American Politics during the Obama Presidency

Writing about politics is completely fucked up? Most people, unfortunately, would think the other things we write about here are a lot more fucked up. Relax. This is the "Chit Chat" section of an internet site. It's like grade school. If you don't want to stand around talking at recess you're free to go do something else.

Now, excuse me. I need to go to the bathroom and whack off to photos of Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton while reading some of Esten's posts. I get so aroused when I'm pissed off.

[QUOTE=Esten;418335]Of course there is action here in SP, but it doesn't hold a candle to the scene in BA. Too expensive, limited options, travelling time, all not to mention the legal aspect. We can thank the family values climate here, driven in large part by one political party.[/QUOTE]Whoa, would you have us believe that leftwing Democrats supports legalized prostitution, did you forget about the male bashing feminist groups that oppose prostitution?

Take a look at the San Francisco protest to end Craigs List "Adult Services" Section, which was sponsored by the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women (CATW) , if you look at the co-sponsors you will see names like Gloria Steinem, and Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, and Congresswoman Jackie Speier, (both Democrats) of course it's all under the guise of anti-trafficking. By linking trafficking and prostitution they can abuse the Mann Act to combat prostitution in the USA.

So tell us Esten is your statement a half truth, a misconception, or just an attempt to mislead?

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mann_Act[/url]

[url]http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/advocacy/000276.html[/url]

BTW the 'Coalition Against Trafficking in Women' is international and on their web page they state [i]'CATW has been an effective NGO presence internationally and has changed the terms of the debate over prostitution and trafficking in many regions of the globe and at the [b][u]United Nations level. [/b][/u] '[/i]

[url]http://www.catwinternational.org/about/index.php[/url]

Most of these feminist groups favor Swedish style prostitution laws that make it legal to sell sex but illegal to buy it.

[url]http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-03-16-sweden-prostitution_N.htm[/url]

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Sweden[/url]

[QUOTE=Tiny12;418319]Moveon, . that's an interesting thought, that the administrator could check your identity. You provided him no information when you registered that would identity you. Why would you expect him to violate your privacy, especially given this is a monger forum?[/QUOTE]Tiny, you remind me of Donald Trump and Sean Hannity of Fox News. Those who did not believe Obama was born in Hawaii. If Jackson would like to, he can PM and I will give him my email address. Jackson can send me a (non-monger) email and I will reply to confirm. At this point he can Google my name and email address to see if I have anything to do with politics. (I trust that the Administrator would then withhold my identity infinitely.)

Now stop with your conspiracy theories.

[QUOTE=Moveon;418352]Now stop with your conspiracy theories.[/QUOTE]You're Bill Clinton. I know you are, don't deny it.

[QUOTE=Punter 127;418327]True I have made disparaging remarks, but not as part of an organized effort to demonize someone. I don't believe you can honestly make the same claim.[/QUOTE]I should clarify something. On your quotes I referred to you. But on the disparaging remarks, that was not about you specifically, rather the collective right-wing posting history in this thread. In which you are certainly not among the worst offenders.

Surely you realize that often our posts are driven by the news cycle, what is current. Possibly, just possibly, I posted about Bachmann because she was getting a lot of media attention for something, oh, perhaps announcing her run for President? That you think I was simply following some liberal directive or effort ala "today post about Bachmann" is seriously funny! My opinions are 100% my own. Think what you will, I cannot control that. FWIW, it never, ever occured to me any right wing poster here was part of some organized effort either.

[QUOTE=Punter 127;418350]Whoa, would you have us believe that leftwing Democrats supports legalized prostitution, did you forget about the male bashing feminist groups that oppose prostitution?[/QUOTE]Read what I said. I said nothing about the extent of support for legalizing prostitution among Democrats. BTW there is a very important difference between trafficking and prostitution.

If prostitution were the only issue I would vote Libertarian. Between Dems and Repubs, I'd say the party that supports gay marriage is more likely to support legalizing prostitution.

It is my opinion that the single biggest obstacle to legalizing prostitution is the religious right and their efforts to maintain and promote a family values culture in the US. This does not mean there would be no other obstacles without them. Only that the religious right is the biggest obstacle, or drag, on moving in the direction of legalization. I'm quite sure many if not most people would agree with this. Care to disagree?

