and implementing the economic and social activity of the nation.

Socialistic principles of larger government, redistibution of income, etc., are principles that are embraced by many countries throughout the world and by many peoople in our population. These concepts can be reasonably discussed as candidates for the future of the U.S. We as citizens need to confront these options openly and choose our path for the future. There should be no stigma attached to "Socialist", "Marxist", "Progressive", or "Liberal", or "Conservative." (Nazi is something else)

 

[WhoWee]

Socialistic principles of larger government, redistibution of income, etc., are principles that are embraced by many countries throughout the world and by many peoople in our population. These concepts can be reasonably discussed as candidates for the future of the U.S. We as citizens need to confront these options openly and choose our path for the future. There should be no stigma attached to "Socialist", "Marxist", "Progressive", or "Liberal", or "Conservative." (Nazi is something else)

I could not agree more!

We do need to have an open and honest discussion of our future path as a country. There should be no stigma attached. If an elected official believes in "Socialist", "Marxist", "Progressive", "Liberal", or "Conservative" ideals - they should be honest enough to declare themselves - it's called leadership.

Otherwise, I'm afraid this rudderless ship we call the US - is headed toward the rocks.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Please don't imply anything negative or disrespectful about terms like "socialist", "Marxist", "Progressive", or "Liberal."

The problem for me is that those terms were applied inappropriately. Obama didn't bailout the banks or the car companies because he's a socialist. He did it because he's a pragmatist. He did what was necessary to minimize the damage to the economy.

Neither Bush or Paulson were socialists, but they were the first to use socialist principles to save the economy when things started to collapse. It was probably one of the hardest things that Paulson ever had to do. He had to reject the principles that framed a lifetime as a dedicated free-marketeer, in order to save the country.

There is a difference between a philosophy, and a strategy. Obama detractors incorrectly claim that Obama took these actions as a result of his philosophy, when it was just a strategy, as it was with Bush and Paulson. This isn't a matter of black and white choices. Pure socialism and pure capitalism are abstract concepts that do not exist in fact.

 

[WhoWee]

The problem for me is that those terms were applied inappropriately. Obama didn't bailout the banks or the car companies because he's a socialist. He did it because he's a pragmatist. He did what was necessary to minimize the damage to the economy.

How practical was Obama's handling of the GM bondholders? http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-02/gm-predecessor-s-bonds-decline-as-10-6-billion-ipo-plan-shows-valuation.html

Obama is a lawyer. This move has eroded confidence in our markets and created a sense of insecurity for investors - IMO.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

How practical was Obama's handling of the GM bondholders? http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-02/gm-predecessor-s-bonds-decline-as-10-6-billion-ipo-plan-shows-valuation.html

Obama is a lawyer. This move has eroded confidence in our markets and created a sense of insecurity for investors - IMO.

Well, not imo, but in fact, we are far better off than we were when the Republicans lost control and Obama took over. One can criticize and analyze ad infinitum without ever reaching an undeniable conclusion. In the end, one has to judge by the results. In Jan of 2009, we were losing 600,000 jobs a month, the Dow was in freefall and Wall Street was in crisis, the banking systems were failing, the auto companies were soon to be failing, we were into an official recession with two consecutive quarters of negative growth, the global economy was in jeopardy, and the best minds in economics were saying that we faced perhaps the greatest economic disaster in US history.

Today, the Dow has recovered over half of what it lost, employment is at least holding steady and never did hit double-digits, the banks are mostly stabilized, we have positive growth, inventories are depleted, and judging by Christmas sales which were the second best in history, consumer confidence is finally returning, which is highly siginificant. In the mean time, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid dared to take on one of the greatest challenges we face - the skyrocketing cost of health care and the burden it will put on the nation if left unchecked - and managed to take the first significant step in a century.

Frankly, given what the Republicans handed Obama - perhaps the biggest financial mess since the great depression, perhaps worse had Obama not acted, plus two wars - I think he's done a fantastic job.

