American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Tiny12]Ricardo,

O. K. If you're going to use the dictionary definition of socialist, then Obama is not a socialist, at least not overtly. But he's doing his best to move the U. S. Towards bigger government, higher taxes, higher spending, and more equality in terms of income even if equality means everyone ends up worse off. He's moving the U. S. Towards a western or northern European style of government and an economy that's less dynamic.[/QUOTE]Sidney,

Is this your reasoning why you describe Obama as a socialist? Seems like a pretty reasonable explanation to me. I'm not going to beg you for your reasons, you've been asked enough times already without us getting an answer, but I'm fascinated why you believe it.

Thanks,

Steve

[QUOTE=Sidney]How ''Gubmint'' Works!

Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert. Congress said, "Someone may steal from it at night." So they created a night watchman position and hired a person for the job.

Then Congress said, "How does the watchman do his job without instruction?" So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to write the instructions, and one person to do time studies.

Then Congress said, "How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?" So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people. One to do the studies and one to write the reports.

Then Congress said, "How are these people going to get paid?" So They created the following positions, a time keeper, and a payroll officer, then hired two people.

Then Congress said, "Who will be accountable for all of these people?" So they created an administrative section and hired three people, an Administrative Officer, Assistant Administrative Officer, and a Legal Secretary.

Then Congress said, "We have had this command in operation for one year and we are $18,000 over budget, we must cutback overall cost."

So they laid off the night watchman.

NOW slowly.

Let it sink in. Quietly, we go like sheep to slaughter.

Does anybody remember the reason given for the establishment of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY. During the Carter Administration?

Anybody?

Anything?

No?

Didn't think so!

Bottom line. We've spent several hundred billion dollars in support of an agency.

The reason for which not one person who reads this can remember!

Ready?

It was very simple. And at the time, everybody thought it very appropriate.

The Department of Energy was instituted on 8-04-1977.

TO LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL.

Hey, pretty efficient, huh?

And now, it's 2009.- 32 years later.- and the budget for this "necessary" department is at $24.2 billion a year. They have 16, 000 federal employees and approximately 100, 000 contract employees; and look at the job they have done! This is where you slap your forehead and say, "what was I thinking? "

Ah, yes.- good ole bureaucracy.

And, now, we are going to turn the banking system, health care and the auto industry over to the same government?[/QUOTE]Fantastic post!

Argento

Werd,

Pretty fantastic when Joe Eiban of conservablogs wrote it.

[url]http://conservablogs.com/JoeEiben/?p=251[/url]

You might want to post a link and an authors name Sidney. Just so we can be factually correct.

Regards,

BM

[QUOTE=Argento]Fantastic post!

Argento[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Sidney]And, now, we are going to turn the banking system, health care and the auto industry over to the same government?[/QUOTE]We certainly know how Wall Street managed the banking system and Detroit managed the auto industry, their record speaks for itself. Didn't you work on Wall Street or was it in Detroit?

[QUOTE=Damman]We certainly know how Wall Street managed the banking system and Detroit managed the auto industry, their record speaks for itself. Didn't you work on Wall Street or was it in Detroit?[/QUOTE]Have you been in Caracas, Buenos Aires or México, you can see how the burocratic class grew under populist governments, their record speaks for itself. You actually want that for the US?

[QUOTE=BadMan]Werd,

Pretty fantastic when Joe Eiban of conservablogs wrote it.

[url]http://conservablogs.com/JoeEiben/?p=251[/url]

You might want to post a link and an authors name Sidney. Just so we can be factually correct.

Regards,

BM[/QUOTE]Is it stealing or borrowing or just innocently forwarding someone else's work?

Jackson maybe you need to add a new rule. When posting the work of someone other than the AP member, the post must include the identity of the original source. That would be in addition to the no all CAPs and no disturbing statistics from Ricardo rules.

I always post my own thoughts and opinions and research and take responsibility for them. I provide a citation when I quote another source. It's what my mother taught me.

