Now lets hope he can be able to spend the next 4 years making it better for all lgbt people, of course we all know that the senate and the house have yet to be decided though, but I pray it will be a good 4 years.
It was on all the TV channels here pretty much throughout the day. Bizarre system, but for my brothers and sisters over there a good result I would say.
I wonder if someone with the insight could explain the implications of what bit means in general terms, for both local economic situations, international affairs and for the GLBGT community. I have to admit I'm not too bothered about the GLBGT community 'cos I can't see it on an agenda for anyone.
From an Aussie point of view (Ah mine :embarrassed:)
Will the USA take control of its economic survival or keep printing money?
What will be the stance over Pakistan, Afghanistan.
What is the opinion about Iran?
Will diplomacy take over from warfare?
In the USA:
Will a proper and 'fair' taxation system be placed?
Will a fair and proper health system be put into place?
Will poverty in the USA be addressed in practical and sustainable means?
Technology:
Will the USA support technological development by fostering its University system?
Associated to technology. Will the USA strengthen or weaken ecological guidelines to its energy companies?
Will the USA change its stance on carbon production and Earth warming?
I'm not wanting to provoke argument. Just discussion.
I will self moderate this thread.
That means I will keep it civil and on track, every opinion is welcome but comments outside of ToS are not.
I look forward to an intelligent discussion.
Cindy
Quote from: Shawn Sunshine on November 06, 2012, 10:55:04 PM
Now lets hope he can be able to spend the next 4 years making it better for all lgbt people, of course we all know that the senate and the house have yet to be decided though, but I pray it will be a good 4 years.
Yay! He's done so much already. I think he'll pass ENDA and hopefully Federal Marriage Equality in a few years.
Congratulations, President Obama!
Quote from: Cindy James on November 07, 2012, 04:02:20 AM
In the USA:
Will a proper and 'fair' taxation system be placed?
As a retired civil service tax administrator who got to look at this from several directions the basic system is fair enough as a taxation system. Where it goes haywire is when it gets into the various treasuries that elected officials can get their hands into. There is no guarantee that personal income taxes will go to items that affect the ability of the payor to continue to earn the wages or participate in commerce. Sales Taxes on the purchase of goods and services are also not efficiently allocated toward the internal mechanics of providing the goods and services. Highway use taxes do not go toward maintenace of the infra structure in any great amount. Here where I live, the property taxes are not guaranteed to enhance my ability to use or protect my property (ie-police and fire protection) but a particular group of idealistic (barf) numbskulls brags that they are low and protected.
The basic systems look good on the surface, but the accountability and demonstration of the use of the money is the isssue. It is the uncertainty of what you are buying with your tax money that is the largest non-fairness issue, and I for one am very pessimistic on seeing it change in the next 20 years which are my general life expectancy at this point. It will not happen in the next four years short of a bona fide miracle, and would not have happened had the other party won either.
Big Bird is safe for another 4 years! I like PBS programs.
Joelene
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages4.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20100326085259%2Flogopedia%2Fimages%2Fthumb%2F3%2F33%2FPBS_logo.svg%2F200px-PBS_logo.svg.png&hash=2e9ebf0358177462954b7a655a75640c8afc0cb6)
Quote from: Joelene9 on November 07, 2012, 01:36:26 PM
Big Bird is safe for another 4 years! I like PBS programs.
Joelene
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages4.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20100326085259%2Flogopedia%2Fimages%2Fthumb%2F3%2F33%2FPBS_logo.svg%2F200px-PBS_logo.svg.png&hash=2e9ebf0358177462954b7a655a75640c8afc0cb6)
Me too, I'm watching "Upstairs, Downstairs", I like the British period pieces!
I'll make a prediction as an independent fiscal conservative, that a future Republican party nominee will never be elected again and within four years we will be worse off than Greece, it will be twice as scary because every s.o.b. in America is armed to the teeth. When hyperinflation sets in and the good and plenties dry up this spoiled generation will act badly.
Yeah Obama (and new house and senate winners in NM!!)
I'll take a stab at Cindy's questions:
(and btw, I'll leave this discussion if it is too much arguing for me.)
I think basically this means that the more right wing side of the Republican will have suffered a defeat. Not sure if this means they will basically decide they will need to become *more right wing* or if they will decide that the minority has become majority. My own state (New Mexico) is mostly non-white.
>Will the USA take control of its economic survival or keep printing money?
The deficit has already been reduced (contrary to opinions). I don't know that with a recession there will be much of a taste for reducing it more, but I think that there will be plans for reduction (ala Clinton), just can't do it now. Obamacare will reduce the deficits some.
>What will be the stance over Pakistan, Afghanistan.
I think drone strikes will continue. Beyond that... I think the US will leave Afghanistan on schedule which is 2014.)
>What is the opinion about Iran?
We will not go to war in Iran is my guess.
>Will diplomacy take over from warfare?
Obama has shown some skills (and some deficits) in this area.
In the USA:
>Will a proper and 'fair' taxation system be placed?
Not now. Maybe there will more taxes on people making over $100,000 a year.
>Will a fair and proper health system be put into place?
So-called Obamacare will not be repealed. I don't think this is exactly a proper system. But the odds of us having fully universal care is unlikely in the foreseeable future. Obamacare will go into effect fully and cover more uninsured people, include preexisting conditions, not kick people off insurance for being sick, etc. (BTW, I believe hormones will be included in Obamacare as they are covered in US medicare --over 65). One effect of the supreme court decision that allowed Obamacare is that there will LESS coverage for people who are lower income in some states (complex to explain this).
> Will poverty in the USA be addressed in practical and sustainable means?
No. I doubt it. There may be measures that help the poor.
Technology:
>Will the USA support technological development by fostering its University system?
There will be more Pell grants (this is student aid), laws to protect against private university hurting students, grants for energy development and science to universities.
Science will be back "in".
>Associated to technology. Will the USA strengthen or weaken ecological guidelines to its energy companies?
Strengthen. Obama already did a few things-- block the a coal shale pipeline and raise fuel standards. There will be efforts to increase conservation. Also there will be some increase of drilling but not as much as there would have been for the Republicans. There will be more funding for solar, wind, and so on. I don't think we will get a smart grid. I think it would be a great idea and good stimulus though.
>Will the USA change its stance on carbon production and Earth warming?
See above. I don't know that there will be much done except in terms of fuel standards and increase in solar, wind, etc. There will be talk re: "clean coal" (a myth).
They will attend any world conference on the environment but not lead. You'd think Sandy would be a kick in the .... on this.
We will not get 4 new ultra right Supreme Court members. This will have a profound effect. I don't know if we will get less gridlock. The problem for some of these issues is the president has no kind of majority and the amt. of gridlock is somewhat plausible because one house is still very conservative. You can't pass laws with one house. Certain things will happen but not sure what these will be. I think the election will be somewhat of a wake up re: the demographics of the US which shows that no one can run as a president of white people again.
I agree we have a very weird system Strange as it may seem, I think it was meant to be rather difficult to govern like this. The "founding fathers" were wise in some respects but highly suspicious of central government.
Should keep these for 4 years and see if I was right. :)
>Cindy
--Jay J
in four years I will be taking T and have top surgery? :)
Thank You Jay J that was just what I wanted. I'm not in the least wanting argument just facts.
I had to laugh as there are a number of Democrat voters posting that they are going to emigrate to Australia as we have a "male Prime Minister who upholds 'Christian' values". However, she is an aethiest who lives unmarried with her partner. Many politicians and judges in Australia are openly Gay. We have universal compulsory health care, abortion is on demand and covered by health care, there is no capital punishment and guns are banned from the general public. And the majority of the population wouldn't know the inside of a church if it fell on them.
Mmm could be a problem :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Cindy
And there is the Compulsory Voting and compulsory seat belt, and m/cycle and bike helmet usage as well. >:-)
Karen.
I am guessing these are Republican voters. I think Democrats are happy right now.
I saw some tea partiers thinking they wanted to move to Canada. Really Canada!?
BTW, Cindy I was pretty sure you wanted someone to try and answer these (am I right? Who knows?) But political discussions can be-- you know- really more heated than I want to participate in. I like the head centered intellectual kind of stuff as that is just the kind of nerdy guy I am. :)
For a simple (I think 4th grade) explanation about how a bill becomes a law in the US see here:
http://kids.clerk.house.gov/grade-school/lesson.html?intID=17 (http://kids.clerk.house.gov/grade-school/lesson.html?intID=17)
Sorry about 4th grade but I have it on speed dial. :)
The US system allows for this crazy situation: If both houses don't approve, it will never become a law and the president can only do so much. Some presidents are skilled at arm wrestling and so on. (Lyndon Johnson comes to mind.) The reason Obama was able to do so much in two years (Obamacare and so on) was that he had a majority in both houses. When the 2010 elections came around, the Democrats lost the House of Representatives.
Diplomacy on the world, certain types of presidential declarations and so on are limited possibilities that allow a president to act in certain situations.
It explains the Kyoto protocols. The US committee that attended and approved it while there. However when they got back to the US, one or both Houses (can't recall) didn't approve it, so it more or less died there.
OTOH, Obama was able to make a presidential order to reduce fuel standards in cars by 2014 to certain limits. I believe it was agreed to by car dealers. So this could be very useful with climate issues.
It's an odd system. Designed at some level not always to work too well.
In times like this of high animosity, it might now work at all.
--Jay J
Personally, I didn't vote for Barrack Obama, I voted Green Party / Jill Stein. But yes, it was a big sigh of relief that Mitt Romney did not get elected. That would have been devastating for the country as a whole and for LGBTQ civil rights.
My hopes for this election are that people really do let the president know that we really, really need a universal healthcare system in the US, like much of the outside world has. I really hope he repeals some horrible laws that were passed here such as the NDAA and Patriot Act.
Quote from: DianaP on November 15, 2012, 09:39:08 PM
As for taxes, hopefully the wealthy will pay their fair share. It only makes sense to tax people more when they CAN AFFORD IT. You wouldn't tell someone with a mediocre job to buy a Lambergini, so why would you tax said person a hefty portion of his/her income?
I'm sorry, but why should a person who has worked their butt off to be successful and earn every dollar have to pay more because they "CAN AFFORD IT"?
Is this not class warfare? Steal from the rich and give to the lazy.
Quote from: Sara Murphy on November 15, 2012, 10:07:06 PM
I'm sorry, but why should a person who has worked their butt off to be successful and earn every dollar have to pay more because they "CAN AFFORD IT"?
Is this not class warfare? Steal from the rich and give to the lazy.
Not all rich earned it and are just living off parents wealth.
Not all poor are just lazy. This is a hateful post at best, at worst just completely wrong. Try to say it with less vitriol and there might be some credibility.
Quote from: DianaP on November 15, 2012, 10:24:55 PM
Let's try to keep it tame, people.
Sounds like a good plan.
Quote from: DianaP on November 15, 2012, 09:39:08 PM
I am surprised that the Patriot Act wasn't repealed yet. Suspected terrorist on flimsy evidence = Guantanamo without any due process. Sixth and Eighth amendment right violations, anyone? (Must be allowed due process and no cruel/unusual punishments, respectively, for you Cindy, in case you didn't know. :))
Honestly, though, I wouldn't mind moving to Canada. I could have the benefits of a universal healthcare system, make some cash, and then move my behind back to Ecuador. ;D
Then again, Cindy, Australia sounds awesome. :D I could live without capital punishment (no pun intended), but I honestly prefer it. I don't think murderers should get free housing, heat, food, etc. in prison. Then again, you're free to disagree.
As for Iran, there is no way Congress will declare another war when the others caused so much chaos for nothing.
As for taxes, hopefully the wealthy will pay their fair share. It only makes sense to tax people more when they CAN AFFORD IT. You wouldn't tell someone with a mediocre job to buy a Lambergini, so why would you tax said person a hefty portion of his/her income?
As for education, I have little faith in the US education system. The system works to foster grades rather than knowledge.
"As for education, I have little faith in the US education system."I completely understand.
"Suspected terrorist on flimsy evidence = Guantanamo without any due process. Sixth and Eighth amendment right violations, anyone? (Must be allowed due process and no cruel/unusual punishments, respectively, for you Cindy, in case you didn't know."The detainees held at Guantanamo Bay are considered "unlawful combatants." They are not afforded the full panoply rights in the civil or criminal system of the detaining country. Instead, they are covered under the 'Laws of War," and international agreements, such as the Geneva Conventions, and other Protocols. Many of them were acting in the role of mercenaries, which further diminishes their rights within the Laws of War.
Under those conventions, the detainees can be held indefinitely, so long as the conflict in which they were engaged continues.