 

[Al68]

Then why do you speak like this?

You mean why do I speak plain (non-fraudulent) English that no one is misled by, or doesn't know exactly what I mean? That I pointed out that Communists and Democrats routinely use transparently fraudulent language? Or that I used the word "Commiespeak" to refer to that fraudulent language? Would "fraudspeak" be better?

Or should I just ignore such fraudulent language, and not point it out? That's hard to do, as often as it is used on this forum, and since it comprises the entirety of the Democrats' "message" about tax policy.

I have to ask, what part of my post are you agreeing with? The frustration of dealing with stupidity?

Yes. For example, the stupidity of anyone who would fall for the transparent (and juvenile) fraud of using the words "give to" to refer to "failure to confiscate as much as desired."

It's like a school bully taking half of a kids lunch money, then referring to half he didn't take as a "gift" that the victim should be thankful for. Sure the mentally retarded kids might fall for such verbal trickery, but all the kids with an IQ over 70 will know better.

 

[CAC1001]

Today, the Dow has recovered over half of what it lost, employment is at least holding steady and never did hit double-digits, the banks are mostly stabilized, we have positive growth, inventories are depleted, and judging by Christmas sales which were the second best in history, consumer confidence is finally returning, which is highly siginificant.

Obama saved the auto industry, but that was also partially a bailout for the unions; the Republicans said to let the auto companies go into bankruptcy, and in the end, that's what happened.

In terms of the current economy, one could also say that the President and the Congress had next to nothing to do with the recovery thus far, and if anything, hamstrung the economic recovery in their quest for healthcare and with massive stimulus. The economy heals itself (although I would give a lot of credit to Ben Bernanke at the Federal Reserve as well). The stimulus was not designed to be stimulative (very little infrastructure work) and was more of a wishlist of spending on programs Democrats have wanted.

In the mean time, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid dared to take on one of the greatest challenges we face - the skyrocketing cost of health care and the burden it will put on the nation if left unchecked - and managed to take the first significant step in a century.

It was a combination of three reasons:

1) Try and provide healthcare for everyone
2) Bring costs down
3) The Democrats have been pushing for government control of healthcare for sixty years and knew this was likely their only chance

The problem is that one cannot increase coverage for everyone, bring down costs, and retain freedom of choice. Whenever Republicans brought up people losing freedom of choice, or rationing, or skyrocketing costs, they were criticized for scaremongering and twisting the facts. But the reality is one (or even more than one) of those will occur; the only alternative will be that the system simply will not cover everyone.

Frankly, given what the Republicans handed Obama - perhaps the biggest financial mess since the great depression, perhaps worse had Obama not acted, plus two wars - I think he's done a fantastic job.

Repeatedly putting the blame on the Republicans doesn't make it anymore true Ivan. The fact is the Congress was under Democratic control when this crisis occurred; if one wants to try the, "It happened on their watch" argument, well the financial system nearly collapsed on their (the Democrats') watch (although I wouldn't blame the Democrats either).

As for President Bush, well one can also try the, "It happened under his watch" claim as well, but that is assuming near God-like powers for any President to be able to spot when the financial system is about the collapse.

You had Barney Frank who said in 2007 that there was no housing bubble. In 2006, Ben Bernanke had given a speech talking about how the economy and markets had likely entered a new era.

Most of the economics establishment, the folks who study the economy and markets for a living, didn't see the crisis coming (although now that it happened, it seems everyone and their grandmother is claiming they saw it coming )

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Obama saved the auto industry, but that was also partially a bailout for the unions; the Republicans said to let the auto companies go into bankruptcy, and in the end, that's what happened.

No one liquidated and we didn't lose another 50,000 jobs, plus the tens of thousands of jobs for suppliers, at the height of the crisis, which is what was on the horizon.

In terms of the current economy, one could also say that the President and the Congress had next to nothing to do with the recovery thus far, and if anything, hamstrung the economic recovery in their quest for healthcare and with massive stimulus. The economy heals itself (although I would give a lot of credit to Ben Bernanke at the Federal Reserve as well). The stimulus was not designed to be stimulative (very little infrastructure work) and was more of a wishlist of spending on programs Democrats have wanted.