[QUOTE=Tiny12;418319]The social programs you're referring to, being Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, are going to take up a ridiculous and unsustainable percentage of GDP if nothing is done, and Obama, you and every other intelligent Democrat knows that. But, unlike the Tea Party, most Democrat politicians prefer to kick the can down the road, as they put short term political gain over what's good for the country.[/QUOTE]Yes we all know Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are big and growing components of federal spending. But saying the Tea Party has a serious approach and Dems want to kick the can down the road is bullshit. First off, Ryan's budget was never serious to begin with because everybody knew it would go nowhere. It was a statement, for discussion purposes, not a serious proposal. If they were serious they would have submitted something that actually had a chance of passing. And only a fool would believe that Dems would support a plan to eliminate Medicare AND give more tax cuts to the wealthy at the same time. The Tea Party is an ignorant and dangerous ideological movement. Repubs think the Tea Party will help them in 2012, but it could prove just the opposite.

Second, Dems are very willing to make serious cuts. They've already agreed to $1 Trillion or so cuts in the current debt ceiling discussions. Neither party can take the high road in being deficit hawks. But we could have a deal tomorrow if it weren't for, you guessed it, conservative ideology. In fact the Democratic compromise would lower deficits more than the one-sided Republican plan. The Republican position has the weight of economic and popular opinion against it. It is getting close to crunch time and this one will be very interesting to watch. There is short-term and long-term strategy here on both sides. My feeling is there needs to be some real pain, though not too much. Once Americans start understanding the real vs. abstract consequences of deep spending cuts, they will be even more in favor of including revenue increases in 2012.

Are today's bank any different from the Mafia? Case in point.

Someone I know had to juggle some credit card debts by doing some balance transfers on very good terms between a few cards he had. Unfortunately, he lost his job in a bad economy, his age was somewhat against him in the job market. But he paid his bills on time, and the banks are making money of him. He is now ok and should be debt free very soon. In the meantime, he need hs credit badly as a source of financing. So, as a reward for his due diligence in making payments, his % was raised by about 5, crippling him somewhat. Some people like to call it free market, others might call it legal loan-sharking.

Reminds me of some National Geographic documentaries showing the stalking of the weak, old, injured animals by their predators. All those CE0s making obscene milions and laughing all the way to the loo. The Mafia is still well and alive, wearing their Armani suits and drinking champagne. And we have poeple on this board defending them zealously.

Remember, I am not a liberal. I believe government has 2 basic functions, provide jobs and provide safety for it's citizens. But we might have to add to those functions now that the Mafia is legal and actually part of the establishment.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt;418367]All those CE0s making obscene millions and laughing all the way to the loo. The Mafia is still well and alive, wearing their Armani suits and drinking champagne. And we have people on this board defending them zealously.[/QUOTE]You're right! Off with their heads, I say. Obviously the people who run these "legal loan-sharking" operations have no moral compass. And while we're at it, I think we should ban the insidious practice of letting private companies issue credit card in the first place.

Wait, I just had a brilliant idea: Government-issued credit cards! Every citizen would be issued a credit card with interest rates subsidized by the government, and the program could be managed by a new government agency staffed with people who really care about their fellow citizens. Of course, you would set credit limits based inversely on income: Lower income people would get a higher credit limit because they "need" the credit more that those "Millionaires and Billionaires" that Obama was blaming for the budget deficit in his speech last week's. In fact, you could make interest rates higher for "Millionaires and Billionaires", and use that money to pay the interest rates for everybody else.

And the best part is, I'm sure that our politicians, with their proven fiscal management acumen, can develop projections showing that the program would be entirely self-funding and would never run a deficit.

Brilliant!

Thanks,

Jackson

Esten, I know very little about Ryan's proposed budget. And I haven't been following current budget negotiations. I suspect you're right though, Ryan's plan, like the plan of the bipartisan deficit commission, didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being signed into law given the composition of the Senate and Obama's veto power. Any serious reform of entitlements stands no chance as long as most Democrats and many Republicans take positions based on what's most likely to get them re-elected instead of what's best for the country. The bastards are going to wait until we're bankrupt to start trying to solve the problem of unsustainable entitlement spending. Whose fault will that be? Answer: The American public that elected them in the first place.

