American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Esten; 415952]Jackson and Walleye both asked the question: Where did the cookies come from? In my last example, the politician (government) is giving the cookies (money) to the union guy as payment for services rendered.

Where did the government get the cookies from? From the taxpayers.

Where did the taxpayers get the cookies from? From their employers (or customers).

Where did the employers (or customers) get their cookies from? From their employers (or customers).

And so on and so on. So it's really pointless talking about where the cookies came from. [/quote]No it isn't pointless. Your premise starts with the cookies with the government, that is not where or how they were created. You think in terms that the cookies are government property.

[quote=]What's important is who are the cookies owed to.[/quote]This is the single most reveling comment you have made, in some time. For you, TO WHOM the government is giving the money is more important than from whom it was taken. Further, you don't care whether or not there is a moral basis for the government expropriating the private property of its citizens. You have never articulated, and probably have never contemplated, why the private citizen should be compelled to part with his property in order for it to be GIVEN to someone else, you just assume that he should.

[quote=]To your second question- just who is the owner?

Well the union guy is the owner. He owns the cookies. Why? Because of the laws and contracts in place for the government to collect taxes to pay for public services. I fully agree, the owner should decide what happens to their cookies. [/quote]Why don't the laws and contracts relating to the business of the guy who made the cookies matter as much as those related to the union guy?

[quote=]Which brings us to the next question.

Easy. The same reason private sector unions have value:

[i]To help negotiate good deals and avoid bad deals. [/i][/quote]They serve similar functions, in addition to laundering money for the DNC, extorting money from its membership to give it to the DNC as a payoff for favorable policies. However, the big difference if against whom they are negotiating. In the case of the private sector, the other side is the owners of the business. In the case of the public sector unions, the other side is the taxpayer.

The deals that the unions negotiated for GM were so good, they bankrupted the company. The deals that unions have negotiated over the past 50 years have been so good that they have priced us out of most of the industries requiring manufacturing (textiles, shoes, electronics, etc).

Why are so many states and municipalities insolvent? In large part because of the great deals the unions have negotiated.

[quote=]All hard working Americans deserve fair compensation and reward for their work. We may not agree on what's fair, and fair will vary depending on the job and skill level. But without leverage and negotiating power you are more at risk of unfair or bad deals, however that may be defined.[/quote]Why shouldn't the market determine the price rather than have it artificially set by non-owners who are being extorted by unions?

[quote=]The potential for unfairness exists in the public sector just as it does in the private sector. Look at the states. Some states are making sure the budget 'pain' is shared by spending cuts and tax increases on the wealthy. Other states are giving the wealthy a free pass and dumping all the pain on public workers.[/quote]Well now, the state government can't lay off the 'wealthy' because they work in the private sector. You have your vote, for free, to change management.

That said, there are far too many public union employees who are grossly overpaid for the jobs that they do and receive benefits (particularly defined benefit pensions) that generally don't exist in the private sector.

[quote=]I'm not a big pro-union guy. But I see the potential for Big Business / Republicans in positions of power to protect or enrich the wealthy at the expense of the working poor and middle class. For this reason alone, I think private and public unions can provide leverage against this threat and therefore have value.[/quote]Back in the day when unions actually served to protect workers, at a time when they needed protection. Now they exist for union basses and the DNC.

[quote=]Getting back to Jackson's question, one thing is for sure: the union guy's cookies are NO business of CEO's like David Koch. The Koch Brothers and their front group "Americans for Prosperity" are basically trying to buy politicians to advance their agenda, which includes killing public unions. You guys know the story.[/quote]If he's the CEO of the company from which union guy gets his cookies, the CEO has a fiduciary responsibility to the owners of the company to ensure that union guy is paid a market salary.

If union guy works for the state, in which the CEO's company pays taxes and where the CEO pays personal taxes, the union guy's pay is his business both as CEO and as an individual.

[quote=]I am sure Walleye has a giant poster of David Koch on his bedroom wall.[/QUOTE]It's in the bathroom so I can look at it while rubbing one out.