Hope that helps clears up some of the confusion.
Our system of justice has worked up to this point, why can't it work in that context too. G-mo is a bad, bad idea, one that power hungry people latched on to with more gusto than was necessary. We've held and tried terrorists before. Found them guilty and executed them and all. There is no reason (outside of creating a system outside the entire rule of law in the US) to any of that to exist.
I do not think the average U.S. citizen understands the Patriot Act. As someone who has worked directly with it for a number of years, I can honestly say it has made things more difficult. The process that has to be gone through to invoke it is daunting. It takes far less effort just to take someone down for federal crimes and charge them with terrorism at a later date. I honestly believe the Patriot Act protects those who would otherwise be wrongfully charged as a terrorist or other form of combatant.
Quote from: DianaP on November 16, 2012, 05:20:38 AM
I'm aware of the Guantanamo rules; I just disagree with them, is all. I just feel that since a lot of the detainees are US citizens, they deserve the rights any other citizen has under the 14th ammendment of equal protection under the law for all US citizens.
I just want to correct another misconception. Of the 558 known detainees who were held, at one time or another, in the Guantanamo facility, only one claimed American citizenship - Yaser Esam Hamdi. Hamdi was a Saudi who was born in the US while his father was a student here. Therefore, he could claim dual citizenship. His case went all the way to the Supreme Court, who "ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the ability to challenge their enemy [unlawful] combatant status before an impartial judge."
Hamdi was released to Saudi Arabia on the condition he give up his US citizenship rights.
Quote from: DianaP on November 15, 2012, 09:39:08 PM
As for Iran, there is no way Congress will declare another war when the others caused so much chaos for nothing.
As for education, I have little faith in the US education system. The system works to foster grades rather than knowledge.
The last time the US Congress declared war was in 1941
The College and Post graduate education of the USA is second to none
I realize that I have probably killed any good will I have here by being a dreaded Republican and speaking out against Obama, but I am not ashamed of my statements. I believe that this election has fostered a shift in American culture from a "Can Do" attitude to a "Do It For Me" attitude. I am disgusted by this shift and I have decided not to keep quiet about it anymore on here or in the real world. When he was elected in 2008 I decided to keep quiet and allow him to do his job. This time around I am not going to be so laze-fair about things.
Now, keeping this civil, you can not tell me that if you look at the view from my side of the room that Robin Hood economics does not penalize successful people for being successful. Sure, some have inherited wealth, but they still had to be smart enough to continue growing that wealth. Ivanka Trump is no trust fund baby, she is a brilliant business women. I have no blooming idea how to play the stock market, but they sure as heck have put in the time and effort to learn it and turn that skill and knowledge into a darn good lifestyle. If it were so easy then we would all be rich.
My brother is an ER doctor who earns just short of $500,000 a year. Why should he have to give 40% of that hard earned money to people who did not put as much effort and time into learning his skill set. We both came from the exact same place, but he was willing to sacrifice his 20's with his nose in a book six days a week while was not willing to do so. He is stupid rich and I am not. It is not anyone's fault, but sole my decisions that has put us in our positions.
Now I think folks do not understand how hard being a "Fox news anchors for reading rubbish off of a teleprompter". That was my chosen career path and let me tell you that it is freaking hard to read off a teleprompter for any period of time and not have it sound like you are reading. I have every technical skill in the industry, but that reading bit is one that I can not master. I would say to simply try and read a paragraph to someone and make it sound completely natural and conversational. Then try and do that for four hours a day five days a week. Believe me when I tell you this, it is a very hard thing to do and those that can do it worked their butt off to gain that skill.
Four more years, how much further will we as a nation slip?
Well we survived 8 years of Bush, I'm sure you'll hack your way though 4 more years of Obama.
What you should be worried about is the the Republican brand is so tarnished and diminished that it's not even viable in some of the largest areas of the nation. Here in some of the most affluent and productive lands in the US the Republican's didn't even run a candidate for State Assembly, and their candidate for Congress was a complete mystery until you read their name on the ballot. Not a single yard sign, billboard, ad, flyer (and I got enough flyers in the mail to wallpaper a medium-sized house) or bumpersticker did I ever see for them. Basically, they've bugged out and ceased to be a viable political party, conceding this area (Marin and Sonoma) to Democratic control.
And it's not just here, it's become pretty much pro-forma in the largest population areas (and most productive areas) in the county, and that' fast reducing the Republican party to a regional rump party of the poorest and least productive areas. Check it out, the Dems' basically start any national election now with about 240 electoral votes, thus meaning the 'Pubs have to run the board on the rest, and have not done so recently. Largely because they don't put up anyone who anyone really supports.
Here are the real facts:
In the 10 best educated states, Obama won 10 out out 10, while Romney won 9 out of 10 of the least educated states.
In the 10 most affluent counties in the US, Obama won 8 of them. (He could't even carry the 1%)
In his home state, where his father was governor, he lost.
In his other home state, where he was governor, he lost.
His Veep, also lost his home state, hell, he lost his home town.
So I don't think we're going to slip, it's possible we're going to gain. Dropping two unpopular wars (that were going nowhere) and not starting another one is going to be a good thing. Fairness in taxation is important too. To far more than just the Obama voters as it turns out. The US has done well, awesome in fact, with much higher tax rates, I'm sure well make it through this round too.
And while the 'Pubs are going to form a circular firing squad and chase off the remaining normals in a rush to 'run a real conservative this time' (Can't wait for that very special Santorum/Bachman ticket next time either, I'll tell 'ya that, oh that's going to pick up the missing votes won't it?) the Dem's are going to fall in line behind their only logical choice, and go into 2016 with a full head of steam and little to no internal resistance. With that election the Court will finally turn, and with it, America.
And reading news, no matter how much of a special skill it is - is not reporting. They might try that aspect of 'news' on occasion. Because they were not just wrong, they couldn't have BEEN MORE WRONG.
Quote from: tekla on November 16, 2012, 09:48:05 PM
Well we survived 8 years of Bush, I'm sure you'll hack your way though 4 more years of Obama.
All I have to say is that 8 years of Bush was enough to almost destroy America, if Obama's results seem slow it's just because the size of the mess left behind by Bush and his cronies is one of epic proportions.
Just for fun....
MARGINS OF VICTORY
JFK - 1960 - 0.17%
Nixon - 68 - 0.70%
Carter - 76- 2.06%
Bush - 00 - -0.51%
Bush - 04 - 2.46%
BO - 12 - 2.90%
But if you want to see the really depressing news for the Republicans, look at the voting for people under 30 and for single women, and for Latinos. Basically if they can't change those numbers, they are not going to win another national election.
Oh I don't know, Bush's lies got 5K Americans killed for nothing. And the SC justices, and other judges, is huge.
Quote from: DianaP on November 16, 2012, 11:39:11 PM
I don't like Bush (or as I like to call him, "Bush 2: The Revenge), but I know not to blame him for problems in the US. Dysfunctional legislative bodies are the real problem. I never liked political parties. Their only function is to keep us mad at each other instead of at the people who are actually screwing up the system.
By Bush I mean Cheney and his corrupt Halliburton cronies, The neocon warhawks and the racist "compasionate" christian right. Those are smart manipulative and highly amoral people hiding their wicked motives behind the walls of tradition, freedom, religion and patriotism.
Nope, I don't like them one bit.
I agree about the presidency not having that much power as power is usually checked by congress and the supreme court.
But lo and behold, Bush's power was unchecked by a lackey majority led republican congress (filled with neocons and the religious right, up til 2008, and now back in power repackages as "Libertarians" and "Tea Partiers" ) and a conservative supreme court which basically made him president in 2001 over the general consensus (the deciding votes were made by justices appointed by Papa Bush).
So, in my opinion neither Bush nor the Republican party get a pass for the mess they left behind. (Also you're not taking into account the US's biggest blunder ever, the war on drugs, courtesy of one Richard Nixon, and revived by Mr. Reagan, which has been going on for over 30 years and is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths in Latin America)
So yeah, I don't think there's a middle ground for me here.
Obama's re-election proved many things to the Republicans: that his first win wasn't a fluke, that the Republicans really don't have much media control anymore, and that everybody has rumbled their game. Karl Rove's tactics only work when people don't believe you'd go to those lengths to win. When they're expecting shady crap, then you have a distinct disadvantage that you can't really overcome. And Karl knows that his time is short in the GOP because they spent a lot of money to lose big. That money probably won't be coming back without some incredible insight. And you have to admit that's pretty funny.
One of the bright sides is how Romney, with time and effort, completely bungled an election that should have been closer. This is the second time this millennium where a businessman candidate completely failed at doing anything presidential. Business people should not be in positions of governmental power because their whole role is smoke and mirrors and privilege. Romney cemented that completely: he wasted a summer pandering to a base that didn't matter and alienating the hell out of moderates who realized he was an idiot. The Republicans failed to capitalize on anything past 2011 because they were and still are wildly out of touch with how they are perceived among most Americans. You do not walk back from that with the tactics the Republicans use constantly. You change or die. And mostly, they are going to die a lot before they think about changing.
That, and their most attractive candidate for 2016 just died in the arms of some floozy.
Quote from: DianaP on November 17, 2012, 09:57:51 AM
Well, billions of dollars spent of campaigns and Obama is still president, the Democrats have a Senate majority, and the GOP still controls the house. In short, billions of dollars were wasted and NOTHING CHANGED. :laugh:
Yup, another four years of gridlock and no budget while the Titanic slips under the waves of debt.
Quote from: DianaP on November 17, 2012, 09:57:51 AM
Well, billions of dollars spent of campaigns and Obama is still president, the Democrats have a Senate majority, and the GOP still controls the house. In short, billions of dollars were wasted and NOTHING CHANGED. :laugh:
Some those billions of dollars weent to a myriad of hard core mom-pop small businnes, you know the peopple who make : posters, placards, stickers, buttone, etc
The lion share of those billionas went to media advertising corporations, most of them Reps
Actually most of that money went to TV stations.
Quote from: tekla on November 17, 2012, 12:30:45 PM
Actually most of that money went to TV stations.
TV is a type of media, yes? Or are we going to have a philosophical conversation about the nuances that separates media from TV?
Sure, all media is not TV, but the majority of this was spent on TV. At that only in a few markets. It was possible to live in place and not really see any Presidential election ads (and happy were those people too) unless you were watching national cable channels. Furthermore, and perhaps even more interestingly, they didn't work except in the Republican Primaries, where they did deliver a candidate that could lose an election that was theirs for the taking. Most of the big time advertising was pretty much wasted money, and I don't know if people are going to have to 'answer' for that or not, I am pretty sure that next time around you're not going to see as much of it unless things change radically - and I don't think that given the early money on Hillary vs. Jeb Bush it will.
Quote from: DianaP on February 09, 2013, 12:21:43 PM
I still think that neither presidential candidate was good and I don't like either party. I can agree that the US needs a political overhaul. The system is fine. The people in it just need to be fired, unless they can put their country before their parties. ::)
There you go, we can agree on this, good point Diana!
I have hope for this term. I hope it is a good one.
Quote from: kkut on February 09, 2013, 01:27:23 PM
I think there's a growing push to begin fixing things. I'm actually hopeful on some levels. However, if things aren't fixed and deficits remain, we're in trouble.
its too bad Obama doesn't seem to care much about deficits, national debts, etc... maybe he has an ace up his sleeve? he most likely knows more than we do about it... people like Paul Krugman say we can just make $1trillion coins and use accounting tricks to make the debt/deficit matter less? maybe our huge military and foreign presence will protect us from all of the foreign investments on the US dollar? heck, i wish i knew how he justified all this debt? but maybe the debt is to make LEFT and RIGHT preoccupied and fight over things like fiscal cliffs and debt ceilings while he throws more money as Israel? Libya? Syria? Egypt? There is some SH*T going on over there!! WTF!?! PULL OUT PULL OUT!! NO WAR!! thats what i have to say...
its sooo hard to speculate on these things... just like cows don't know they're going to get slaughtered when the time comes... its beyond our perception to know whats REALLY going on ~ that's why i voted/wrote in Ron Paul so we have a chance to getting some kind of gov i can comprehend :)
...Republican congress is the true hero behind the Clinton years
...debt ceiling
... fiscal cliff
...the Deficit
...the gold standard
Fox News anyone?
Ugh, the republican congress with Rand Ryan Boehner and the tea party is the worst, and their only goal seems to hijack and disrupt whatever the democrats do or propose, even at the risk of driving the country to the ground.
yeah I don't agree with you libertarian/neocon/conservative/reagan peeps, Obama is handling the country very well, and so does the majority of Americans and the rest of the planet.