[QUOTE=Sidney]He is using a socialist agenda to assist his ambition. He is a dangerous man, greatly assisted by his bullshit oratory! I agree with Tiny 12's observations. What else do you want Steve?[/QUOTE]It's unbecoming to see an intelligent man taking such a purely paranoid position. It's also a lazy way to make an important point.

Why not argue "Obama is proposing programs, positions and policies I profoundly disagree with, that I believe will do grave harm to the American economy and the future well-being of the American people."

That is a position that is credible, mature and subject to honest debate. Then you can cite chapter, verse, facts and figures to prove your point.

The dictator thing shows a real lack of respect for the American people as it implies they might let Obama's oratory fool them into putting on their brownshirts.

You can do better.

[QUOTE=Whiskas]Have you been in Caracas, Buenos Aires or México, you can see how the burocratic class grew under populist governments, their record speaks for itself. You actually want that for the US?[/QUOTE]With all due respect, please spare me the fear BS about Caracas, Mexico and Buenos Aires. If we do nothing, guaranteed we will be there. Believe it or not, there is a middle ground in all of this.

All that is being asked is to restore some degree of integrity to the financial system in the US. Government regulation is one big pain in the ass, but is one necessary evil: keep them honest. The credibility of our credit agencies (Moodys) insurance companies (AIG) and banks, (TNC) is in the sewer. Read a bank's balance sheet and every number and endorsement is suspect. Most every swinging dick on Wall Street has some gimmick to show 300% growth in a quarter: unsustainable and defies logic. Forty to one lending ratio, give me a fucking break. What fool would do such a thing? Every damn unregulated bank. To use a phrase, "what were we thinking?" We always do the time for someone else's crime: Enron, Aig, General Motors, savings and loan debacle. Dahde. Without some policing, these people are loose cannons.

I am too old to worry about it anymore. I got mine, and hell with the rest of you. All I do know is, your way did not work.

[QUOTE=Sidney]hook, line and sinker, the Obomination's bullshit. Sorry, I can't say it any more appropriately! Sadly, O's oratory has fooled you and other intelligent people! Please, watch what he does, not what he says![/QUOTE]I watch what he does, listen to what he says and evaluate it based on a 30 years successful career in government and private business.

You buy hook and line the "free markets" fantasy that for Senor Greenspan and all of us was the sinker.

[QUOTE=Sidney]And other ''non-regulators''! They had the ''tools'' to restrain growth and poor practices, but for whatever reasons failed to do so. The severe decline in volume was instrumental in the auto company demise. Correctly, auto management was terrible! ----------BTW, I saw the ''handwriting on the wall'' and quit GM 40 years ago. Then I began a Wall Street career. I have been mostly retired since 1982. Observed and traded my own account since then, with a couple of exceptions in the late 1980's.[/QUOTE]Sidney:

Reckless of me to imply and suggest your affiliations with Wall Street and Detroit may have questioned your integrity and values. I apologize for the implications. It was a cheap shot.

I am all in on Greenspan. Wish Volker had a louder voice at this moment in time.

[QUOTE=Damman]I am all in on Greenspan. Wish Volker had a louder voice at this moment in time.[/QUOTE]But remember Greenspan was from the "who needs regulation" crowd! Until seeing how the global meltdown put a big dent in his ideological construct, he appeared before Congress and acknowledged that the international finance guys do act irresponsibly and are greedy bastards after all!

[QUOTE=Ricardo]That would be in addition to the no all CAPs and no disturbing statistics from Ricardo rules.[/QUOTE]They wern't "disturbing statistics". In fact, your original report contained [u]NO[/u] statistics.

You later edited your report to add links to NY Times surveys.

Thanks,

Jackson

[blue]Ricardo,

The purpose of this Forum is to provide for the exchange of information between Men on the subject of finding Women for Sex.