The Tea Party is 'ignorant and dangerous'? Just like Reagan and Thatcher? It's your party that's ignorant and dangerous. I suspect the $1 trillion you quote, over who knows how many years, doesn't even touch entitlement spending and is a drop in the bucket compared to the mess we're in.

Everytime you say "tax the wealthy", you should substitute "business and investment" for "wealthy." Again, I don't know much about Ryan's plan, but would be surprised if any cut in marginal income tax rates wouldn't be accompanied by a reduction in the tax deductions (what Moveon calls "subsidies") that make our tax code so complicated and economically inefficient.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt;418367]I believe government has 2 basic functions, provide jobs and provide safety for it's citizens.[/QUOTE]Providing jobs is a government function?

First, jobs are not "provided", they are created by entrepreneurs who take a risk by attempting to bring to market goods or services that they believe may be sold for a price greater that their cost to produce. Governments can never "create" jobs because governments are not structured as "for profit" enterprises.

Second, the only way that government can "provide" jobs is by forcing the rest of us at gunpoint to pay the government money that is then given to other people under the pretense of a job that most financially ignorant people incorrectly assume will result in the creation of something of value (the aforesaid "goods or services") , when in fact these "paychecks" produce nothing of value and are a complete waste of money for the rest of us, although they do secure votes for incumbent politicians.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Jackson; 418381]Providing jobs is a government function?

First, jobs are not "provided", they are created by entrepreneurs who take a risk by attempting to bring to market goods or services that they believe may be sold for a price greater that their cost to produce. Governments can never "create" jobs because governments are not structured as "for profit" enterprises.

Second, the only way that government can "provide" jobs is by forcing the rest of us at gunpoint to pay the government money that is then given to other people under the pretense of a job that most financially ignorant people incorrectly assume will result in the creation of something of value (the aforesaid "goods or services") , when in fact these "paychecks" produce nothing of value and are a complete waste of money for the rest of us, although they do secure votes for incumbent politicians.

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]Create is a better word, but it is really a matter of semantics. My point is that it is the govenment's responsibility is to provide an enviroment that is conducive to job creation and as a result, a robust economy. By whatever means. No party line here.

Just a sidenote, we have an thriving underground economy. If Americans really want to work, there is work. You might have to work 2 jobs, but you will have food on the table and and you will be able to make your house payment. Unless, of course, you have a 2nd or even a 3rd mortgage. Sadly, the party is over and too much debris and drunks laying around.

[QUOTE=Jackson; 418372]You're right! Off with their heads, I say. Obviously the people who run these "legal loan-sharking" operations have no moral compass. And while we're at it, I think we should ban the insidious practice of letting private companies issue credit card in the first place.

Wait, I just had a brilliant idea: Government-issued credit cards! Every citizen would be issued a credit card with interest rates subsidized by the government, and the program could be managed by a new government agency staffed with people who really care about their fellow citizens. Of course, you would set credit limits based inversely on income: Lower income people would get a higher credit limit because they "need" the credit more that those "Millionaires and Billionaires" that Obama was blaming for the budget deficit in his speech last week's. In fact, you could make interest rates higher for "Millionaires and Billionaires", and use that money to pay the interest rates for everybody else.

And the best part is, I'm sure that our politicians, with their proven fiscal management acumen, can develop projections showing that the program would be entirely self-funding and would never run a deficit.

Brilliant!

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]I know you are a free market die-hard, American style. But the days of the open prairies are gone, cowboys are only in the movies. Now, the air and water are somewhat polluted. And the hamburger joints have un-American faces. And your neighbours are not interested in taking in the mail for you. Life in America have changed, dude.

The economy was nuked, To Big To Fail became To Big to Jailed.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt;418390]But the days of the open prairies are gone, cowboys are only in the movies.[/QUOTE]Nicely said.

Still, maybe we can find a place for people like Jackson where they won't be forced at gunpoint to pay taxes. I'm sure we can find a few acres somewhere in the country to dedicate as a tax-free sanctuary. There won't be any schools or teachers for their children, no policemen to protect them, no firemen to put out fires, nobody to deliver the mail, no roads to drive their cars. But hey, they'll have their freedom, and their guns to protect themselves.