[QUOTE=Moveon; 415962]You can't help but chuckle that the Congressman Republican Leader of the House now agrees with the Obama Administration:

"I think raising the debt limit is the responsible thing to do for our country, the responsible thing to do for our economy. If we were to fail the increase the debt limit, we would send our economy into a tailspin." (WSJ 3/4/11)

This is exactly what most of the Democrats and President Obama have been saying for months on end.

Welcome to the real world, Congressman Boehner. [/QUOTE]Obama / Pelosi / Reid have backed the nation up to a cliff by going on the greatest debt binge in history. There was never any doubt that congress would need to raise the limit because the dangers of impacting the 'full faith and credit. ' No one except you is surprised by this.

"Real World" that is a funny name to give to something that spends $1. 5T more than it will take in and thinks it is sustainable.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt;415947]The debate goes on, but beyond all the rhetoric is the everpresent virus, SELF INTEREST. It taints every individual and every action. Some may argue that it is a necessay ingredient for self survival.[/quote]Correct you are. No self interest = no human race. It's binary.

[quote=]Well, I agree but only up to a certain level before greed is good becomes greed is evil.[/quote]Greed isn't 'evil' per se, it is a sin defined as 'an excessive desire to possess wealth or goods with the intention to keep it for one's self." Sins are bad behavior, some may even be driven by evil or rooted in evil.

Greed is separate and distinct from self interest which is loosely defined as 'a focus on the needs or desires (interests) of oneself'

Self interest is good. Greed is considered to be bad. Except of course according to GG when "greed, for a lack of a better word, is good."

[quote=]Where is America is in regard to greed in 2011? Well, I leave it to you.[/quote]Not sure. There are lots of greedy people in the world, America clearly has not cornered the market.

[quote=]The Middle East revolution shows that we have supported some really evil people for decades in our self interest[/quote]We certainly have. History will tell us if we were correct in doing so. If in doing so, we acted in our best interests, then we were correct. Were we just or moral is a different question that may have a different answer. As for the various uprisings in the middle east, sadly, I think there will come a day when the masses will long for the days of Gaddafi and Mubarak.

[quote=]but then pretend that we really believe in liberty and domocracy for all.[/quote]A free, moral and just society should look to advance personal freedom as it relates to all peoples, within and beyond its borders. However, as it relates to its own peoples, it is a prerogative whereas when it relates to non-citizens, beyond its borders, is should be an objective.

[quote=]Wow! Obama or Bush, does it really matter?[/QUOTE]I think it does. Only one of the two has intentionally participated in efforts to weaken the US, which despite the presence of some greedy citizens is still the greatest human force for good in history.

It is that kind of thinking that gave us Obama in the first place. That thing I mentioned about not intentionally or unintentionally damaging the country and our freedom, everyone who voted for Obama did one of the other. It's binary.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 415964]Obama / Pelosi / Reid have backed the nation up to a cliff by going on the greatest debt binge in history. There was never any doubt that congress would need to raise the limit because the dangers of impacting the 'full faith and credit. ' No one except you is surprised by this.

"Real World" that is a funny name to give to something that spends $1. 5T more than it will take in and thinks it is sustainable. [/QUOTE]


According to the extremist right. Wing REPUBLICAN Tea party politicians nearly all have been screaming about cutting the government debt limit, NOW. (Ron Paul, Sarah Palin, etc) Evidently that shows you're out of touch with your own party, fool.

I never said that the current spending was sustainable, did I? However, we are trying to get out of the worst recession since the 1930's.

The most recent data now shows that unemployment is 8. 9% but we have a way to go still. All those naysayers can now jerk-off about the Obama stimulus package not working or contributing to the nation's recovery. (including you, Wallyeye)

[QUOTE=Moveon;415970]According to the extremist right wing REPUBLICAN Tea party politicians nearly all have been screaming about cutting the government debt limit, NOW. (Ron Paul, Sarah Palin, etc) Evidently that shows you're out of touch with your own party.[/QUOTE]I've never seen Ron Paul or Sarah Palin [u]scream[/u] About anything.

Please provide a link or reference to these events.

Or just admit that your statement is typical liberal hyperbole.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Jackson; 415971]I've never seen Ron Paul or Sarah Palin [u]scream[/u] About anything.

Please provide a link or reference to these events.

Or just admit that your statement is typical liberal hyperbole.