Persons (and especially political operatives) participating in the forum solely for the purpose of debating politics are in fact SPAMMING the forum.

Therefor, your next 5 posts must be first person reports of your recent experiences with working girls here in Argentina.

Thanks,

Jackson[/blue]

[QUOTE=Ricardo]It's unbecoming to see an intelligent man taking such a purely paranoid position. It's also a lazy way to make an important point.

Why not argue "Obama is proposing programs, positions and policies I profoundly disagree with, that I believe will do grave harm to the American economy and the future well-being of the American people."

That is a position that is credible, mature and subject to honest debate. Then you can cite chapter, verse, facts and figures to prove your point.

The dictator thing shows a real lack of respect for the American people as it implies they might let Obama's oratory fool them into putting on their brownshirts.

You can do better.[/QUOTE]Agreed. I think in his own way, that is what Sid is doing. But, there's so much hyperbole and overstatement that it's tough to take. I don't agree with many things Obama is doing in terms of exerting government influence on all facets of the economy. But, I'll take my hat off to him in a variety of areas -- especially in the international arena. What he did over the past week with missile defense in Eastern Europe, then getting Russia's support on Iran, then turning the table on Ahmadinejead at the G20 on their nuke program -- well, that was masterful, in my opinion. [b]Very[/b] well played, at least in my book. Bravo.

As for the notion that lack of regulation caused the current financial malaise: There is a very, very strong case to be made that [b]over-regulation[/b] is the culprit. Years of government interference in the housing market created false incentives. Nowhere was this more obvious than the government-sponsored entities (now government-owned entities) Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. Loan a pile of dough to whomever. What does it matter? Fannie and Freddy will buy the mortgage pool. Granted, the private sector definitely got in on the act. But, without the false, government-created incentives, it is far more likely that we would simply be going through another run-of-the-mill recession right now. And, there should be no debate about whether recessions are going to happen. They can be delayed or hastened a bit by monetary policy and other factors, but they are inevitable, just as boom times are inevitable.

Another factor associated with the latest downturn: Easy capital. But that, again, is largely due to government meddling. The Chinese for years have been manipulating their own currency. Geithner was the most recent to call them on this, until the administration muzzled him. The Chinese have always created false incentives to encourage saving and discourage consumption, and the government has kept its currency artificially low to increase its trade surplus and keep its economy chugging. As a result, the Chinese built up huge surpluses of cash, which had to seek out a decent return. Where did they find it? The USA, which resulted in a prolonged period of easy money here.

They've just started to address this at the G-20 but, again, this was the result of government meddling -- not lack of regulation. Admittedly, the Chinese are professional meddlers, but the notion that this whole mess can be laid at the feet of the "free market" is a canard, plain and simple.

Good deal.

[url]http://www.newsmax.com/politics/_maloney_husband_death/2009/09/26/265212.html[/url]

Yeah this is health care.

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_breast[/url]

I have personally enjoyed the intelligent discussion in this thread from both sides, and think that Ricardo in particular has contributed significantly in this regard. I find the new requirement for his continued posting rather heavy handed. The guy joined in 2006, which makes it a stretch to think he is some "political operative". Jackson if you feel you need to reign things in, perhaps a more moderate position like 1 chica review, or 1 political post allowed per week. Requiring 5 chica reviews before posting anything else seems to be in effect silencing him.

Yes, very heavy handed but also very predictable. But don't Argentina regimes have a long history of repression?

[QUOTE=Black Shirt]Yes, very heavy handed but also very predictable. But don't Argentina regimes have a long history of repression?[/QUOTE]It is for Ricardo's own good to do some research on free-market-poon.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt]Yes, very heavy handed but also very predictable. But don't Argentina regimes have a long history of repression?[/QUOTE] Dead ass -

Well rounded contributors?

You mean for every 500 political copy and paste jobs sidney makes, he posts one 2 line review of a restaurant? Is that what's considered well rounded?

Right.

