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!