The Debt? ow wow, it's like beating a dead horse.
The 8 years of Republican plundering of the social safety nets, the destruction of science based education in favor of faith based hypocrisy and perverted Neocon politics is what got the USA in the mess that it's in. If Obama is to be remembered sadly it's only because the republican and libertarian tea party hacks and their inability to comperhend simple macroeconomics in their misguided attempt to sabotage the nation's economic recovery with their fear mongering ways..."the debt is too high!" "the debt ceiling must not be raised" "Obama is a socialist muslim!".
They're just recycling their themes, in fact just replace their economic arguments with the old terrorism ones and you can see they're nothing but peddlers of fear preying on the less informed and the ignorant.
I will be the first to concede that none of us and especially me has all the answers. Most of what we understand is what comes through a tainted and biased media which pumps out left and right wing disinformation daily. We are much like those who read the sports pages and follow sports on TV and pretend to be experts on sports analysis. We don't have any answers! I'm sorry to think that one of our own here feels alienated, picked on and abused by any of us due to the vitriolic nature and passion generated in political discourse. I apologize to our friend DianaP, she's a sweet soul and I do like her.
Quote from: kkut on February 10, 2013, 11:00:02 AM
The national debt is a problem. Currently we're spending close to $500 billion dollars a year to cover the interest on the debt, if inflation rears its ugly head that cost will skyrocket. I think $500 billion spent on debt instead of programs is a problem. When our kid's start paying it for us, it will be a travesty. This isn't fear mongering, it's reality. As I said, I didn't like Bush either and he did cause part of this mess, I don't care how we got here. It's not being dealt with and it has to be.
Amen to that!
Quote from: DianaP on February 10, 2013, 12:20:51 PM
Well, I can come up with a few ways to save money off the top of my head. I know that some may seem harsh, but it's my opinion.
-If someone earns a sentence of life in prison without possibility of parole, why not just give him/her the death penalty? It's not like the person is ever going back to society. Why not just make it so that he/she isn't a burden either?
Are they really costing that much money? What if you get convicted of a crime you did not commit? It does happen!
Quote from: kkut on February 10, 2013, 01:19:36 PM
7) Serious Tort reform. I've developed several medical malpractive programs for insurance companies. Many individual physicians pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in med mal insurance to protect themselves from lawsuits. We're paying for that. In addition, so much medicine is defensive medicine (doctors protecting themselves from possible lawsuit). Every producer of every product and service you buy pays for these similar costs and pass them onto you. We'd save a fortune, reduce the number of lawyers (no one can disagree with that!!?), and make everything we buy much cheaper.
Uh - sorry too much common sense involved in this approach, it will never fly past the idiots in Congress hon. Call me jaded but I think if a bottomless black hole opened up under DC we'd all be better off.
Quote from: kkut on February 10, 2013, 01:32:32 PM
Ya, unfortunately most of our elected leaders are lawyers!
I say scrap all ideas but one, this one .......... 1) create giant gaping hole under Washington DC and start over! ;)
I posted this in another thread, this speech by Dr. Ben Carson is absolutely incredible, he discusses many of these ideas. The WSJ after watching this speech has called for him to run for POTUS. I'd vote for him.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/02/07/dr_benjamin_carson_addresses_national_prayer_breakfast_criticizes_obamacare.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/02/07/dr_benjamin_carson_addresses_national_prayer_breakfast_criticizes_obamacare.html)
He's a definite keeper!
Quote from: kkut on February 10, 2013, 11:00:02 AM
The national debt is a problem. Currently we're spending close to $500 billion dollars a year to cover the interest on the debt, if inflation rears its ugly head that cost will skyrocket. I think $500 billion spent on debt instead of programs is a problem. When our kid's start paying it for us, it will be a travesty...
personally.... I don't care who started it... it's a problem, stop pointing fingers
Doorbell (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqoGORXAv2o#)
Quote from: DianaP on February 10, 2013, 12:20:51 PM
Well, I can come up with a few ways to save money off the top of my head. I know that some may seem harsh, but it's my opinion.
-If someone earns a sentence of life in prison without possibility of parole, why not just give him/her the death penalty? It's not like the person is ever going back to society. Why not just make it so that he/she isn't a burden either?
-Let gays get married. We all know how expensive weddings can be, so if small businesses like caterers do well, then the govt can make more money.
-Switch to clean energy. The only reason its expensive now is because each individual has to provide solar panels for his/her home. If we switch to having clean power plants that distribute energy throughout communities, we would need far fewer solar panels/wind turbines, and it would be much less expensive since energy production methods were changed at the source.
Surprising how easy it is to save money. This is why we can't have split parties. :-\
Oh, and thanks, ladies. :)
I'll be OK with the capital punishment of these inmates as long as you pull the trigger :-). I can't, as a human being, kill another unless in self defense... but its OK to outsource murder to someone else? no thanks... I'll never ask another person to do something I am unwilling to do myself
green energy doesn't exist... we waste so much oil on trying to make it mainstream but NOTHING is as efficient as oil... maybe someday, but right now, throwing money at companies like solyndra doesn't help - it's wasting capital that could be better spent somewhere else
Quote from: oZma on February 10, 2013, 03:51:39 PM
green energy doesn't exist... we waste so much oil on trying to make it mainstream but NOTHING is as efficient as oil... maybe someday, but right now, throwing money at companies like solyndra doesn't help - it's wasting capital that could be better spent somewhere else
Nothing is as efficient as oil? Combustion engines get an efficiency of 25%. Solar (~40%), nuclear (don't remember exact number), and hydroelectric (95%) are more efficient. Heck, even the human body has a 33% efficiency rate.
About taxation: If there are rich people who can afford to pay more taxes who are already paying 13% rates, i.e, less than the average Joe, why not ask them for a little more so the rest of the population can catch a break? It's simple logic. You don't ask someone to pay for something he/she can't afford. If your friend is a construction worker and wants 12 kids, you'd sure as heck tell him/her that doing so would be an awful idea.
I agree that finger-pointing is not going to solve problems, but you seem to be too anti-govt. Honestly, govt is necessary. The US govt needs fixing, but that doesn't mean that govt in and of itself is a bad idea.
I remember hearing someone say that if a neighborhood needed anything, people could get things done themselves. That's far from the truth. No group of individuals can afford what a country (govt) can.
LETS BALANCE THE BUDGET!
Central planners shriek that without big government, planes will crash, trains, parks, and Big Bird will disappear. None of this is true.
Here are my (John Stossel's) cuts:
-Eliminate the Small Business Administration
-Repeal Davis-Bacon rules, under which the gov must pay fat union-set wages to workers on federal construction projects
-Eliminate foreign aid
I hear complaints already: All foreign aid? That would increase suffering! The small business administration? Some companies would never begin! Workers will suffer! The arguments are specious, but people believe them, and the lobbyist against such cuts would be ferocious. But they are absolutely necessary if we hope to have a future where the truly needs are helped. So far I (John Stossel) have saved $37 billion.
Uh-oh. Cutting 37 billion barely touches the deficit. We must cut more!
-Department of Education: Kill it and we'd save $106.9 billion (CATO Institute's numbers at DownsizeGovernment.org). We don't need a FEDERAL education department. Spending 106.9 billion did nothing to improve learning. Education is a state responsibility.
-Department of Housing and Urban Development: $60.8 billion more
-Who needs the Energy Department? If wind or solar power is practical, private investors will rush to invest. The joy of private investment is that if they waste billions on boondoggles like Solyndra, they waste their own money, not yours. Private dollars, not the whims of political appointees, should determine energy investments.
Were up to $293.3 billion in cuts. A good start, but our deficit, as i write this, is $1.4 trillion. We must go further...
-Agriculture subsidies cost us $33 billion a year. Get rid of them. They raise food prices and distorts the economy.
-End the war on drugs. It doesn't stop abuse and it turns out to be a subsidy for thugs. $41 billion according to Jeffery Miron, Harvard Economist.
-Eliminate NASA, Fannie and Freddie, and the departments Commerce, Interior, and Labor (except 26 week unemployment)
-Privatize the Army Corps of Engineers, the TSA, USPS. Lease the costal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Eliminate federal flood insurance, the Corporation for National and Community Service, the FCC, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the National Endowment for the Humanities... but this still isn't enough...
To really attack the deficit we need to attack the "untouchable" parts.
-Social Security: Catos's plan to raise the retirement age and index benefits to inflation would save $85.7 billion. Heritage says cutting benefits for the richest retirees would save another $170 billion. I'd (John Stossel) would like to save more by privatizing Social Security but my progressive friends would scream, so I'll leave it out.
-Medicare and Medicade: Did you know the Department of Health and Human Services runs four hundred different subsidy programs? Lets use Cato's suggested cuts. $44 billion.
-Defense: We currently spend $721 billion on defense. That's about 1/5 of our budget. We could cut $243 billion if we shrank the military to its mot important role: protecting us and our borders. That's still twice of what China spends, the country with the next most expensive military.
That gives us $200 billion in SURPLUS!! But we don't even need to cut that much. We could grow our way out of debt if congress simply froze spending at today's levels. That budget would balance by 2017. If they limited it to 2% per year, they'd be balanced by 2020. But they won't even do that?!
This was taken from John Stossel's (a libertarian on FOX business ~ don't hate ) book "No, They Can't. Why Government Fails - But Individuals Succeed." This book is one of the best I've ever read. I challenge a statist/lefty/progressive/liberal to read this. I really do because i DOUBT they will... most likely too afraid to realize their precious progressive ideas are bunk.
Direct all anti-Fox jargon to someone who cares.
Quote from: kkut on February 10, 2013, 06:15:34 PM
I am thoroughly impressed g inirl! There's an added plus to your surplus projection, companies would start hiring again and revenue to the treasury would increase dramatically. Economics really isn't all that hard ;D
not my projection... John Stossel's... and it's not really his either since he credits A LOT of people/groups in his book :-)
Reducing benefits of rich retirees is good. So's increasing taxes on the rich.
Eliminating NASA completely isn't a good idea. They receive less 1% of the US budget. You can eliminate planetary exploration, but there are practical space adventures like space mining. More resource supply means that they'll be less expensive.
Business owners don't think long-term, which is why they didn't convert to the much more efficient solar power. Energy department can stay, or we might never see power plants be converted to solar power. Converting power plants to solar energy instead of each individual building to solar power is much less expensive.
Letting states run education 100% has been proven to be a bad idea. If it weren't for federal intervention, quite a few states would still be teaching the Bible over real biology and abstinence would still be taught instead of practical sexual education such as using condoms, etc. Kids are going to be having sex. Might as well teach them to do it intelligently.
Before agricultural subsidies and other govt aid, farmers were in huge debt and in trouble. Those can stay.
USDHUD provides housing to people who would otherwise be homeless or in very inadequate housing. Heck, one of my friends would actually be living with a family of 5 in a studio apartment his family could barely afford (both parents working) if it weren't for the USDHUD.
Where exactly should the SS age be raised to?
I agree in cutting defense. The military doesn't need more than the 2,300 M1 Abram tanks it already has.
Stossel's proposed cuts are excessive and reckless. The debt doesn't need to be paid off in under 1 year as long as it gets paid off. ::)
Real quick math indicates cuts like that would put hundreds of thousands of people on unemployment, but that isn't addressed.
Like I've said many times, govt isn't perfect, but it's necessary. I don't mind firing a bunch of politicians, just so long as the actual govt system remains intact. Stossel's plans to cut the govt's agencies down 100% is flawed.
Quote from: DianaP on February 10, 2013, 06:48:41 PM
Like I've said many times, govt isn't perfect, but it's necessary. I don't mind firing a bunch of politicians, just so long as the actual govt system remains intact. Stossel's plans to cut the govt's agencies down 100% is flawed.
reckless? maybe yes. flawed? errr, I trust Stossel's team of editors and researchers over you... sorry, no offense
Quote from: Devlyn Marie on February 10, 2013, 06:43:03 PM
Real quick math indicates cuts like that would put hundreds of thousands of peopl bute on unemployment, but that isn't addressed.
well if any of those departments that are cut actually have a 'demand', a private equivalent may pop up? also, I wouldn't think these things would happen overnight, but a slow process that doesn't put a bunch of people out of work overnight.
it's all speculation... it will never happen... but at least we know it can be possible :-) as difficult as it might be
Quote from: kkut on February 10, 2013, 06:53:49 PM
The IRS is a good example of extremely bright and talented people who are spending their time ensuring people are being fair with their complicated tax obligations. Imagine if they were working in the private sector producing wealth and technological advancements? I believe we have too many people currently in nonproductive jobs.
gold star thinking
Private equivalents of govt. agencies would be a horrible idea.