Now Jackson will respond that this is wrong, that he will pay for the goods and services he wants, but the difference is that it will be [i]his[/i] choice. He won't be forced to pay for something he doesn't want. But there's a little problem with that argument, it's called the law of supply and demand. Jackson will only get what he wants, at a price he is willing to pay, if there is enough demand for those same things. But there might not be. His neighbor might be some big tough dude who doesn't want to pay for policemen, another neighbor might want to pay for roads but can't afford to because he has a family to raise, and Jackson may not want to pay for his neighbor's kids school. In the end, nobody may get anything they want.

Esten: How's it goin bud? You and I really ought to get together for a beer sometime, jejejeje. No really, at dinner a couple of Thursdays ago, Jackson spoke very highly of you. I think, despite our political, and economic differences, you and I would probably get along quite well. First things first, my chica report from week before last: LucianaLove is a real doll, not really punctual, but well worth the wait (likes to be rode hard and put up wet till the sun comes up. Make sure she hops in the shower beforehand.). Mara, the Guarani screamer is a LOT of fun, and at AR$250 for an hour or so, is well worth your time. Camila and Romina were as wonderful as ever, although I don't recommend their ex-suite mate (Maria. I think.) for anything other than a severe salad tossing (she has a long, strong tounge). Her massage sux and her BBBJ doesn't hold a candle to Romi and Camila. Good thing the dynamic duo moved over to Uruguay. Maybe Daisy will join them soon. OK. Where was I. Oh yeah, The Law of Supply and Demand.

I really don't think you have a good grasp of the concept, so I'll boil it down for you. From a demand perspective. Where demand, marginal utility, (jollies received per $ spent) is equal to or greater than marginal cost (bummers per $ parted with) there will be supply (read: I really don't want my house to burn down, so I will pay for local firefighters)."Tax Free" is just as mythical as "Free Lunch". There is no such thing as free. There is gratuitous, but nothing is free. Prior to our national income tax (tax on productivity) in 1913 we had teachers, roads (and railroads) , policemen, firemen and even the mail man. Now, I think we can do without the mail man these days, as the Postal Service cannot support itself via its own operations. Its sooooo 20th century. Why did we have these services prior to 1913? We had them because there was aggregate (individual demand, multiplied by the number of individuals. On average) demand, funded through voluntary levies and taxes (property and sales taxes. Voluntary in nature) , to support them. Even though the times (technology, etc.) might change, human behavior doesn't. At the micro nor macro level. If Jackson, or anyone else, finds those few acres where taxes on productivity won't forceably be extracted, demanded public services will be supplied. At some price point-BF.

[QUOTE=Esten; 418398]Nicely said.

Still, maybe we can find a place for people like Jackson where they won't be forced at gunpoint to pay taxes. I'm sure we can find a few acres somewhere in the country to dedicate as a tax-free sanctuary. There won't be any schools or teachers for their children, no policemen to protect them, no firemen to put out fires, nobody to deliver the mail, no roads to drive their cars. But hey, they'll have their freedom, and their guns to protect themselves.

Now Jackson will respond that this is wrong, that he will pay for the goods and services he wants, but the difference is that it will be [i]his[/i] Choice. He won't be forced to pay for something he doesn't want. But there's a little problem with that argument, it's called the law of supply and demand. Jackson will only get what he wants, at a price he is willing to pay, if there is enough demand for those same things. But there might not be. His neighbor might be some big tough dude who doesn't want to pay for policemen, another neighbor might want to pay for roads but can't afford to because he has a family to raise, and Jackson may not want to pay for his neighbor's kids school. In the end, nobody may get anything they want.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Jackson; 418381]Providing jobs is a government function?

First, jobs are not "provided", they are created by entrepreneurs who take a risk by attempting to bring to market goods or services that they believe may be sold for a price greater that their cost to produce. Governments can never "create" jobs because governments are not structured as "for profit" enterprises.

Second, the only way that government can "provide" jobs is by forcing the rest of us at gunpoint to pay the government money that is then given to other people under the pretense of a job that most financially ignorant people incorrectly assume will result in the creation of something of value (the aforesaid "goods or services") , when in fact these "paychecks" produce nothing of value and are a complete waste of money for the rest of us, although they do secure votes for incumbent politicians.

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]Well said. The government could not produce a rubber band economically much less create jobs.