Bernanke by no means believed the economy would heal itself. Being one of the foremost experts on the Depression, he feared that we were entering an unrecoverable depressionary spiral. Beyond that, capital injections are not going to hamstring an economic recovery. That is just silly. And health care couldn't derail anything given that it hadn't even passed until the recovery was well under way.

It was a combination of three reasons:

1) Try and provide healthcare for everyone
2) Bring costs down
3) The Democrats have been pushing for government control of healthcare for sixty years and knew this was likely their only chance

The problem is that one cannot increase coverage for everyone, bring down costs, and retain freedom of choice. Whenever Republicans brought up people losing freedom of choice, or rationing, or skyrocketing costs, they were criticized for scaremongering and twisting the facts. But the reality is one (or even more than one) of those will occur; the only alternative will be that the system simply will not cover everyone.

The Republicans were accused of fear mongering for their claims of a socialist agenda and a Government takeover of health care; pulling the plug on grandma and death panels, and claims of cutting benefits for the elderly, that were not being cut. Beyond that, we already have rationing in the form of denials and unaffordable insurance, many people already have no choice for any form of health care, and we already see skyrocketing costs, much of which results from the lack of a single-payer system. Health care can be streamlined and the cost reduced but the free market has simply not led to that end. There are excessive expenditures for unnecessary technology, a ridiculous amount of paperwork that could easily be streamlined using modern electronics [what a concept!] for dozens of different payers, poor tracking of drugs and patient information that result in malpractice suits and human misery, and worst of all, too many people who don't participate in the system at all until they become a liablity.

Repeatedly putting the blame on the Republicans doesn't make it anymore true Ivan. The fact is the Congress was under Democratic control when this crisis occurred; if one wants to try the, "It happened on their watch" argument, well the financial system nearly collapsed on their (the Democrats') watch (although I wouldn't blame the Democrats either).

As for President Bush, well one can also try the, "It happened under his watch" claim as well, but that is assuming near God-like powers for any President to be able to spot when the financial system is about the collapse.

You had Barney Frank who said in 2007 that there was no housing bubble. In 2006, Ben Bernanke had given a speech talking about how the economy and markets had likely entered a new era.

Most of the economics establishment, the folks who study the economy and markets for a living, didn't see the crisis coming (although now that it happened, it seems everyone and their grandmother is claiming they saw it coming )

The housing bubble was only the tip of the iceberg. The real killer was relentless drive towards deregulation of the financial sector. That is what ultimately did us in. Clinton was guilty of being the best Republican the Democrats ever produced, and it was he and GWB that stripped the regulations that helped to create this disaster. Moreover, at the heart of this are Republican, free-market principles. In fact, looking back at the debt to GDP ratio, we see the long slide into debt, and the loss of the middle class for that matter, all started with Reagonomics.

Even when the financial systems were collapsing, we still saw the unwaivering conservative ideology of non-intervention, even if it meant letting the country, if not he global economy, fail. It seemed the ideology was more important than the country! Recall that the Republicans blocked the first effort to bail out the banks. The next day, in fact, in the next minutes, the market was in near freefall.

Yes indeed, this crisis lands squarely in the laps of Republicans. More specifically, it is the result of Republican ideology and free-market principles.

 

[WhoWee]

In the end, one has to judge by the results. In Jan of 2009, we were losing 600,000 jobs a month, the Dow was in freefall and Wall Street was in crisis, the banking systems were failing, the auto companies were soon to be failing, we were into an official recession with two consecutive quarters of negative growth, the global economy was in jeopardy, and the best minds in economics were saying that we faced perhaps the greatest economic disaster in US history.

Today, the Dow has recovered over half of what it lost, employment is at least holding steady and never did hit double-digits, the banks are mostly stabilized, we have positive growth, inventories are depleted, and judging by Christmas sales which were the second best in history, consumer confidence is finally returning, which is highly siginificant.