Quote from: oZma on February 10, 2013, 06:54:17 PM
reckless? yes. flawed? errr, I trust Stossel's team of editors and researchers over you... sorry, no offense
Guess who else had editors and researchers for their many attack ads: every single politician you claim are stupid and despicable. ::)
Quote from: kkut on February 10, 2013, 06:56:30 PM
Without government, we'd all be witnessing Mad Max and the Thunderdome... I agree with you. I do think there are some agencies that are for the most part... worthless. Cut them dramatically and streamline the others to be more efficient.
I agree that govt agencies can do with fewer politicians. However, "killing" them, as Stossel so elegantly puts it, would be disastrous.
As much as everyone despises the IRS, someone has to make sure people are paying their fair share in taxes.
While we're talking budgets & deficits, the New York Times had an interesting article a few years ago in which you could fiddle around with some things and see the budget effects. So, have at it (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html).
Something I found interesting by toggling the numbers, you could solve about 76% of the budget deficit (for 2015) and about 40% (for 2030) just by returning to Clinton era taxes. Deficits are a combination of revenue & expenditures and I don't think any idea that focuses entirely on one of these two areas is correct.
The deficit problem is far from impossible to solve, but I do think Stossel's ideas are extreme. Devlyn is right that it would leave several people unemployed and would cause a massive hit to our GDP (double dip recession anyone?). I think the right idea if one were to try to solve the problem would be to take a more Burkian approach, understand that the deficit came about organically. Don't gut half the government overnight. These programs exist for reasons. Instead take a more cautious approach, use a scalpel rather then a hatchet to make finer, more efficient cuts.
QuoteThe IRS is a good example of extremely bright and talented people who are spending their time ensuring people are being fair with their complicated tax obligations. Imagine if they were working in the private sector producing wealth and technological advancements? I believe we have too many people currently in nonproductive jobs.
This may be an example of the Burkian approach I listed. The IRS is a good investment on the government's part returning 3-4 times (http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/09/news/economy/irs_budget/index.htm) what Uncle Sam gives them. The money the IRS collects increases revenues and decreases the deficit.
Quote from: DianaP on February 10, 2013, 07:04:56 PM
Private equivalents of govt. agencies would be a horrible idea.
yes because USPS>UPS and FEMA>Red Cross? :)
Quote
Guess who else had editors and researchers for their many attack ads: every single politician you claim are stupid and despicable. ::)
not sure your point here. you said Stossel's plan was 'flawed' ~ what does that have to do with attack ads?
Quote from: Kayla on February 10, 2013, 07:08:07 PM
While we're talking budgets & deficits, the New York Times had an interesting article a few years ago in which you could fiddle around with some things and see the budget effects. So, have at it (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html).
Something I found interesting by toggling the numbers, you could solve about 76% of the budget deficit (for 2015) and about 40% (for 2030) just by returning to Clinton era taxes. Deficits are a combination of revenue & expenditures and I don't think any idea that focuses entirely on one of these two areas is correct.
The deficit problem is far from impossible to solve, but I do think Stossel's ideas are extreme. Devlyn is right that it would leave several people unemployed and would cause a massive hit to our GDP (double dip recession anyone?). I think the right idea if one were to try to solve the problem would be to take a more Burkian approach, understand that the deficit came about organically. Don't gut half the government overnight. These programs exist for reasons. Instead take a more cautious approach, use a scalpel rather then a hatchet to make finer, more efficient cuts.
This may be an example of the Burkian approach I listed. The IRS is a good investment on the government's part returning 3-4 times (http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/09/news/economy/irs_budget/index.htm) what Uncle Sam gives them. The money the IRS collects increases revenues and decreases the deficit.
i don't advocate cutting those things overnight... i just support the idea of cutting them
the only problem i have with the IRS is that if i don't support something like WAR and I don't want to support it so I decide to deduct that part from THEIR bill... i go to jail and if i try to resit... i could get shot! i don't support aggressive violent coercion....
Quote from: oZma on February 10, 2013, 07:10:11 PM
yes because USPS>UPS and FEMA>Red Cross? :)
not sure your point here. you said Stossel's plan was 'flawed' ~ what does that have to do with attack ads?
1. Yes, govt agencies actually are better. Better funded, better equipped, more competent workers.
2. My point is that editors and researchers were used by the exact people you don't like. Therefore, I wouldn't take what they say without looking into it. If you do, you'd realize that Stossel is wrong.
Quote from: kkut on February 10, 2013, 07:22:03 PM
Flat tax for income over X.
Bad idea. # of kids, caring for a sick family member, and other extenuating circumstances need to be considered.
Quote from: DianaP on February 10, 2013, 07:18:14 PM
1. Yes, govt agencies actually are better. Better funded, better equipped, more competent workers.
2. My point is that editors and researchers were used by the exact people you don't like. Therefore, I wouldn't take what they say without looking into it. If you do, you'd realize that Stossel is wrong.
1. USPS is sooo good and deliver mail soo much better than the UPS, they are going to quit delivering mail on saturdays?! hahah much better than UPS
2. so you're saying since you can't trust anybody to do any research ever, John Stossel can't be trusted? and is wrong? that just because you don't agree with someone, their research must be wrong? how do you trust anybody? because they have your same bias? sounds childish
because no matter what i say, with any research on the topic, you always say i'm wrong... this comes to mind...
Diana, the defender of the status quo!! and winner of chess games!(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fjeenyuscorner.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F12%2Farguing-with-statists.jpg&hash=a1ba2b9fcfd3544b6552b65cd16f4cae901d0dc3)
Quote from: oZma on February 10, 2013, 07:53:04 PM
1. USPS is sooo good and deliver mail soo much better than the UPS, they are going to quit delivering mail on saturdays?! hahah much better than UPS
The problem with the Postal Service is one largely manufactured by Congress (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/22/1084948/-Republicans-manufacture-a-crisis-for-the-Postal-Service-and-too-many-Democrats-go-along). I also find it funny that UPS uses the USPS (http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20080827/OPINION02/708279998).
Quote from: oZma on February 10, 2013, 07:53:04 PM
1. USPS is sooo good and deliver mail soo much better than the UPS, they are going to quit delivering mail on saturdays?! hahah much better than UPS
2. so you're saying since you can't trust anybody to do any research ever, John Stossel can't be trusted? and is wrong? that just because you don't agree with someone, their research must be wrong? how do you trust anybody? because they have your same bias? sounds childish
because no matter what i say, with any research on the topic, you always say i'm wrong... this comes to mind...
Diana, the defender of the status quo!! and winner of chess games!
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fjeenyuscorner.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F12%2Farguing-with-statists.jpg&hash=a1ba2b9fcfd3544b6552b65cd16f4cae901d0dc3)
1. You do realize that it's being fought so that letters (packages will still be delivered no matter what) remains delivered on Saturdays? People acknowledge that it's a bad idea, so it's being fought against.
2. I'm not saying you can't trust anyone. I'm saying you shouldn't just take something at face value without looking into it. We all showed you how Stossel is wrong, but you're the only one who refuses to see it.
3. You can't just disregard my arguments with some meme (try providing an actual argument), especially when it's a false comparison. After you posted that Stossel stuff, I rationally argued against some points and agreed with others. I agreed that NASA could be cut, just not entirely since there are some parts of NASA that have great potential, such as space mining, which is practical and beneficial, reducing foreign dependency. I also agreed with cutting defense. I don't always say you're wrong, Ozma, but you sure as heck twist what I say A LOT. I am not even a statist. You can read how I spoke in favor of change many times here. I also believe that private practice and state/local govt. have their purposes, but that they can't be trusted with everything.
We (yes, I'm not the only one here that has disagreed with you, so stop singling me out with your childish attacks) didn't just knock over your chess pieces and strutted around like we won. We knocked them over fair and square with real, rational arguments.
Quote from: DianaP on February 10, 2013, 08:22:03 PM
1. You do realize that it's being fought so that letters (packages will still be delivered no matter what) remains delivered on Saturdays? People acknowledge that it's a bad idea, so it's being fought against.
2. I'm not saying you can't trust anyone. I'm saying you shouldn't just take something at face value without looking into it. We all showed you how Stossel is wrong, but you're the only one who refuses to see it.
you showed stossel wrong because you didn't agree and people would lose jobs? the point was to balance the budget and solve the deficit, not make everyone happy... what other points did you make that i am "refusing to see"? and just saying "its not a good idea" doesn't mean its wrong.
"Reducing benefits of rich retirees is good. So's increasing taxes on the rich.
Eliminating NASA completely isn't a good idea. They receive less 1% of the US budget. You can eliminate planetary exploration, but there are practical space adventures like space mining. More resource supply means that they'll be less expensive.
Business owners don't think long-term, which is why they didn't convert to the much more efficient solar power. Energy department can stay, or we might never see power plants be converted to solar power. Converting power plants to solar energy instead of each individual building to solar power is much less expensive.
Letting states run education 100% has been proven to be a bad idea. If it weren't for federal intervention, quite a few states would still be teaching the Bible over real biology and abstinence would still be taught instead of practical sexual education such as using condoms, etc. Kids are going to be having sex. Might as well teach them to do it intelligently.
Before agricultural subsidies and other govt aid, farmers were in huge debt and in trouble. Those can stay.
USDHUD provides housing to people who would otherwise be homeless or in very inadequate housing. Heck, one of my friends would actually be living with a family of 5 in a studio apartment his family could barely afford (both parents working) if it weren't for the USDHUD.
I agree in cutting defense. The military doesn't need more than the 2,300 M1 Abram tanks it already has. "
See? I rationally refuted with some and agreed with other points. Plus, you can't solve the deficit by putting hundreds of thousands of people out of work and removing necessary agencies 100%. That's way too much. Stossel just looked to cut whatever costs money without looking into what he was cutting. It's like refusing to pay that $50 bill every month simply because it cost $50, only to realize that it was your electric bill.
As for your Higgs quote, anarchists need to prove their point. We're not just going to blindly trust people to fix all of our problems easily without some evidence that your system can work. If I told you that I was selling a brand new weight loss supplement that would make you lose 50 pounds in a month, would you not ask for proof?
mods, lock this thread... its worthless
everything you say, is just some silly opinion... makes nothing "right or wrong" financially about his cuts
and what you say about Stossel ~ "Stossel just looked to cut whatever costs money without looking into what he was cutting." is just silly... i mean did you read his book? do you know what he researched? i mean to just say this? thats not right... stop acting like a know it all, gosh
Quote from: oZma on February 10, 2013, 08:34:24 PM
everything you say, is just some silly opinion...
Weren't you just unjustly complaining about how I always told you you were wrong? At least I explained to you why you were wrong, and I used facts. If I'm a know-it-all, you're being a hypocrite.
Quote from: kkut on February 10, 2013, 08:51:31 PM
Really? For what, packages that don't absolutely have to ge there on time? at all? ;D
Hey, my dad's a letter carrier, and he gets his deliveries done on time. :P
Quote from: DianaP on February 10, 2013, 08:48:52 PM
Weren't you just unjustly complaining about how I always told you you were wrong? At least I explained to you why you were wrong, and I used facts. If I'm a know-it-all, you're being a hypocrite.
I meant its an opinion whether or not to cut it... I don't care for the facts you supply as reasons 'not' to cut... they don't matter unless they change the figures of how much to cut
what do mean when you say 'wrong?' if the math works out, its right... right? whether or not it's a good idea is a completely different discussion. do you see what I'm trying to say? do you see why it bothers me when you just blatantly say it's wrong? without having read the book? are you really saying that my perspective on this is so totally wrong that you can't even comprehend it?
I understand your argument for the status quo... everything is fine right now, to the most part, but big changes in either direction towards a much bigger or smaller gov isn't a good idea.
but mine is unthinkable? it's just wrong? and please explain my hypocracy, I'm confused?
Quote from: DianaP on February 10, 2013, 08:48:52 PM
Weren't you just unjustly complaining about how I always told you you were wrong?
Yet you keep telling me that everything I say is just some silly opinion, not taking regard to anything but your own views. That's the hypocrisy.
Quote from: oZma on February 10, 2013, 09:09:13 PM
I understand your argument for the status quo... everything is fine right now, to the most part, but big changes in either direction towards a much bigger or smaller gov isn't a good idea.
but mine is unthinkable?
I appreciate you looking at things my way, but your (Stossel's) views are indeed extreme.
Quote from: DianaP on February 10, 2013, 09:18:13 PM
Yet you keep telling me that everything I say is just some silly opinion, not ttheaking regard to anything but your own views. That's the hypocrisy.
I appreciate you looking at things my way, but your (Stossel's) views are indeed extreme.
I mean to say... every gov program can be cut, nothing is absolutely needed. the facts you supply don't say THIS PROGRAM IS REQUIRED FOR HUMAN EXISTENCE... the facts say that these programs are good things, we should maybe not cut them, but does not mean you can't, and when you say you CAN'T... ITS OPINION!
do you understand me? I don't know why you are having trouble
nothing you provided means you CAN'T cut those programs, they say you shouldn't and thats opinion
Well, if you're just going to cut anything that you can stay alive without, then we can cut heat, electricity, housing, cars, etc. Once again, extreme.
I'm not saying I never used opinions, but to say that EVERYTHING I said was just an opinion and to just denounce everything I said as silly is unfair.
Quote from: DianaP on February 10, 2013, 09:29:13 PM
Well, if you're just going to cut anything that you can stay alive without, then we can cut heat, electricity, housing, cars, etc. Once again, extreme.
I'm not saying I never used opinions, but to say that EVERYTHING I said was just an opinion and to just denounce everything I said as silly is unfair.
OK, I'm sorry but you took 'everything' too literal. I should had said all of the decisions not to cut are opinions.
so can we stop arguing over something so trivial?
Oh wow, john stossel? 20/20s John Stossel? mustache guy John Stossel? Global warming denier John Stossel?
I mean the guy's a hunk and very charismatic, but really? I mean most of these budget cuts are nothing but one trick pony BS that only temporarily fixes the budget, closing NASA and getting rid of foreign aid? privatizing? leasing in perpetuity invaluable natural resources? Wow, awesome strategic short term thinking! these solutions are akin to saying, I have a migraine so the cure is to cut off my head
L O L
just one thing about green energy, how come it's flourishing in Germany
keep on dreaming these fluffy Ayn Rand dreams gals.
Quote from: monica.soto on February 10, 2013, 09:40:25 PM
Oh wow, john stossel? 20/20s John Stossel? mustache guy John Stossel? Global warming denier John Stossel?
I mean the guy's a hunk and very charismatic, but really? I mean most of these budget cuts are nothing but one trick pony BS that only temporarily fixes the budget, closing NASA and getting rid of foreign aid? privatizing? leasing in perpetuity invaluable natural resources? Wow, awesome strategic short term thinking! these solutions are akin to saying, I have a migraine so the cure is to cut off my head
L O L
just one thing about green energy, how come it's flourishing in Germany
keep on dreaming these fluffy Ayn Rand dreams gals.
well good thing we're still working on the status quo then huh?
but, but, Stossel is the status quo.
Yet his methods of gutting everything are inefficient and extreme.
Quote from: DianaP on February 10, 2013, 10:13:19 PM
Yet his methods of gutting everything are inefficient and extreme.
regardless... Nobody said it is going to be pretty... If the IRS grabbed 100 percent of income over $1 million, the take would be just $616 billion. That's only a third of this year's deficit. I mean, what do you propose we do to balance it? At least I offered a solution?
Quote from: monica.soto on February 10, 2013, 09:40:25 PM
keep on dreaming these fluffy Ayn Rand dreams gals.
hehe :)
Cut military spending, reform the tax code to increase wealthy Americans' taxes slightly, stop hunting down potheads by cutting down the ADA, reform unemployment to a few months in order to increase incentive to go back to work. That's just off the top of my head.
Quote from: DianaP on February 10, 2013, 10:29:14 PM
Cut military spending, reform the tax code to increase wealthy Americans' taxes slightly, stop hunting down potheads by cutting down the ADA, reform unemployment to a few months in order to increase incentive to go back to work. That's just off the top of my head.
i guess i was hoping for numbers? but i guess just if we go my military cuts at 250 billion saved and tax the wealthiest at 100% (690 billion) we are at almost $900 billion... then the war on drugs we can save 224 billion? 1.1 trillion... almost at the deficit of 1.4 trillion.... add some unemployment reform, maybe social security, medicade reform? you could maybe get there?
so i guess a plan like yours could work? but taxing the rich isn't a moral thing to do... i'm just against using guns to get your way... its not moral to threaten people with violence... you can't change my mind on this. i will never condone violence, fear, or aggression to get your way.
Eww gross..
equality is not fairness and vice versa.
Taxes need to go up for everyone, but most importantly for those who are rich, inheritance tax needs to be something close to 90%. Religious institutions need to lose their tax exempt status, etc. junk food, liquor, tobacco, recreational drugs need to be taxed higher.
The government needs to grow more efficient and clean in order to pull this off though.
Quote from: monica.soto on February 10, 2013, 09:40:25 PM
keep on dreaming these fluffy Ayn Rand dreams gals.
I'll never get why some people seem so enamored with her philosophy. That being selfless is evil and greed is good. :eusa_think:
Quote from: Heather on February 10, 2013, 11:22:36 PM
I'll never get why some people seem so enamored with her philosophy. That being selfless is evil and greed is good. :eusa_think:
And up is down and hot is cold and happy is sad. Yeah...
Quote from: Heather on February 10, 2013, 11:22:36 PM
I'll never get why some people seem so enamored with her philosophy. That being selfless is evil and greed is good. :eusa_think:
i was thinking the same about people who say things like this ~ lol... i just think they don't understand the abstract at which she talks about... selfishness is self esteem... helping yourself in turns helps others, etc...
i think its odd that people think they are given a free pass to talk crap about her though... makes me sad that people don't know how to understand what she is really saying and then attack her for it
and she says there is a diffrence between selflessness and altruism... if you can't understand those differences, you can't understand her philosophy
Some of us understand, and reject, her philosophy. Never trust a philosopher that needs 1000 pages to make their argument. I know that is being reductionist, I do, but I really don't wanna get into the nitty gritty of Ayn Rand. It's too frustating.
Quote from: Jen on February 11, 2013, 12:04:16 AM
Some of us understand, and reject, her philosophy. Never trust a philosopher that needs 1000 pages to make their argument. I know that is being reductionist, I do, but I really don't wanna get into the nitty gritty of Ayn Rand. It's too frustating.
makes sense... to truly reject (or understand) her philosophy, you probably need to get to the nitty gritty right? easiest way to do that is read her books :)
you have any philosophers you'd like to share with the class while we are talking philosophy?
never trust a philosophy that needs 1000 pages? thats just a silly argument... but it makes me wonder how many pages is the bible?! lol
Quote from: Jen on February 11, 2013, 12:04:16 AM
Never trust a philosopher that needs 1000 pages to make their argument.
lol ain't that the truth!
Quote from: oZma on February 11, 2013, 12:13:02 AM
thats just a silly argument... but it makes me wonder how many pages is the bible?! lol
But the bible is collection of story's told by many different people. Not just one woman rambling on about her views on the world.
Well, we have wandered rather far away from the topic, haven't we?
However, I have been enjoying the conversation. Robust debate is good for society. Let's just maintaine civility.
Fair enough?
Let's consider this quotation from James Madison, Federalist #51:
But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.
Quote from: Heather on February 11, 2013, 12:22:29 AM
lol ain't that the truth!But the bible is collection of story's told by many different people. Not just one woman rambling on about her views on the world.
ahh, i take it you've read Atlas then?
Quote from: oZma on February 11, 2013, 12:13:02 AM
makes sense... to truly reject (or understand) her philosophy, you probably need to get to the nitty gritty right? easiest way to do that is read her books :)
you have any philosophers you'd like to share with the class while we are talking philosophy?
never trust a philosophy that needs 1000 pages? thats just a silly argument... but it makes me wonder how many pages is the bible?! lol
I didn't say I haven't ever got into the nitty gritty, just that I don't wanna here. And I'm not really making an argument, or if I did it was by accident. Certainly no serious argument. And no I don't have a philosopher for the class either. Most of them are too wordy to trust by my standards. Too much logic + too many words = potential for crazy conclusions. I'm not sure what the bible has to do with anything?
P.s. I think I'm always civil :angel:
Quote from: oZma on February 10, 2013, 11:52:06 PM
i was thinking the same about people who say things like this ~ lol... i just think they don't understand the abstract at which she talks about... selfishness is self esteem... helping yourself in turns helps others, etc...
i think its odd that people think they are given a free pass to talk crap about her though... makes me sad that people don't know how to understand what she is really saying and then attack her for it
and she says there is a difference between selflessness and altruism... if you can't understand those differences, you can't understand her philosophy
Atlas Shrugged is set in a dystopian future in which statism and collectivism are considered good things, at least by those in power who benefit from it. Since the time the novel was written, in the 1950s, we have seen the collapse of real dystopian states, such as those in the former Soviet Bloc, where statism and collectivism utterly failed. The seizure and redistribution of wealth and property are antithetical to the fundamental principals of natural law - the philosophy upon which the United States were founded.
Rand's vision was prescient, to say the least.
(^ Thank you, Jen ^)
Quote from: kkut on February 11, 2013, 01:02:56 AM
I think you misinterpret her philosophy.
Who's greedy? Isn't it the government that can never do without and the people who produce the wealth in the first place have to do without?
Who are the greedy? People wanting government to take more from their neighbors or the neighbors who want their neighbors to be left alone?
Someone just said the the government should tax people's estate's 90% when they die? Why? Where does this viewpoint stem from? Why not 100%, why let anyone be free in the first place?
Ayn Rand nearly died under totalitarianism, her family had everything confiscated from them. I think a little effort to understand her view on this is wise. Ayn Rand invokes fear and anger in some people, certainly not me. She doesn't condone the theft of anything from anybody. She understands freedom leads to the greatest prosperity. For this she's hated?
"I dunnoh... maybe it was Utah." (don't ask)
Greed is Good: How Getting Selfish Can Improve Your Life & Others (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwaiBBS91cI#)
i think she is hated because she hold people to the highest virtuous standards. she says people should be good, virtuous beings and those who are unable to be "good" for whatever reason look at her and say "i can't be a good as you think i can be" and dislike her for making that obvious... or at least that's my opinion of why people hate her.
Ayn Rand on Happiness, Self-Esteem and Love (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMNUdDC4tEc#)
Quote from: kkut on February 11, 2013, 01:02:56 AM
I think you misinterpret her philosophy.
Who's greedy? Isn't it the government that can never do without and the people who produce the wealth in the first place have to do without?
Who are the greedy? People wanting government to take more from their neighbors or the neighbors who want their neighbors to be left alone?
Someone just said the the government should tax people's estate's 90% when they die? Why? Where does this viewpoint stem from? Why not 100%, why let anyone be free in the first place?
Ayn Rand nearly died under totalitarianism, her family had everything confiscated from them. I think a little effort to understand her view on this is wise. Ayn Rand invokes fear and anger in some people, certainly not me. She doesn't condone the theft of anything from anybody. She understands freedom leads to the greatest prosperity. For this she's hated?
"I dunnoh... maybe it was Utah." (don't ask)
I don't hate her! But I sure don't buy into her beliefs.
Quote from: kkut on February 11, 2013, 01:02:56 AM
Ayn Rand invokes fear and anger in some people, certainly not me. She doesn't condone the theft of anything from anybody. She understands freedom leads to the greatest prosperity. For this she's hated?
I think she invokes anger in some people for the same reason Karl Marx invokes it in others. Many of her views are antithetical to the views of a lot of people, myself included.
When you have intelligent people looking at the same thing and coming to different and sometimes opposite conclusions, it can feel frustrating. This is where anger comes in. Politics is arguments forever and nobody ever being convinced of anything cause they've already thought everything through. Gee, that sounds fun.
I'd rather sit on the sidelines and judge. Ever watching, ever judging.
Quote from: Jen on February 11, 2013, 01:26:05 AM
I think she invokes anger in some people for the same reason Karl Marx invokes it in others. Many of her views are antithetical to the views of a lot of people, myself included.
care to go into more detail? i would just love to understand the perspective of someone who really understands Ayn's views and disagrees :) i am very curious
Quote from: kkut on February 11, 2013, 01:31:03 AM
I didn't mean you, but I've seen people nearly lose their temper when her name is mentioned. It's really odd. Mention the worst tyrants to these people... no reaction, but mention Ayn Rand and all heck breaks loose. It's so odd.
yeah some people are just crazy like that. I've never read Atlas Shrugged I did almost buy it once to see what all the hype was about. I did see a movie a year or two ago based on it. But you know how movies based on books are.
Quote from: oZma on February 11, 2013, 01:31:56 AM
care to go into more detail? i would just love to understand the perspective of someone who really understands Ayn's views and disagrees :) i am very curious
Let me ask you a question, do you believe that everybody would all have the same worldview if they were properly enlightened? Sometimes people just disagree on things, and isn't that okay?
I do not believe there is one right way to govern. i think many approaches could work in the proper setting and proper culture. If I, personally, had to pick between a philosophy that is basically every person for themselves and one where the government tries to take care of its citizens, imma take the latter. Though I don't think America is the right culture for that style of government, at least not yet. It does, however, seem to work for the Scandinavians.
Quote from: Jen on February 11, 2013, 01:49:15 AM
Let me ask you a question, do you believe that everybody would all have the same worldview if they were properly enlightened? Sometimes people just disagree on things, and isn't that okay?
I do not believe there is one right way to govern. i think many approaches could work in the proper setting and proper culture. If I, personally, had to pick between a philosophy that is basically every person for themselves and one where the government tries to take care of its citizens, imma take the latter. Though I don't think America is the right culture for that style of government, at least not yet. It does, however, seem to work for the Scandinavians.
the way you write that question is funny... as if there is some cult like enlightenment meeting people need to go to? i don't imagine that people will agree no... i just would like to know what about her philosophy you disagree with so i can try to understand the opposite perspective.
and i think many people misunderstand philosophies like libertarianism, anarchy, and even Ayn Rand's objectivism and assume its 'everyman for themselves' while the opposite is true... i think there would be more community and less of "everyman for themselves" the smaller government would be... its possible we would end up working together, instead of trying to raise the others taxes. its possible, but then again the opposite is possible too. i think you need to see both sides and make a decision on whether you think people will work together voluntarily, or they won't? i vote for people working together :)
everything with me boils down to freedom, freedom to act how i please and freedom from coercion... the state is built on violence and the threat of... i cannot support those who use legislation to pickpocket... even if its for a perceived "greater good"... if it was really for the greater good, people would give willingly (like they do in church)... but since its not all good, they have to use violence, and the threat of to collect their precious taxes. never will i support this.
Well, people not liking to pay taxes to the govt doesn't mean that the govt isn't good. Besides, churches ask for a lot less, so people don't give it a second thought.
Anywho, I don't think that all greed is good. Can it be? Sure. However, if you look further into it, you'll see that too much greed is bad. If a factory owner wants money so badly that he/she is willing to dispose of waste in a reservoir instead of by using the safer, more expensive method, then the town's water supply gets poisoned. If you work in a job you hate simply to get money to have more stuff, then you'll be miserable.
I think this guy sums it up well. Earn your living doing what you love, not what pays the most.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siu6JYqOZ0g (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siu6JYqOZ0g)
I don't mean to sound dismissive, but there's truly nothing to 'get' about objectivism.
I would say objectivism is a philosophy in the way a tantrum by a child is an argument in a conversation.
Ms. Rand's philosophy is similar to an apologist's version of historical events. An a posteriori argument tailored to make sense of the gilded age's robber baron 'hero' mentality and lay a blueprint of how things happened to be with a weak government reconstructed as the ideal of how things need to be so business can once again flourish.
Quote from: DianaP on February 11, 2013, 03:27:01 PM
I think this guy sums it up well. Earn your living doing what you love, not what pays the most.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siu6JYqOZ0g (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siu6JYqOZ0g)
great video... find your love, your passion and and you've found your meaning to life, regardless of income :-) unless I'm mistaken, a very objectivist perspective?
Quote from: monica.soto on February 11, 2013, 03:51:35 PM
I don't mean to sound dismissive, but there's truly nothing to 'get' about objectivism.
I would say objectivism is a philosophy in the way a tantrum by a child is an argument in a conversation.
and objectivism, to me, means 'the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness' or in other terms 'rational self interest' :-)
so I got something from objectivism... are you discrediting that?
yes, she defends the Rockefellers and the Carnegies, but so do I... I am thankful for them laying the framework of our country. what's that quote about capitalism?
Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone? gosh and thats a Keynes quote LOL
Quote from: oZma on February 11, 2013, 04:25:54 PM
great video... find your love, your passion and and you've found your meaning to life :-) unless I'm misunderstanding, a very objectivist perspective?
Well, I never argued on the matter of objectivism, just greed. I don't think greed is all that great when used in excess.
Quote from: DianaP on February 11, 2013, 04:32:04 PM
Well, I never argued on the matter of objectivism, just greed. I don't think greed is all that great when used in excess.
I'm not saying you were, just showing a parallel :-) and I agree with you about greed... but there are two sides to that coin. sometimes good, sometimes bad... I just wanted to show that there is a positive aspect to greed
Quote from: oZma on February 11, 2013, 04:32:57 PM
I'm not saying you were, just showing a parallel :-) and I agree with you about greed... but there are two sides to that coin. sometimes good, sometimes bad... I just wanted to show that there is a positive aspect to greed
Omg, Aristotle (http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/2s.htm) territory here :P.
Anyway, even I can get behind the idea that there is a positive
aspect to greed. I won't elaborate, just 'cause I'm afraid I'll get pulled into an argument and arguing makes me feel icky :).
I am glad you gave your one sentence definition of objectivism though, because I don't think I ever could have come up with one that was snark-free.
Quote from: oZma on February 11, 2013, 04:25:54 PM
and objectivism, to me, means 'the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness' or in other terms 'rational self interest' :-)
so I got something from objectivism... are you discrediting that?
yes, she defends the Rockefellers and the Carnegies, but so do I... I am thankful for them laying the framework of our country. what's that quote about capitalism?
Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone? gosh and thats a Keynes quote LOL
That I think Objectivism is a hack philosophy and tea partiers and libertarians are nothing but economic ignorants paid by the status quo to protect and fight for their economic interests, (aka glorified lobbyists) , doesn't mean I'm some sort of anti-capitalist.
And that quote about "the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness", if you truly believe in it, good for you girl, you deserve to be happy, so let that be your moral purpose.
I believe in individuals and individuality, but their central role to me is nothing more than myth, the role of the hero has a purpose in the development of human society, but is always been embellished and idealized, the truth is different, for example Rockefeller or Carnegie would have been nothing without their close team, without the family who raised them, without the town that helped them in their formative years, the individual relies on the many, and the many rely on the individual, for me no one is more important than the other. I believe in society, I believe in a social contract, I believe we have the moral obligation to pick up the slack for when one of our brothers and/or sisters are unable to.
So whatever, if it works for you use it, if it stops working, you can do something else. That's pragmatism.
Quote from: monica.soto on February 11, 2013, 08:30:25 PM
That I think Objectivism is a hack philosophy and tea partiers and libertarians are nothing but economic ignorants paid by the status quo to protect and fight for their economic interests, (aka glorified lobbyists) , doesn't mean I'm some sort of anti-capitalist.
care to go into more detail? i would love to know why it's a hack philosophy and why i'am an economic ignorant... name calling is easy, let's have a real discussion?
Quote from: kkut on February 11, 2013, 09:13:22 PM
The safety net in this country has turned into the safety hammock.
lol, tis truth... but really a much more sad reality...
is getting off welfare worth getting a job you might get fired from? what if you get fired? you might have to wait a couple months to get back on welfare? easier and safer to just stay on it. welfare is a ball and chain to many... it is really sad...
Milton Friedman- Welfare (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZlsR3tNI_c#)
Quote from: oZma on February 12, 2013, 12:33:29 AM
care to go into more detail? i would love to know why it's a hack philosophy and why I'm an economic ignorant... name calling is easy, let's have a real discussion?
Look, in order to truly understand the fallacies, contradictions and incoherent philosophical statements that make Objectivism a hack philosophy, you have to have a boring background in philosophy, but mainly what is most criticized is what Ms. Rand describes as the nature of existence and the nature of the individual, But there are simple things one can notice in the incoherence what objectivists state. Rand champions the individual, but not just any individual, just an individuals who conform to her norms and standards, if so can you truly be an individual if you are not following Rand's moral purposes?
Now for economics and finance. all these talks about the debt sound to me like people do not understand basic financial concepts like net present values of borrowed money, the effects of inflation on the value of currency, or the effects of leverage on returns. These are smart people, so I'm not going to believe that they don't understand these things, so I'm going with the option, that they do understand and tell half truths in order to scare the less informed.
Six months ago I might have been an active participant in this conversation, I am no party member although a fiscal conservative and understand the entire spectrum in black and white terms as does kkut and oZma. But this, like religion is in itself so divisive that I prefer to recuse myself rather than piss the progressives off causing a hissy fit and wind up being banned from Susan's. Up until the election I was like one of those comical old curmudgeon's yelling and swearing at the politicians and talking heads on my TV screen. Life's too short, and there is little I can do to change things other than vote my conscience. All the logic and reasoning to include the examples from history won't change closed minds. I do find it disconcerting that those from South American countries argue with such vehemence in favor of the current US administration's abysmal policies when one of the greatest examples in history of how a country, once the most vibrant economy in the western hemisphere can turn to socialism and fail completely as Argentina did. This thread though interesting is much akin to a dog chasing it's own tail.
The thing is, I'm basically living in a country that is a libertarian paradise. It doesn't work.
I'm with ya Auntie Shan on all of that, except that our politics differ. But that's okay because we can still be friends :). The thing is, I think most people that argue politics know it's pointless. Surely they have noticed that nobody changes their opinions based on an argument. I think they just enjoy the mental exercise of it? Something like that.
Quote from: kkut on February 12, 2013, 09:58:30 AM
Shantel, you are wise :)
This thread makes me think of one of my all time favorite quotes:
"The worst derangement of the spirit is to believe things because we want them to be so, not because we have seen them for what they are."
-Jacques Bossuet
I'm also an Independent politically and fiscally conservative. Idealogy can prevent people from seeing the truth. Ignorance may be bliss, but I want no part of it.
I usually try to give people credit and assume their opinions, no matter if I disagree with them, don't come from ignorance. That just helps me be more zen.
Quote from: monica.soto on February 12, 2013, 10:15:09 AM
Actually, debating with someone who holds different beliefs than you, makes people become further entrenched in their held viewpoints.
The thing is this was a thread about people being hopeful about Obama's second term, but somehow got hijacked along the way, I'm all for civil debates, but as I see it, most of what passes for economics debate this day is nothing but confirmation bias and fear mongering tactics.
It's like global warming part 2, the facts are there, but people think that it has to do with their belief system or their ideology and they can somehow magically change the world by believing hard enough.
Anyhow, people believe what they want to believe, regardless of the facts or the truth. :P
Actually I think only ever talking to people that agree with you is the thing that causes polarization. The prob is people com into these arguments, straight from reading their political blogs, pre-polarized and then it can get nasty. We have fox news and msnbc etc. to blame for the out of control polarization that's going on nowadays, imo.
Dissent is good. It keeps us all honest.
Quote from: monica.soto on February 12, 2013, 10:15:09 AM
The thing is this was a thread about people being hopeful about Obama's second term, but somehow got hijacked along the way,
I was thinking the same thing the other day. It's like a revolving argument that moves from thread to thread. ::)
Quote from: Heather on February 12, 2013, 10:53:39 AM
I was thinking the same thing the other day. It's like a revolving argument that moves from thread to thread. ::)
I don't believe in thread derailment. Anything that comes up in a thread is related to the original post because if it wasn't, it wouldn't have come up. If somebody wants to shift the topic back, then all they have to do is say so, just like in real life. It's called having a conversation. They are dynamic things.
Obama's re-election was months ago. Do we really want to still be talking about that? No, because we wanna be talking about this, obv, otherwise we wouldn't be. :)
Quote from: Jen on February 12, 2013, 11:10:31 AM
Obama's re-election was months ago. Do we really want to still be talking about that? No, because we wanna be talking about this, obv, otherwise we wouldn't be. :)
Couldn't you just start up a new thread instead of hijacking a dead one? ???
Quote from: Heather on February 12, 2013, 11:50:55 AM
Couldn't you just start up a new thread instead of hijacking a dead one? ???
Well, one person's hijacking, is another's saying something that comes to mind in response to something that was said, lol. Maybe I'm just one of those types that when they see order, hmm, well they wanna just go over and mix and stirrrr. :)
Quote from: Jen on February 12, 2013, 12:24:40 PM
Well, one person's hijacking, is another's saying something that comes to mind in response to something that was said, lol. Maybe I'm just one of those types that when they see order, hmm, well they wanna just go over and mix and stirrrr. :)
The irony in all this is I kinda hijacked this thread from the economic summit it had become. And I have no problem with you wanting to mix and stir the conversation. ;D
Quote from: Heather on February 12, 2013, 12:49:10 PM
The irony in all this is I kinda hijacked this thread from the economic summit it had become. And I have no problem with you wanting to mix and stir the conversation. ;D
this LOL
now to respond to
Quote from: monica.soto on February 12, 2013, 08:34:39 AM
Look, in order to truly understand the fallacies, contradictions and incoherent philosophical statements that make Objectivism a hack philosophy, you have to have a boring background in philosophy, but mainly what is most criticized is what Ms. Rand describes as the nature of existence and the nature of the individual, But there are simple things one can notice in the incoherence what objectivists state. Rand champions the individual, but not just any individual, just an individuals who conform to her norms and standards, if so can you truly be an individual if you are not following Rand's moral purposes?
Now for economics and finance. all these talks about the debt sound to me like people do not understand basic financial concepts like net present values of borrowed money, the effects of inflation on the value of currency, or the effects of leverage on returns. These are smart people, so I'm not going to believe that they don't understand these things, so I'm going with the option, that they do understand and tell half truths in order to scare the less informed.
OK, I get the Rand critique. She tried to define people and used morals and virtuosness as a barometer. I understand life is much more complex and trying to live up to her standards is quite difficult. It seems as if you think Ayn rejects people for not living up to these standards? maybe, but I don't know her personally to make that call. does she condemn those who live immoral lives? maybe, but she also says that there is always time to change. she assumes morality is a universal human aspect and I guess that could be debated? if a man has no morality... does that make him less of a man? interesting question...
To me, Ayn says that, as people, we should try to live as moral and virtuous beings. we should chase our dreams, live for happiness and self esteem... for love :-) treat people how you want to be treated, don't use violence, coercion to get your way... be a good person... I like the idea of being a good person for the sake of being a good person :-)
in all seriousness, I would love to talk more about this, maybe some specific fallacies and specific incoherentness of hers you claim?... maybe we should create a new thread?
your economic response used a couple of terms I've never heard of, ill have to do some research... maybe that makes me an ignorant? I still do feel that people and gov have spent too much time trying to figure out the magic of the market by using such complex terms and equations that it is impossible to keep up... I think of it as a waste of time... I think the market is organic and can't be coerced into doing one thing or another. is it silly for me to think economists hide behind complexity? maybe, but it sure as hell works... what better way to make people not care about something than to make it complex as all hell to understand. same goes for taxes and regulation... the more complex, the less people resist out of fear of being stupid, dumb, or ignorant.
i'm not sure how the nominal value, or NPV of money changes and makes it ok for 17 trillion in debt? i guess that assumes the gov makes money? really they just take money... their spending doesn't create returns so they have to take more from us when the time comes. also, the gov can leverage returns? so the fed can buy bad assets to ensure people have good assets? something like that? hmmm, i'm not too familiar. the effect of inflation on currency? you mean like the more money you print, the less its worth? sorry if i'm ignorant... but i don't see how these kind of things make it ok for us to have so much debt... but at the same time, we have the most nukes in the world... we can have the biggest debt on the planet and it won't matter! lol forgive me if i'm not understanding you, but my perspective says "gov" shouldn't interfere in the economy... or really anything else for that matter lol. i imagine the gov as playing wack-a-mole... where each mole is a "problem" they think they can fix. just a never ending game of trying to fix everything and ends up spending everyone's money and makes things worse for everyone along the way ~ but still selling it to us as ~ "we're doing it for you! be thankful"
check out these economic rap battles... they are fun.. I'm Team Freddy :-)
Rap battles! (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,135381.0.html)
Quote from: monica.soto on February 12, 2013, 09:52:16 AM
The thing is, I'm basically living in a country that is a libertarian paradise. It doesn't work.
where is that?
Economic rap battles. ..hysterical lol
Quote from: Jen on February 12, 2013, 02:40:59 PM
Economic rap battles. ..hysterical lol
my fav part is the beginning where they are like calling out their names and saying "John Maynard Keynes" and "FA Hayek" lol like they're gangster
Quote from: monica.soto on February 12, 2013, 10:15:09 AM
Actually, debating with someone who holds different beliefs than you, makes people become further entrenched in their held viewpoints.
i'm not really trying to debate, but have a discussion and maybe learn some new things :)
this is how i imagine this current disccusion
i say "this is what i understand"
you say "no, it really means this"
then i say "ok, let me try and understand how your view can be so different than mine, care to help me if i don't get it right away?"
i'd hope it would go both ways and i can offer some brain food to you, but then again i'm just an ignorant libertarian who believes in hack philosophies... i wonder where i went wrong in life? damn trying to be a consistent moral human being! lol
Quote from: oZma on February 12, 2013, 02:47:59 PM
but then again i'm just an ignorant libertarian who believes in hack philosophies... i wonder where i went wrong in life? damn trying to be a consistent moral human being! lol
I don't think your views ignorant. People disagree it happens! It doesn't mean your opinion isn't valid. I may have not have agreed with you on the whole anarchy thing. But that doesn't mean I don't respect your opinion. Besides you put way much more thought into economics than I ever have. So I can't argue with you on that subject. :)
ok, I'm sorry about the harsh words.
I don't think you're ignorant.
It's just that Objectivism makes no sense whatsoever and Liberatrians are nothing more than tools of corporations.
;D
Neither side is right. You need to meet in the middle. Over-regulation and allowing private practice to take 100% control are both terrible ideas. However, that doesn't mean that govt is unnecessary.
Quote from: DianaP on February 12, 2013, 04:20:07 PM
Neither side is right. You need to meet in the middle. Over-regulation and allowing private practice to take 100% control are both terrible ideas. However, that doesn't mean that govt is unnecessary.
You're right Diana, too bad congress doesn't get it!
Quote from: DianaP on February 12, 2013, 04:20:07 PM
Neither side is right. You need to meet in the middle. Over-regulation and allowing private practice to take 100% control are both terrible ideas. However, that doesn't mean that govt is unnecessary.
I am totally sure there is a point where you regulate too much, but over-deregulation can lead to some pretty disastrous results.
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/09/regulatory-exem.html (http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/09/regulatory-exem.html)
Even Alan Greenspan had to admit it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html?_r=0)
Quote from: DianaP on February 12, 2013, 04:20:07 PM
Neither side is right. You need to meet in the middle. Over-regulation and allowing private practice to take 100% control are both terrible ideas. However, that doesn't mean that govt is unnecessary.
I agree, but does regulation NEED to be done by gov? is it the most efficient way? through coercion? the most practical? is it then appropriate to say that gov has a monopoly on regulation? are you really saying that nobody anywhere can think of a better way to accomplish it? and if there was a better way, would you support it, or would you stay a loyal subject of the gov?
how do we know when regulation has gone to far? should hair braiders need a license? do you need a license to fish? on your own property? should corporations be able to influence gov through lobbyists to pass regulations that prevent competition? how do we know gov is even doing a good job at regulation? by what measurement? without competition, we can't choose the best regulations or the best regulators... it becomes arbitrary in a sense... you can't have a nutrition blog because you didn't get a nutritionist license or didn't go to school for that? how do we know that we have gone to far?
I guess that's my perspective on gov... monopolies fail because they exploit their customers. by no means am I discrediting the past accomplishments of the gov, they helped tremendously... but are they still relevant? how would we know without some kind of competition?
also, you need people on both sides of the game of tug of war... well to keep the game going :)
do you understand my point? i'm not agaisnt government per se, but against monopolies :) i'm for being consistent
Mhm the push and pull of different points of view. Keeps things in the reasonable zone.
You know when you went to far with deregulation when it causes the economy to collapse. You wish you could have known before that happened tho lol. Knowing when you've gone too far with regulation is harder to quantify. More common sense than anything, but that can be pretty arbitrary I agree. I think in the US at least, you will get major pushback for anything you ever try to regulate, so that probably keeps over-regulation at bay? idk.
Well, the govt. doesn't have a monopoly, per se. At least not any one branch. The govt. is one entity and is easy to monitor. Plus, the alternative would be to have businesses regulate themselves, which would lead to disaster. After all, one of the 6 fundamental characteristics of a market economy is a profit motive. People do what it takes to get cash. Therefore, businesses cannot be trusted to regulate themselves without bias.
The govt. is full of checks and balances. I guess you can say that gridlock is good in that sense, so long as it's not excessive. Gridlock means that there is compromising between people in govt that represent those with opposing views. In that way, you can say that govt. is one big internal competition. Govt leaders represent people, and people disagree. Therefore, congressional debates are good in that they promote consideration of everyone's views instead of having one group pass anything willy-nilly. Of course, debate has turned into complete gridlock, and that needs to be fixed. Having everyone regulate themselves would mean that a lot of disagreements go without compromise.
Once again, I am not for excessive regulation (but I think you should have some sort of nutrition background before you give advice on such a critical topic, so long as we're on the example).
Besides, govt. is one big tug-of-war. There are opposing views and many considerations. The federal govt has checks for itself. The Supreme Court deems laws constitutional, Congress approves of presidential appointees, etc, etc. That's not even going into state and local levels of govt, which get ever more complicated. It's even in the Constitutional Bill of Rights that any power not granted to the federal govt in the Constitution or prohibited in the US by govt at all goes to the states, with the powers given to the federal govt being those requiring centralization, such as establishing a currency or declaring war. The Supremacy Clause is a fail safe in the event that state and federal interests collide on an issue such as trade, but that doesn't change the fact that states still have power that the federal govt can't touch, such as granting licenses for driving, for example.
A federalist govt, by definition, is a big competition.
Quote from: Jen on February 12, 2013, 09:09:54 PM
Mhm the push and pull of different points of view. Keeps things in the reasonable zone.
You know when you went to far with deregulation when it causes the economy to collapse. You wish you could have known before that happened tho lol. Knowing when you've gone too far with regulation is harder to quantify. More common sense than anything, but that can be pretty arbitrary I agree. I think in the US at least, you will get major pushback for anything you ever try to regulate, so that probably keeps over-regulation at bay? idk.
yep! we encounter a few problems though
#1 things rarely get de-regulated... politicians are praised for their bills, not for the bills they renacted
#2 common sense to one, is not common sense to another... thats why we should stick to regulating very simple, straight forward things
#3 politicians regulate from biased sources... lobbyists... yes some may be for good intentions, but how do you know?
#4 bills, most of the times have misleading titles like the "Violence Against Women Act" ~ what are you FOR violence against women? the Patriot Act... what are you not a patriot? these bureaucrats strive on ambiguity and aren't help responsible for the unforeseen consequences... those consequences just lead to more bills, more regulations and we end up getting regulated to death ~ although this is purely conjecture :)
When a law becomes so impossible to understand that the ordinary citizen must look to the "super expert," the law becomes a trap and not a viable guideline. This is the world we live in... we have created a industry of people, lawyers, whose entire job it is to "understand" the rules and regulations of the elites. I think we are, today, over regulated.
Quote
Plus, the alternative would be to have businesses regulate themselves, which would lead to disaster.
I never said the alternative would be businesses regulating themselves... Maybe another third party? I don't know? I'm just saying, there is more than "two" ways to
regulate skin a cat.
To say you can't think of another way regulation could happen is like saying...
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F2BH4U.jpg&hash=37cc8a061159af606c1ff465f72a8aeb498c16e6)
well, replace "build the roads" with "regulate the private sector"
Quote from: monica.soto on February 12, 2013, 03:51:45 PM
It's just that Objectivism makes no sense whatsoever and Liberatrians are nothing more than tools of corporations.
it makes sense to me! and i'm not a tool of any corporation... i just want to be free from coercion :) but i suppose you could argue that big corporations have somehow convinced me to be a libertarian so i help work to abolish the government as we know it and then corporations will also be free from coercion and can start working in the free market and start to rip everyone off? sure... but sounds conspiracyish
I would say that a removal of the party system and a focus on political merits of each candidate would be better, but who am I kidding? All of the information you need is a smartphone away, and people use them to look at pictures of cats. :-\
Quote from: DianaP on February 12, 2013, 09:24:01 PM
I would say that a removal of the party system and a focus on political merits of each candidate would be better, but who am I kidding? All of the information you need is a smartphone away, and people use them to look at pictures of cats. :-\
yeah, its very hard to get people to care... its sad... but its most likely because people don't know how to "talk" about these things and end up yelling, screaming, and hating eachother AND politics has gotten so darn complex that the regular person CANNOT even understand anything without getting a political science degree so even trying to talk about it is a waste of time for many.
this is why i am thankful for the internets, and the youtubes <--- great resource! citizen journalists > mass media journalists :) lets just HOPE the internet NEVER gets 'regulated'
and i would argue that the internet has rendered many "regulations" obsolete... things like the CONSUMERIST provide a voice to the corporations the way politicians never could have. rating systems ensure we get the greatest of quality products! we don't need as much regulation when we have the internet!
My post about deregulation was referring to Wall St. which has had the opposite trajectory of most industries, in that we (Alan Greenspan for the longest) have slowly but surely been pulling regulation away from it. This is because Wall St. has a lot of power to push it that direction. It seemed to be working fine till disaster happened. But they still want us to deregulate it more, of course.
And yeah. The internet. That is one (sort of) model of (sort of) anarchy, and I love that it is exactly the way it is. So there. And when they start regulating it (which they will) they will ruin it.
Quote from: oZma on February 12, 2013, 09:36:27 PM
yeah, its very hard to get people to care... its sad... but its most likely because people don't know how to "talk" about these things and end up yelling, screaming, and hating eachother AND politics has gotten so darn complex that the regular person CANNOT even understand without getting a political science degree so even trying to talk about it is a waste of time for many.
Hun, I'm a political science major, with a specialization in American politics, and all it's taught me is "what's the point?" As the Political Science chair at my alma mater said "you can't earn a poli sci degree and maintain an interest in politics." I know, this post contributes nothing...
ETA: for clarity, I definitely don't feel that I adequately understand the complexities of government. Mostly because there are so many competing theories that try to explain various phenomenon that it's hard to find one that explains everything without anomalies (to us Kuhnian language). It's really one of those things "the more you know, the less you know that you know."
Liar, Liar, pants on fire! This from the very liberal MSNBC:
President Obama put a rosy spin on several accomplishments of his administration in his 2013 State of the Union address.
The president claimed that "both parties have worked together to reduce the deficit by more than $2.5 trillion." But that's only an estimate of deficit reduction through fiscal year 2022, and it would be lower if the White House used a different starting point.
Obama touted the growth of 500,000 manufacturing jobs over the past three years, but there has been a net loss of 600,000 manufacturing jobs since he took office. The recent growth also has stalled since July 2012.
He claimed that "we have doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas." Actual mileage is improving, but Obama's "doubled" claim refers to a desired miles-per-gallon average for model year 2025.
Obama said the Affordable Care Act "is helping to slow the growth of health care costs." It may be helping, but the slower growth for health care spending began in 2009, before the law was enacted, and is due at least partly to the down economy.
The president also made an exaggerated claim of bipartisanship. He said that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney agreed with him that the minimum wage should be tied to the cost of living. But Romney backed off that view during the campaign.
Analysis
President Barack Obama gave his State of the Union address to Congress on Tuesday, laying out his legislative agenda for the coming year and achievements of his time in office. But Obama puffed up his record.
Deficit Reduction
Obama said the administration and Congress "have worked together to reduce the deficit by more than $2.5 trillion." A bipartisan group called the estimate "very reasonable." But it is only an estimate — and a debatable one at that — for deficit reduction from budgets through fiscal year 2022. Exactly how much will be cut will be up to future Congresses.
And, even if Congress meets those deficit-reduction goals, deficit spending will continue and the federal debt will grow larger — unless much more is done.
NOTE:
A number of posts that dealt primarily with Global Warming and environmental concerns have be split off into a separate topic, in the forum.
https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,135650.0.html (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,135650.0.html)
Quote from: kkut on April 01, 2013, 11:00:54 PM
Barack Obama scores two more baskets than the total number of votes he's gotten on all of his proposed budgets in four year! ;D
These are some major bricks our Prez is throwing around, glad no one got hurt. ;)
Barack Obama Brick House Shoots 22 Baskets Misses! Embarrassing Basketball Shots - 4/1/13 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVWHgMMF0cM&feature=player_embedded#)
This is sad no more oZma or DianaP :-\ for you to debate with and I'm sorry to say I don't know anything about budgets and deficits. :laugh: But hey this thread was fun while it lasted. :)
Quote from: kkut on April 01, 2013, 11:00:54 PM
Barack Obama scores two more baskets than the total number of votes he's gotten on all of his proposed budgets in four year! ;D
These are some major bricks our Prez is throwing around, glad no one got hurt. ;)
Maybe his missed shots was because he knows he's an abject failure as a leader and his teleprompter was missing??? :icon_ballbounce:
Well...Miss Michelle will benefit from the "lessons learned" when her turn comes up in 2016, or would be Miss Hillary... >:-) :laugh:
Quote from: Heather on April 02, 2013, 02:12:22 AM
This is sad no more oZma or DianaP :-\ for you to debate with and I'm sorry to say I don't know anything about budgets and deficits. :laugh: But hey this thread was fun while it lasted. :)
Oh, Honey,
Nobody can argue with the "big heads," they sue statistics and stuff...you know the old adage: there is the truth (only known by G-d0, the exagertions (by both parties), the plain lies (mostly by the Reps), and then, there is the staticians...LOL
Quote from: peky on April 02, 2013, 10:19:48 AM
Well...Miss Michelle will benefit from the "lessons learned" when her turn comes up in 2016, or would be Miss Hillary... >:-) :laugh:
Oh Pleeeze.....much too painful to even think about!
Quote from: kkut on April 02, 2013, 11:56:21 AM
Peky, the truth is both easily discoverable and discernible, it just depends if people have the courage to believe it.
The national debt and deficits aren't statistics, they're absolute factual measures (stats are estimates).
I hope at least 51% of population decides in 2016 (and the 2014 mid term elections) that it's wrong to spend our children's money.
We forget that was Mr. Regan, and his trickle economics, that triplicated the nastional debt; and then if memory serves me well, Mr Clinton administration:
QuoteIn 1993, President Clinton and Vice President Gore launched their economic strategy: (1) establishing fiscal discipline, eliminating the budget deficit, keeping interest rates low, and spurring private-sector investment; (2) investing in people through education, training, science, and research; and (3) opening foreign markets so American workers can compete abroad. After eight years, the results of President Clinton's economic leadership are clear. Record budget deficits have become record surpluses, 22 million new jobs have been created, unemployment and core inflation are at their lowest levels in more than 30 years, and America is in the midst of the longest economic expansion in our history.
President Clinton's Record on the Economy: In 1992, 10 million Americans were unemployed, the country faced record deficits, and poverty and welfare rolls were growing. Family incomes were losing ground to inflation and jobs were being created at the slowest rate since the Great Depression. Today, America enjoys what may be the strongest economy ever.
Strong Economic Growth: Since President Clinton and Vice President Gore took office, economic growth has averaged 4.0 percent per year, compared to average growth of 2.8 percent during the Reagan-Bush years. The economy has grown for 116 consecutive months, the most in history.
Most New Jobs Ever Created Under a Single Administration: The economy has created more than 22.5 million jobs in less than eight years—the most jobs ever created under a single administration, and more than were created in the previous 12 years. Of the total new jobs, 20.7 million, or 92 percent, are in the private sector.
Median Family Income Up $6,000 since 1993: Economic gains have been made across the spectrum as family incomes increased for all Americans. Since 1993, real median family income has increased by $6,338, from $42,612 in 1993 to $48,950 in 1999 (in 1999 dollars).
Unemployment at Its Lowest Level in More than 30 Years: Overall unemployment has dropped to the lowest level in more than 30 years, down from 6.9 percent in 1993 to just 4.0 percent in November 2000. The unemployment rate has been below 5 percent for 40 consecutive months. Unemployment for African Americans has fallen from 14.2 percent in 1992 to 7.3 percent in October 2000, the lowest rate on record. Unemployment for Hispanics has fallen from 11.8 percent in October 1992 to 5.0 percent in October 2000, also the lowest rate on record.
Lowest Inflation since the 1960s: Inflation is at the lowest rate since the Kennedy Administration, averaging 2.5 percent, and it is down from 4.7 percent during the previous administration.
Highest Homeownership Rate on Record: The homeownership rate reached 67.7 percent for the third quarter of 2000, the highest rate on record. In contrast, the homeownership rate fell from 65.6 percent in the first quarter of 1981 to 63.7 percent in the first quarter of 1993.
7 Million Fewer Americans Living in Poverty: The poverty rate has declined from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 11.8 percent last year, the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years. There are now 7 million fewer people in poverty than there were in 1993.
Establishing Fiscal Discipline and Paying off the National Debt
President Clinton's Record on Fiscal Discipline: Between 1981 and 1992, the national debt held by the public quadrupled. The annual budget deficit grew to $290 billion in 1992, the largest ever, and was projected to grow to more than $455 billion by Fiscal Year (FY) 2000. As a result of the tough and sometimes unpopular choices made by President Clinton, and major deficit reduction legislation passed in 1993 and 1997, we have seen eight consecutive years of fiscal improvement for the first time in America's history.
Largest Surplus Ever: The surplus in FY 2000 is $237 billion—the third consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever.
Largest Three-Year Debt Pay-Down Ever: Between 1998-2000, the publicly held debt was reduced by $363 billion—the largest three-year pay-down in American history. Under Presidents Reagan and Bush, the debt held by the public quadrupled. Under the Clinton-Gore budget, we are on track to pay off the entire publicly held debt on a net basis by 2009.
Lower Federal Government Spending: After increasing under the previous two administrations, federal government spending as a share of the economy has been cut from 22.2 percent in 1992 to 18 percent in 2000—the lowest level since 1966.
Reduced Interest Payments on the Debt: In 1993, the net interest payments on the debt held by the public were projected to grow to $348 billion in FY 2000. In 2000, interest payments on the debt were $125 billion lower than projected.
Americans Benefit from Reduced Debt: Because of fiscal discipline and deficit and debt reduction, it is estimated that a family with a home mortgage of $100,000 might expect to save roughly $2,000 per year in mortgage payments, like a large tax cut.
Double Digit Growth in Private Investment in Equipment and Software: Lower debt will help maintain strong economic growth and fuel private investments. With government no longer draining resources out of capital markets, private investment in equipment and software averaged 13.3 percent annual growth since 1993, compared to 4.7 percent during 1981 to 1992.
To Establish Fiscal Discipline, President Clinton:
Enacted the 1993 Deficit Reduction Plan without a Single Republican Vote. Prior to 1993, the debate over fiscal policy often revolved around a false choice between public investment and deficit reduction. The 1993 deficit reduction plan showed that deficit and debt reductions could be accomplished in a progressive way by slashing the deficit in half and making important investments in our future, including education, health care, and science and technology research. The plan included more than $500 billion in deficit reduction. It also cut taxes for 15 million of the hardest-pressed Americans by expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit; created the Direct Student Loan Program; created the first nine Empowerment Zones and first 95 Enterprise Communities; and passed tax cuts for small businesses and research and development.
Negotiated the Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997. In his 1997 State of the Union address, President Clinton announced his plan to balance the budget for the first time in 27 years. Later that year, he signed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, a major bipartisan agreement to eliminate the national budget deficit, create the conditions for economic growth, and invest in the education and health of our people. It provided middle-class tax relief with a $500 per child tax credit and the Hope Scholarship and Lifetime Learning tax credits for college. It also created the Children's Health Insurance Program to serve up to 5 million children and made landmark investments in education initiatives including educational technology, charter schools, Head Start, and Pell Grants. Finally, it added 20 more Empowerment Zones and 20 more rural Enterprise Communities, included the President's plan to revitalize the District of Columbia, and continued welfare reform though $3 billion in new resources to move welfare recipients to private-sector jobs.
Dedicated the Surplus to Save Social Security and Reduce the National Debt. In his 1998 and 1999 State of the Union addresses, President Clinton called on the nation to save the surplus until the solvency of Social Security is assured. He also repeatedly vetoed large Republican tax cut bills that would have jeopardized our nation's fiscal discipline. The President's actions led to a bipartisan consensus on saving the surplus and paying down the debt.
Extended Medicare Solvency from 1999 to 2025. When President Clinton took office, Medicare was expected to become insolvent in 1999, then only six years away. The 1993 deficit reduction act dedicated some of the taxes paid by Social Security beneficiaries to the Medicare Trust Fund and extended the life of Medicare by three years to 2002. Thanks to additional provisions to combat waste, fraud and abuse and bipartisan cooperation in the 1997 balanced budget agreement, Medicare is now expected to remain solvent until 2025.
http://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/eightyears-03.html (http://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/eightyears-03.html)
And therafter comes another replublican president, Mr Bush who costs how many dollars with two needless wars? How about
SIX TRILLION DOLLARS Talking about realities dahrlin!
Quote from: kkut on April 02, 2013, 12:30:46 PM
I say let's go back to this approach. Let's balance the budget and bring back some fiscal sanity. Do you agree or not?
Yes, I agree...OO
Pesky Peky LOL