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]Liberal hyperbole? I don't think so, READ:

[url]http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=263933[/url]

[QUOTE=Moveon;415970]The most recent data now shows that unemployment is 8. 9% but we have a way to go still. All those naysayers can now jerk-off about the Obama stimulus program not working. (including you, Wallyeye)[/QUOTE]ROTFLMAO!

The Obama stimulus money was 90% pissed away last year. The reason the unemployment rate is dropping now is because business owners are starting to hire because they have confidence that the newly elected Republican Congress will finally reign in the rampant spending, restoring some sense of fiscal order to the government's budget and stop the Obama administration's reckless borrowing.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Moveon; 415972]Liberal hyperbole? I don't think so, READ:

[url]http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=263933[/url]

[/QUOTE]Hi,

You claim that "[i]politicians nearly all have been screaming about cutting the government debt limit, NOW. (Ron Paul, Sarah Palin) [/i]", and you specifically list Ron Paul and Sarah Palin.

So, where's the link to substantiate your claim that Ron Paul and Sarah Palin have been "screaming" about cutting the government debt limit?

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Jackson; 415974]Hi,

You claim that "[i]politicians nearly all have been screaming about cutting the government debt limit, NOW. (Ron Paul, Sarah Palin) [/i]", and you specifically list Ron Paul and Sarah Palin.

So, where's the link to substantiate your claim that Ron Paul and Sarah Palin have been "screaming" about cutting the government debt limit?

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]Ron Paul:

[url]http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-01-10/ron-paul-ill-vote-against-raising-the-debt-limit/[/url]

Sarah Palin:

"Palin also said she is thankful for lawmakers who are prepared to vote against raising the nation's debt limit, which is a cap set by Congress on the amount of debt the federal government can legally borrow." (CNN. Money. Com 2/17/11)

or this:
[url]http://www.examiner.com/finance-examiner-in-national/sarah-palin-speaks-out-on-the-upcoming-congressional-debt-ceiling-debate[/url]

[QUOTE=Moveon;415970]The most recent data now shows that unemployment is 8. 9% but we have a way to go still. All those naysayers can now jerk-off about the Obama stimulus package not working or contributing to the nation's recovery. (including you, Wallyeye)[/QUOTE]Really, who's jerking who off?

[quote]9 Feb 2011.

Last week's surprisingly sharp decline in the unemployment rate from 9. 4% to 9% and equally surprising anemic job growth. 36, 000 new jobs. Left a lot of investors scratching their heads. How could the unemployment rate plummet so significantly while a such a trivial number of new jobs were created?

If we simply extrapolate those numbers, we get some nonsensical results. If adding 36, 000 jobs to the 139 million jobs in the USA economy lowers the unemployment rate by 0. 4 percentage points, then adding just 720, 000 jobs should lower the unemployment rate by 8 points. From 9% to only 1.

Yet the Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows that 812, 000 jobs were added in the year from January 2010 to January 2011 (138, 511, 000 vs. 139, 323, 000). Based on the unemployment rate announced last week, we could expect that those 812, 000 additional jobs would have lowered the unemployment rate to near-zero. But of course, we know they didn't.

According to the BLS, the civilian labor force was 153. 8 million in January 2008 and 153. 2 million in January 2011. A decline of 600, 000 while the population increased by some 6 million. And the not-in-labor-force category expanded by 2 million from January 2010 to January 2011, from 83. 4 million to 85. 5 million.

When unemployed people stop looking for jobs at their local unemployment office, the government no longer counts them as unemployed. That's how the number of unemployed can drop from 15 million in November 2010 to 13. 8 million in January 2011, a decline of 1. 2 million, even though the economy created only about 400, 000 jobs in those three months.

Over a longer time period, the not-in-labor-force group rose from 78. 8 million in January 2008 to 85. 5 million in January 2011. An increase of almost 7 million.

[b][u]How do you drop the unemployment rate? Simple: remove 7 million people from the labor force. [/b][/u][/QUOTE]And for February the BLS reports.

[quote]Nonfarm payroll employment increased by 192,000 in February, and the unemployment rate was little changed at 8.9 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. [/quote]Here's another link that speaks of ' manipulated job numbers'.

[url]http://www.examiner.com/finance-examiner-in-national/wall-street-ignores-job-number-exuberance-as-oil-hits-104-and-dollar-drops-hard[/url]

Now could you explain one more time how the Obama stimulus package is working and contributing to the nation's recovery?

No Moveon,

Jackson wants you to produce an audio or video clip like on YouTube proving they were actually "screaming". He couldn't argue with the substance of your post, so he's trying to get you on style. Perhaps it's hyperbole, or more likely just a metaphor.

Of course, no conservative would [i]ever[/i] use hyperbole or metaphors in their arguments. LOL!

BTW, you haven't been around Walleye enough to understand what you are dealing with. You make some good points, but don't expect to be convincing him about anything. He is stuck in the quicksand of his ideology. Here is a practice exercise I would suggest: Go find a large rock and place it on your kitchen table. Sitting down, look at the rock calmly. State your argument. Wait for an intelligent response. Repeat your argument. Listen again. Repeat three times.

The Successful Stimulus

No amount of lies and repetition can change the fact that Obama's Stimulus (supported by the USCoC) was absolutely successful as assessed by respected economists. Repubs keep repeating that it failed to keep unemployment below 8% as claimed in early 2009. That's all they got, but nobody could have foreseen the deep private sector job losses to come over 2009. The Administration erred in making an overly optimistic projection. However, the economic analyses show that the Stimulus created or saved near 3 million jobs. Without it, unemployment could have peaked over 11%, with no guarantee it would be trending down like it is now. Although the recent month-to-month unemployment trend is definately not directly attributable to the Stimulus, the idea that the Stimulus has not played any role in this trend is about as dubious as the idea that the trend is entirely due to post-midterm election private sector optimism.

Bush's Debt

The major components of our current deficit / debt situation are mostly due to Bush's legacy, not Obama. The Stimulus and other recent spending are large but temporary, and more importantly, are outsized by the ongoing impact of the Bush tax cuts, unfunded wars and economic downturn tax revenue loss resulting from conservative ideology under Bush.

I've posted this link a couple times before, and here it is once again, see Figure 1:

Critics Still Wrong on What's Driving Deficits in Coming Years
[url]http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036[/url]

[QUOTE=Esten;415979]The major components of our current deficit / debt situation are mostly due to Bush's legacy, not Obama.[/QUOTE]Democratic house and senate have set the budget since 2007. Obama showed up in 2009. It's now March 2011. It's all Bush's fault! WTF!

How dare you use the term "misinformation" Esten. I must admit that you liberals will never let the facts get in the way of a decent discussion. We need democrats in this country to provide a balanced agenda, HOWEVER, never give them the keys to the bus. It ends up going off the road everytime!

Tick! Tick! Tick! 2012 is just around the corner. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

A November 2010 report by the CBO estimated that the ARRA (Stimulus) policies had the following effects in the third quarter of calendar year 2010:

• They raised real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by between 1. 4 and 4. 1 percent,

• Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0. 8 percentage points and 2. 0 percentage points,

• Increased the number of people employed by between 1. 4 million and 3. 6 million, and.

• Increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 2. 0 million to 5. 2 million compared with what would have occurred otherwise (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers). [Congressional Budget Office. 11/2010]

[QUOTE=Esten; 415981]A November 2010 report by the CBO estimated that the ARRA (Stimulus) policies had the following effects in the third quarter of calendar year 2010:

• They raised real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by between 1. 4 and 4. 1 percent,

• Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0. 8 percentage points and 2. 0 percentage points,

• Increased the number of people employed by between 1. 4 million and 3. 6 million, and.

• Increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 2. 0 million to 5. 2 million compared with what would have occurred otherwise (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers). [Congressional Budget Office. 11/2010][/QUOTE]Please respond to my deficit comment as it pertains to WHO has been putting the budget together since 2007? I know. You can't! LOL. Was your turn dude and you're boys blew it. LOL. It may be a while till you get the keys to the bus again dude. Better enjoy the free ride for the next 18 months or so. Happy Mongering All. Toymann.

Ps. Oh! I forgot! It had to be George Bush's fault! IALOTFLMAO