You can't be serious about unemployment - can you?http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/ui/current.htm
"UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE WEEKLY CLAIMS REPORT

SEASONALLY ADJUSTED DATA

In the week ending Dec. 18, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 420,000, a decrease of 3,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 423,000. The 4-week moving average was 426,000, an increase of 2,500 from the previous week's revised average of 423,500.

The advance seasonally adjusted insured unemployment rate was 3.2 percent for the week ending Dec. 11, a decrease of 0.1 percentage point from the prior week's unrevised rate of 3.3 percent.

The advance number for seasonally adjusted insured unemployment during the week ending Dec.11 was 4,064,000, a decrease of 103,000 from the preceding week's revised level of 4,167,000. The 4-week moving average was 4,155,500, a decrease of 38,250 from the preceding week's revised average of 4,193,750.

UNADJUSTED DATA

The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 495,587 in the week ending Dec. 18, an increase of 5,311 from the previous week. There were 565,243 initial claims in the comparable week in 2009.

The advance unadjusted insured unemployment rate was 3.3 percent during the week ending Dec. 11, an increase of 0.1 percentage point from the prior week. The advance unadjusted number for persons claiming UI benefits in state programs totaled 4,173,407, an increase of 110,889 from the preceding week. A year earlier, the rate was 4.1 percent and the volume was 5,345,467.


The total number of people claiming benefits in all programs for the week ending Dec. 4 was 8,883,578."

There were 8,883,578 people receiving unemployment benefits on December 4.

Granted, the Wall Street banks seemed to have been saved (by Bush) but the Main Street banks don't seem to be doing so well under Obama.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/28/AR2010122803649.html
""More banks failed in the United States this year than in any year since 1992, during the savings-and-loan crisis, according to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

This Story
2010 worst year for bank failures since 1992
Amid high unemployment, a struggling economy and a still-devastated real estate market, the nation is closing out the year with 157 bank failures, up from 140 in 2009. As recently as 2006, before the bubble burst, there were none.

Now, there are more on the horizon.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Is it fair to ask yourself if we are better off than we were two years ago? Perhaps it would be wise to seek guidance from the greatest Republican of them all

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loBe0WXtts8

 

[bobc2]

The problem for me is that those terms were applied inappropriately. Obama didn't bailout the banks or the car companies because he's a socialist. He did it because he's a pragmatist. He did what was necessary to minimize the damage to the economy.

That's a fair position to take, so we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

Neither Bush or Paulson were socialists, but they were the first to use socialist principles to save the economy when things started to collapse. It was probably one of the hardest things that Paulson ever had to do. He had to reject the principles that framed a lifetime as a dedicated free-marketeer, in order to save the country.

There is a huge difference in what Bush did compared to what Obama did. Bush recognized a responsibility to do something about the banking system. Obama went far beyond addressing the banking system. And Bush would never have allowed the debt level to skyrocket to the present levels and certainly would not redistributed the money with the types of allocations made by the democrats.

 

[WhoWee]

Is it fair to ask yourself if we are better off than we were two years ago? Perhaps it would be wise to seek guidance from the greatest Republican of them all

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loBe0WXtts8

Reagan asked "Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?" - the answer is clearly NO, NO I'm not better off now than I was 4 years ago.

As to your question of 2 years ago - again, NO, NO I'm not better off now than I was 2 years ago. My revenues are down, my income is down, and my ability to borrow has been restricted. While my contract re-negotiations have yielded lower future cash flows (to me for the same work), my operating costs such as labor, wholesale prices, fuel costs (paid $3.19/gal for Regular last evening), and utilities have increased. On a personal note, tuition costs, food costs, and health insurance costs are increasing. To add salt to the wound, my dentist closed 2 offices and can't see me about my infected tooth until after Jan 10.