But yes, very predictable. This is a website owned and dominated by right wingers. I've just come to that conclusion. There is still some good information here, so I stick around. But it is useless posting in the political threads, you will get dog piled and if that doesn't work, censored or banned.

Regards,

BM

[QUOTE=BadMan]But yes, very predictable. This is a website owned and dominated by right wingers. I've just come to that conclusion. There is still some good information here, so I stick around. But it is useless posting in the political threads, you will get dog piled and if that doesn't work, censored or banned.[/QUOTE]I agree 100%

I was expecting this to happen. Sydney getting battered, or 'bettered' in the argument, even making himself look pretty pathetic at times, and the guy with the rational arguments gets banned.

All those facts and figures. They must really hurt when they make you re-examine your beliefs.

[QUOTE=BadMan]This is a website owned and dominated by right wingers.[/QUOTE]BadMan,

You're wrong.

For the record, I am [u]NOT[/u] a Rebublican, and I am [u]NOT[/u] a conservative.

- I am [u]against[/u] the death penalty.
- I am [u]against[/u] [u]any[/u] government support of religious organizations.
- I am [u]for[/u] the legalization of drugs.
- I am [u]for[/u] the legalization of commercial sex.
- I am [u]for[/u] a woman's right to choose.
- I am [u]for[/u] comprehensive sex education.
- I am [u]for[/u] a foreign guest worker program.
- I am [u]for[/u] a universal flat tax on [u]EVERYONE'S[/u] income.
- I am [u]for[/u] health [u]INSURANCE[/u] reform.
- I am [u]for[/u] health [u]JUSTICE[/u] reform.

I am a member of the Libertian Party, registered as an Independent.

The fact is that I'm a right-of-center moderate, but from a far left socialist's perspective, [u]THEY[/u] are the centrists, and thus anyone who doesn't share their beliefs is automatically a "Right Winger".

[QUOTE=BadMan]This is a website owned and dominated by right wingers.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=Schmoj]I agree 100%[/QUOTE]Agree too.

And I particullary think that is the main reason of so many troubles with local people.

Have made some friends in local clubs, guys working there, also girls, that told me of the unsympathy for gringo mongers who write in this forum.

Can it be more easy man?

Insted of pushing and despising and trying to teach argies "how to live" or "how to manage" their economy behave a little in the friendly way?

Sure you'll get the better of them.

You'll get much more comments of girls and place that what already are. Two or three posts about that a day (against over twenty over political items) Look any local forum, and you'll check no less than 50 entries about girls, privados, night clubs. Not all of them because not all of them can write english, but sure many of them could translate their experiences here, enriching this way this forum.

Think it over.

I'm not argie monger. I'm from Netherland so I not take part in this confrontation.

Hope this can help.

[QUOTE=Esten]I find the new requirement for his continued posting rather heavy handed. The guy joined in 2006, which makes it a stretch to think he is some "political operative".[/QUOTE]Hi Esten,

It's not a "new requirement". In fact, it's a well-established but rarely needed anti-SPAM policy on my other forums.

This is just the first time I've had to enforce it on ArgentinaPrivate.

Thanks,

Jackson

Don't you just love it, when the argument descends to name calling and gross categorizations of the folks you don't agree with and in most cases don't even know? When you lose the argument you resort to name calling and denigrating others with your "labels". I know Jackson and he is nowhere near a right wing radical – though I keep trying to recruit him.

Guys, grow up and quite sniveling, you sound like a bunch of kindergarteners whining about something at recess. Give it a break and move on.

The motherfucking Irony

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]Don't you just love it, when the argument descends to name calling and gross categorizations of the folks you don't agree with and in most cases don't even know? When you lose the argument you resort to name calling and denigrating others with your "labels".[/QUOTE][QUOTE=Doppelganger]grow up and quite sniveling, you sound like a bunch of kindergarteners whining about something at recess.[/QUOTE]smh.

But do continue. Jackson has made it safe for you to post once more. Must be nice to talk out of your ass when a quick PM can silence the opposition. Enjoy your right wing thread.

Regards,

BM.

Jackson,

We have a lot in common, I could say this too.

I am NOT a Rebublican, and I am NOT a conservative.

- I am against the death penalty.

- I am against any government support of religious organizations.

- I am for the legalization of drugs.

- I am for the legalization of commercial sex.

- I am for a woman's right to choose.

- I am for comprehensive sex education.

And calling Sydney your buddy maybe went too far. Withdrawn.

Steve

Now that Ricardo has been banned from putting an alternative point of view, can we rename this thread "Sydney's propaganda against the USA government"?

And I'm not sure about the validity of Walt and Cindy's survey. Maybe it is unfunded, but as a former designer of surveys (Master's Degree in the subject and employed by government and private industry designing them) its about as valid as Congressman Jones' apology to the President. OK, he meant it REALLY sincerely.

Anyone who can say "The Socialist politics practiced by the Obama administration and empowered by AARP " is hardly an impartial source.

Finally, "The Socialist politics practiced by the Obama administration", ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. That is becoming the joke of the decade.

[QUOTE=Sidney]This letter to the AARP says it all. It is a must read regardless of your age. Some people just make sense in what they say. This lady certainly does. Please forward this to everyone on your contact list.

This was sent to Mr. Rand who is the Executive Director of AARP.

Dear Mr. Rand,

Recently you sent us a letter encouraging us to renew our lapsed membership in AARP by the requested date. I know it is not what you were looking for, but this is the most honest response I can give you. Our gap in coverage is merely a microscopic symptom of the real problem, a deepening lack of faith.

While we have proudly maintained our membership for several years and have long admired the AARP goals and principles, regrettably, we can no longer endorse it's abdication of our values. Your letter specifically stated that we can count on AARP to speak up for our rights, yet the voice we hear is not ours. Your offer of being kept up to date on important issues through DIVIDED WE FAIL presents neither an impartial view nor the one we have come to embrace. We do believe that when two parties agree all the time on everything presented to them, one is probably not necessary. But, when the opinions and long term goals are diametrically opposed, the divorce is imminent. This is the philosophy which spawned our 200 years of government.

Once upon a time, we looked forward to being part of the senior demographic. We also looked to AARP to provide certain benefits and give our voice a power we could not possibly hope to achieve on our own. AARP gave us a sense of belonging which we no longer enjoy. The Socialist politics practiced by the Obama administration and empowered by AARP serves only to raise the blood pressure my medical insurance strives to contain. Clearly a conflict of interest there!

We do not understand the AARP posture, feel greatly betrayed by the guiding forces whom we expected to map out our senior years and leave your ranks with a great sense of regret. We mitigate that disappointment with the relief of knowing that we are not contributing to the problem anymore by renewing our membership. There are numerous other organizations which offer discounts without threatening our way of life or offending our sensibilities.

This Presidential Administration scares the living daylights out of us. Not just for ourselves, but for our proud and bloodstained heritage, but even more importantly for our children and grandchildren. Washington has rendered Soylent Green a prophetic cautionary tale rather than a nonfiction scare tactic. I have never in my life endorsed any militant or radical groups, yet now I find myself listening to them. I don't have to agree with them to appreciate the fear which birthed their existence. Their borderline insanity presents little more than a balance to the voice of the Socialist mindset in power. Perhaps I became American by a great stroke of luck in some cosmic uterine lottery, but in my adulthood I CHOOSE to embrace it and nurture the freedoms it represents as well as the responsibilities it requires.

Your website generously offers us the opportunity to receive all communication in Spanish. ARE YOU KIDDING? Someone has broken into our 'house', invaded our home without our invitation or consent. The President has insisted we keep the perpetrator in comfort and learn the perp language so we can communicate our reluctant welcome to them.

I DON'T choose to welcome them.

I DON'T choose to support them.

I DON'T choose to educate them.

I DON'T choose to medicate them, pay for their food or clothing.

American home invaders get arrested.

Please explain to me why foreign lawbreakers can enjoy privileges on American soil that Americans do not get?

Why do some immigrants have to play the game to be welcomed and others only have to break & enter to be welcomed?

We travel for a living. Walt hauls horses all over this great country, averaging over 10,000 miles a month when he is out there. He meets more people than a politician on caffeine overdose. Of all the many good folks he enjoyed on this last 10,000 miles, this trip yielded only ONE supporter of the current administration. One of us is out of touch with mainstream America. Since our poll is conducted without funding, I have more faith in it than one which is power driven.

We have decided to forward this to everyone on our mailing list, and will encourage them to do the same. With several hundred in my address book, I have every faith that the eventual exponential factor will make a credible statement to you.

I am disappointed as hell.

I am scared as hell.

I am MAD as hell, and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!

Walt & Cyndy.

Miller Farms Equine Transport[/QUOTE]Great letter? I can't fathom why anyone would think that letter "says it all." It's nothing more than some crank who says "This Presidential Administration scares the living daylights out of us" [b]for no identifiable reason[/b] -- there's something incoherent in there about a "bloodstained heritage" which is nonsensical, but there's nothing else. Then this lunatic purports to take the AARP to task for [I]offering to send its members communications in Spanish.[/i] Next, the twit jumps to the conclusion that all Spanish speakers in the USA are illegal immigrants. Phew! You like this garbage, huh?

I'm glad you're not a conservative. You'd give us a bad name by endorsing this drivel. If this is what we've got to look forward to, please bring Ricardo back.

There are some real idiots in this world. Glad to know Sidney agrees with their angry racist views.

Regards,

BM

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]Great letter? I can't fathom why anyone would think that letter "says it all." It's nothing more than some crank who says "This Presidential Administration scares the living daylights out of us" [b]for no identifiable reason[/b] -- there's something incoherent in there about a "bloodstained heritage" which is nonsensical, but there's nothing else. Then this lunatic purports to take the AARP to task for [I]offering to send its members communications in Spanish.[/i] Next, the twit jumps to the conclusion that all Spanish speakers in the USA are illegal immigrants. Phew! You like this garbage, huh?

I'm glad you're not a conservative. You'd give us a bad name by endorsing this drivel. If this is what we've got to look forward to, please bring Ricardo back.[/QUOTE]

I don't agree with you BM.

I you read the letter these folks are obviously speaking about ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, the majority of which are Spanish speaking. They don't wish to participate in supporting them in any way, which is certainly their right to state this opinion.

Regarding their statement about the administration scaring the hell out of them, it is their opinion and they are entitled to it, with or without supporting arguments, or does freedom of speech only apply to liberals and not moderates or conservatives?

If you watch the Rasmussen polling data, the Carmel One's numbers are sliding downward fairly rapidly for a new president. It appears there are a growing number of folks who believe as the authors of the letter do regarding his administration, perhaps not scaring the hell out of them but giving them reason for pause.

By the way, I too am appalled I must "press 1 for English" in my own country. In my travels I have not seen other countries cater to a foreign population as we do in the United States. IMHOP

You're pathetic Sidney. Go cry to Jackson again so no one messes with your right wing propaganda thread. You thrive off of this. Spam emails and angry rhetoric.[QUOTE=Sidney]With his normal drivel and name calling!

[/QUOTE] Glad to know you agree in people being entitled to their opinion dopple. Too bad Ricardo isn't included as per jackson sidney and yourself. Oh wait, maybe whoever wrote this spam email should.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]grow up and quite sniveling, you sound like a bunch of kindergarteners whining about something at recess.[/QUOTE]My Personal opinion is whoever wrote that is an ignorant angry racist.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger] it is their opinion and they are entitled to it, with or without supporting arguments[/QUOTE]Regards,

BM