So NO, I'm not better off now than I was 4 years ago, or 3 years ago, or 2 years ago, or even 1 year ago. Worse yet, 2011 is looking to be - even worse.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Is it fair to ask yourself if we are better off than we were two years ago? Perhaps it would be wise to seek guidance from the greatest Republican of them all

Good post, and the answer would be no. I did feel a small glimmer of hope when there was at least some cooperation in the gov't to pass the tax legislation, but I'm afraid we're not going to see any real recovery until stability returns to government regulations...

 

[OmCheeto]

bolding mine

You mean why do I speak plain (non-fraudulent) English that no one is misled by, or doesn't know exactly what I mean? That I pointed out that Communists and Democrats routinely use transparently fraudulent language? Or that I used the word "Commiespeak" to refer to that fraudulent language? Would "fraudspeak" be better?

I can only think of a few of people that speak the way you do, so I would not characterize your speech as "Plain English".

And I see you've honored my request that in order to solve problems, questions and answers must be presented. Unfortunately, your questions are rhetorical, and I don't think anyone can answer them.

Also, your use of your new word; "Fraudspeak", that you attribute to "Communists" and "Democrats", somewhat contradicts your assertion that your use of the terms Marxist, Socialist, Communist, Democrats, etc, are not insults.

When you ascribe such adjectives to the labels, we can only take them as insults.

Would "fraudspeak" be better?
Or should I just ignore such fraudulent language, and not point it out? That's hard to do, as often as it is used on this forum, and since it comprises the entirety of the Democrats' "message" about tax policy.

Sorry, but that looks like fraudspeak to me.

 

[FlexGunship]

I just read this whole thread and I guess I don't want to reply to anyone, I just want to share some thoughts:

1. The purpose of the legislative branch of government is to limit freedoms; by definition. When you write a law that wasn't there before (even for the purpose of protecting one group's freedoms) you impinge on a freedom somewhere. So, perhaps "productive" is not a compliment.
2. I'd like to propose that Democrats honestly have the best possible intentions, but always manage to get the worst results. Democats will be the ones to try to make everything fair and even for everyone at the cost of everyone. They often act on short-sighted "positive" goals, and the results in the long term always seem to be negative.
3. I'd also like to propose that Republicans are almost crazy sometimes. The will often say one thing (something intelligent and admirable) and then completely fail to follow-through. Yes, some Republicans seem to be totally warped by their religious constituents, but in the grand scheme of things, they seem to have the right idea: non-intervention.

Socially, any law can only serve to limit the freedoms of an individual. Most social laws take the form of "uh, you can't do that." Even laws that have the noble intention of "leveling the playing field" always do so at the expense of someone else. It's a zero sum game, socially. (Please understand, I'm not advocating anarchy, just making a point... I don't mind if congress abridges my right to murder.)

Economically, any law can only serve to compromise the natural tendency of a free market to fix itself. Yes, economies fail over and over and over and always in new and unexpected ways. That's not something to fix, it's something to expect. Trying to legislate those problems away is like trying to legislate the tide from coming in (without the appropriate budget).

 

[WhoWee]

I just read this whole thread and I guess I don't want to reply to anyone, I just want to share some thoughts:

Care to provide an equally honest response to Ivan/Reagan's question?

 

[OmCheeto]

Is it fair to ask yourself if we are better off than we were two years ago? Perhaps it would be wise to seek guidance from the greatest Republican of them all

I don't know about we, but I'm better off.
I heard the other day that I'm getting a tax break that I don't need, my portfolio is up 63% from a year ago, the new truck I bought last year is still running great, and I guess I'm really lucky to be one of those rare http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm" who still has a job.

 

[WhoWee]

I don't know about we, but I'm better off.
I heard the other day that I'm getting a tax break that I don't need, my portfolio is up 63% from a year ago, the new truck I bought last year is still running great, and I guess I'm really lucky to be one of those rare http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm" who still has a job.

That was a good link - the unemployment graph from 2006 - 2010 certainly answers the question for "we" - doesn't it?
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet