Front Office Football Central

Front Office Football Central (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//index.php)
-   Off Topic (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012 (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//showthread.php?t=69042)

Mizzou B-ball fan 02-02-2010 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 2216960)
It's a lot tougher for cities and states, who don't have the same leeway to spend money they don't have. They actually have to make difficult cuts.

It's not particularly amazing that citizens are a little weary of corrupt/ineffective governments taking more of their money when they've so horribly mishandled the money they've already taken. It's also not surprising that people are wary of property tax increases when so many are having trouble getting by on their mortgages as is.

Hopefully the people in this city will help with the parks. That's a much better solution for everyone than having to collectively pay for such services way above actual cost.

As for the police/firefighters - those positions have been shredded all across the U.S. We've had a pretty bad recession. I think Colorado Springs can get by without flowers for a while.


I respect these city leaders for bothering to make the tough decisions. The President and Congress could learn a lot from this example.

CamEdwards 02-02-2010 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2216959)
that's going to be an effing disaster i predict


Perhaps it's better to deal with an effing disaster now than to deal with an ineffable disaster in a few years?

molson 02-02-2010 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 2216972)
Perhaps it's better to deal with an effing disaster now than to deal with an ineffable disaster in a few years?


And whether its better or not - they don't even have a choice. There's way less money coming in so they have to make cuts.

flere-imsaho 02-02-2010 01:08 PM

Wait, I thought Colorado Springs was the communist, hippie city of Colorado? Or is that another city?

albionmoonlight 02-02-2010 01:08 PM

It's kind of a facinating experiment. The people with money will still have access to private recreation opportunities and private schooing and private security. I've never heard of private fire suppression, but it isn't hard to imagine ADT starting to offer that service as well.

Basically, this is kind of what the libertarians say will work best. Personally, I have my doubts, but I also figure that, since these people have managed to get themselves into this mess, we should try and glean what we can from the experiment. Will the sinking tide (lower standard of public services) lower all ships (rich folks and poor folks)? Will businesses be attracted by the low taxes, or repelled by the lack of street lights and high crime? Will the market step in and provide creatitive and efficient solutions like co-op parks and quasi-public security firms? Will volunteers still be mowing the grass three years from now when the novelty has worn off? Will people become more engaged in civic life when keeping the town clean and safe is seen as a true community effort and not the job of some migrant worker making $12/hour working for Parks & Rec?

We will, of course, get enough mixed messages from this experiment that those who were in favor of it from the start will say it worked great and those opposed to it from the start will say it worked horribly. But, for those of us who actually approach an issue like this and say, "I don't know what is best," it might provide some interesting data.

molson 02-02-2010 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveBollea (Post 2217001)
That's Boulder. But, I guess it was too much to ask for the conservatives to understand why the above is a bad thing. After all, those silly things like parks and bus lines help the community, not just themselves. They got a gun and a SUV, who do they need cops or mass transit?


Even cities and states with high taxes have to cut things during a massive recession (we just had a thread about brutal education cuts in San Fransisco). I'm not sure why you're so resentful of this particular city, except that it gives you another chance to get on your soap box. About what I'm not sure. And I'm not sure why you're so upset about what another community is doing to get through this. I've cut back on a few things myself. Are you mad at me too?

I guess you're arguing that in a recession, cities/states should just continuously raise taxes so they don't ever have to cut anything. Even the flower budget. Is there any city/state that's actually trying this? Not even San Francisco is.

gstelmack 02-02-2010 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveBollea (Post 2217001)
That's Boulder. But, I guess it was too much to ask for the conservatives to understand why the above is a bad thing. After all, those silly things like parks and bus lines help the community, not just themselves. They got a gun and a SUV, who do they need cops or mass transit?


The question is, what services are they leaving intact? 2 decades ago I watched Tampa Florida ask for a sales tax increase to cover fire and police protection while they were finding room in the budget for a convention center. This is the same reason that teaching positions get cut before administration: if you cut the basics, people think they need a tax increase.

So what programs are Colorado Springs leaving intact while cutting these to try and get the tax increase through?

It's possible they are already cut to the bone, but I'm skeptical based on past and current experience.

molson 02-02-2010 02:34 PM

I'm glad I live in a conservative western state when it comes to budget stuff. It's definitely gotten ugly, but we're at least always "caught up". In the middle of a fiscal year, if revenues are trailing projections, every agency has to cut during the fiscal year so we can always be balanced. That way, it's been a relatively softer decline, compared to things I hear about in other states (of course, that's also helped by lower taxes/smaller government - you really don't have to cut THAT much. We're down to what the budget was in 2006, which has required cuts, but hasn't changed peoples' lives to any great degree)

JPhillips 02-02-2010 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight (Post 2216994)
It's kind of a facinating experiment. The people with money will still have access to private recreation opportunities and private schooing and private security. I've never heard of private fire suppression, but it isn't hard to imagine ADT starting to offer that service as well.

Basically, this is kind of what the libertarians say will work best. Personally, I have my doubts, but I also figure that, since these people have managed to get themselves into this mess, we should try and glean what we can from the experiment. Will the sinking tide (lower standard of public services) lower all ships (rich folks and poor folks)? Will businesses be attracted by the low taxes, or repelled by the lack of street lights and high crime? Will the market step in and provide creatitive and efficient solutions like co-op parks and quasi-public security firms? Will volunteers still be mowing the grass three years from now when the novelty has worn off? Will people become more engaged in civic life when keeping the town clean and safe is seen as a true community effort and not the job of some migrant worker making $12/hour working for Parks & Rec?

We will, of course, get enough mixed messages from this experiment that those who were in favor of it from the start will say it worked great and those opposed to it from the start will say it worked horribly. But, for those of us who actually approach an issue like this and say, "I don't know what is best," it might provide some interesting data.


My understanding is municipal fire departments came about after private fire companies failed in the nineteenth century. Abuses like charging double before putting out the fire tended to turn people off.

JPhillips 02-02-2010 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 2217041)
I'm glad I live in a conservative western state when it comes to budget stuff. It's definitely gotten ugly, but we're at least always "caught up". In the middle of a fiscal year, if revenues are trailing projections, every agency has to cut during the fiscal year so we can always be balanced. That way, it's been a relatively softer decline, compared to things I hear about in other states (of course, that's also helped by lower taxes/smaller government - you really don't have to cut THAT much. We're down to what the budget was in 2006, which has required cuts, but hasn't changed peoples' lives to any great degree)


I wouldn't argue that politics has nothing to do with it, but demographics play a large role. States with large urban areas need more services and more tax dollars to pay for them.

molson 02-02-2010 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveBollea (Post 2217091)
Also, I can guarantee whichever state Molson lives in gets more in federal spending in his state than it pays in taxes largely because the federal government owns large chunks of a lot of the Western states.


Oh it absolutely does, no doubt. But wherever your money comes from, that's all you have as a state/city.

DaddyTorgo 02-02-2010 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 2217095)
Oh it absolutely does, no doubt. But wherever your money comes from, that's all you have as a state/city.


methinks you are missing the point

molson 02-02-2010 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2217103)
methinks you are missing the point


Perhaps. I'm just not getting the criticism of a town cutting its budget during a recession. Apparently that's bad if its a "conservative" city. I also disagree with the implied contention that a city or state should make up any budget shortfall by taking money from citizens.

RainMaker 02-02-2010 04:51 PM

There is a balancing act though with services. If Colorado Springs chooses to cut back too much and their parks look like shit, mass transit is bad, and other basic city ammenities fall apart, it could hurt them more. So you save some money on these things in the short term, but if it hurts tourism and commerce, it can cost the people of the city more in terms of jobs and lower revenue. Is the cut worth potentially seeing your property value fall because the normally beautiful parks in the area now look like shit? Or because crime goes up in areas?

molson 02-02-2010 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2217112)
There is a balancing act though with services. If Colorado Springs chooses to cut back too much and their parks look like shit, mass transit is bad, and other basic city ammenities fall apart, it could hurt them more. So you save some money on these things in the short term, but if it hurts tourism and commerce, it can cost the people of the city more in terms of jobs and lower revenue. Is the cut worth potentially seeing your property value fall because the normally beautiful parks in the area now look like shit?


At the city/state level, it's not about choosing whether to cut, its about choosing what to cut.

Maybe they should have cut teachers instead of police. Or more firefighters instead of the budget for flowers. That's the balancing act.

What city or state out there has made up their entire budget shortfall through increased taxation?? Definitely not San Francisco, or Massachusetts. Everybody's cutting.

It sucks, but I would definitely cut the flower budget before I cut a lot of other things. If people are concerned about property values, they can definitely take maintenance into their own hands to some extent. They can't replace other services as easily.

molson 02-02-2010 04:59 PM

Oh, and a quick Google search shows that even a liberal paradise like Massachusetts had to cut MBTA service. That's apparently not as bad - I guess because of the political views of that state? Why didn't MA just tax the rich to make up the difference, if that's the best way to do things? There's plenty of rich people there.

All I'm saying is that the need to cut budgets at the city/state level isn't an exclusively "conservative/SUV/gun" issue. That's the only thing that bugged me. And I'm tired of the criticisms of states/cities cutting stuff, when they have absolutely no choice.

Mizzou B-ball fan 02-03-2010 07:16 AM

Looks like the carbon tax may not happen.

Obama: Senate Might Drop Carbon Cap | Mother Jones

Flasch186 02-03-2010 08:41 AM

Loved Michelle Bachman's speech she gave where she implied the reason to be against Health Care reform was because in Japan people are in fear of speaking out against their Health Care there due to the gov't then adding them to a list resulting in them being refused treatment for ailments. We wouldnt want that here would we, you know the Government cracking down due to your opinion.

Bachmann: Criticize health care plan and forget about being treated | StarTribune.com

Now I know she's a quack but lets see what a Google search brings up:



Classic.

RainMaker 02-03-2010 08:45 AM

People in Japan live over 4 years longer than the average American, and females like Bachman live 6 years longer than the average American female.

Japan has the highest life expectancy in the world. I'm sure the people over there are up in arms over that.

Flasch186 02-03-2010 08:48 AM

oh, and in other news, I'd expect all the pols who decried the handling of the Christmas day bomber as being poor because he was read his Miranda rights and therefore wasnt talking, to be lining up to admit to being wrong since the bomber is spilling the beans so to speak. I'm going to Tivo CNN all day to watch them all come out and backtrack.

Rainmaker, that may be true but ONLY if you dont talk bad about the Health Care system. If you do, you die!

..and as an aside, I saw the other day that somewhere an "abstinence only" mantra that was taught, experimentally, devoid of any religious mantra at all was deemed successful. The mantra spoke on the positives and negatives of sex, the repurcussions, etc. and had a much greater success rate than that which is built upon a religious foundation....so I wonder if the churches are going to embrace this line of thought since the end goal is the same.

Mizzou B-ball fan 02-03-2010 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 2217503)
I'm going to Tivo CNN all day to watch them all come out and backtrack.


Judging from the January ratings numbers, CNN appreciates any help you can give them. Heavy losses for MSNBC and CNN in viewership.

Still Rolling: Fox News Has Its Best January Ever | TV | Mediaite

Flasch186 02-03-2010 08:54 AM

I was kidding.

CNN is frickin' terrible.

RainMaker 02-03-2010 08:57 AM

CNN actually went to try and cover news in January which is suicide for a cable "news" network.

Mizzou B-ball fan 02-03-2010 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 2217516)
I was kidding.

CNN is frickin' terrible.


I'd agree, which makes it all the more interesting that they passed MSNBC in last month's ratings. As a news network, it's no small feat to fall below CNN, which is merely a shell of its former self.

RainMaker 02-03-2010 09:04 AM

Was CNN's ratings ever really high? Not counting special events, but just on a daily basis in a normal news cycle.

I think CNN is just seeing the same effect that other traditional news media are seeing. People are not getting their news from your average news broadcast but instead from the internet. I wouldn't call them a shell of their former selves since I do think their access to news is strong (just watch their Haiti coverage), it's just that people aren't tuning in for that as they can get it from the web. In that regard, CNN crushed Fox News, MSNBC, and just about every other news outlet in web traffic.

Flasch186 02-03-2010 09:07 AM

For me, its their attempt to integrate the social networking into their newscasts that is laborious and makes me want to vomit up my innards. Im doing better, thanks for asking.

flere-imsaho 02-03-2010 09:18 AM

In the race to take Obama's former Senate seat, Mark Kirk won the GOP nomination 56% to 19% over the (I think) conservative purportedly set up by the teabaggers to oppose him.

On the Democrat side, Alexi Giannoulias overcame a late surge by challenger Hoffman to win a 3-way race (with the 4th dropping out on Sunday) 39% to 34% (or thereabouts).

Starting with their victory speeches, the race has already turned ugly. Giannoulias is going to cast Kirk as a Washington insider who's not so much a moderate as a rank-and-file GOP soldier. Both claims are certainly true, as Kirk's represented the 10th district for 9 years now and was a staff member to the previous Congressman who held the district for ages and ages. Plus, Kirk rarely bucks his party except for on a few pet issues.

Kirk, on the other hand, has all sorts of ammunition to use against Giannoulias. First of all, he's 33. Second of all, he's treasurer of a state with the 2nd-worst fiscal situation in the country (after California). Third, he's a big Friend of Obama (which is either a positive or a negative, depending on how you look at it). Fourth, and this is what gained Hoffman ground, the bank Giannoulias worked at prior to becoming Treasurer of the state, is in some serious financial difficulty, and it appears a lot of this stems from policy changes that happened during Giannoulias' tenure.

Specifically, Giannoulias worked first as a loan officer, and then as a vice president in charge of that business unit. During his tenure the bank went from a conservative standpoint on this business to delving deeply into risky loans, which (like many other banks) has plunged them into serious trouble. All of which creates an impression of Giannoulias as an aggressive risk taker probably routinely in over his head.


In my opinion, they're both slimes. Kirk will say and do anything to get or stay elected and it's unclear what, exactly, he really believes in. Giannoulias is an arrogant young man in a hurry who couldn't care less about the long-term ramifications of his decisions, as long as it continues to propel him to bigger and better things.


In good news, however, current Cook County Board President (and only slightly more competent than a demented walrus) Todd Stroger got hammered in the Democratic primary, coming fourth out of four candidates (let that sink in for a moment), so we'll definitely see a new Board President come the fall. The likely winner is the winner of the Democratic Primary, Alderman Toni Preckwinkle, who (in my opinion) was the least worst of the options. But honestly, even if the GOP nominee wins I won't shed a tear since in my opinion the entire organization needs to be scrapped and rebuilt.

Arles 02-03-2010 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2217497)
People in Japan live over 4 years longer than the average American, and females like Bachman live 6 years longer than the average American female.

Japan has the highest life expectancy in the world. I'm sure the people over there are up in arms over that.

If only Americans would eat less McDonalds and more healthy seafood/starches like the Japanese, they might live 4 years longer. Not sure what "health care plan" prevents people from eating fast food, though...

Mizzou B-ball fan 02-03-2010 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2217529)
In that regard, CNN crushed Fox News, MSNBC, and just about every other news outlet in web traffic.


I don't know if 'crushed' is the word I'd use. CNN is the 60th rated site, FoxNews is 208th, and MSNBC is 2,400+. I'd also note that the average user browses the FoxNews site longer than the other two sites (Fox has about 6 minutes per user, CNN is 5 minute, and MSNBC is 2-3 minutes). There's a lot of things that should be considered in the web wars. Traffic is a quick measure, but there's a lot more that goes into the actual analysis. I'd suggest using Alexa.com if you've got some time to burn and want to dig a bit more.

DaddyTorgo 02-03-2010 09:36 AM

:rolleyes:

miked 02-03-2010 09:36 AM

Every time Michele Bachmann speaks, a pony kills a kitten.

SportsDino 02-03-2010 09:50 AM

I think most cities could do with massive cuts, starting with their administration first. Since there are a lot less things being done now in Colorado Springs, maybe they don't need so many managers who are managing nothing, and elected councils and other positions that have a lot less to govern.

More and more I'm thinking dictatorship at the municipal level makes sense. Of course, if I get to pick the dictator, I'd approve of it at the national level as well (I'd make a good dictator, I promises!).

I look at all the city services being cut, and yet the size of the main administration costs of the city staying relatively flat (slight cuts). Its simple economics, if you are doing less real work, you need less executive 'brainpower' doing it. Some cities should just start forming 'do-nothing' parties and trying to corner a city election on a platform of 'less bureaucratic costs'. Now would be an excellent time to do so, help with the current budget crisis and help people really see where the fat is in the budget now that it is under stress... and where the necessary meat of the budget resides (police/fire/sanitation/health).

Maybe get some liberal support from stopping the education bloodbath in the budget wars.

RainMaker 02-03-2010 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2217553)
I don't know if 'crushed' is the word I'd use. CNN is the 60th rated site, FoxNews is 208th, and MSNBC is 2,400+. I'd also note that the average user browses the FoxNews site longer than the other two sites (Fox has about 6 minutes per user, CNN is 5 minute, and MSNBC is 2-3 minutes). There's a lot of things that should be considered in the web wars. Traffic is a quick measure, but there's a lot more that goes into the actual analysis. I'd suggest using Alexa.com if you've got some time to burn and want to dig a bit more.

I'm well versed in Alexa although there are some better analytical tools out there. There is a huge difference in the 60th and 208th ranked site. CNN does double and sometimes triple the amount of daily visitors Fox News does.

MSNBC actually does better than Fox News. They just run most of their media through the MSN.com domain so it's tougher to track using something like Alexa. ComScore gives better data in that regard. You also could factor CNBC into MSNBC's totals as CNN runs their money news through their primary domain.

In any event, I'm just pointing out why CNN is hurting. Their evening shows are primarily news based and not entertainment shows like the other networks. Many people are finding their news online instead of through a newscast. The CPM across all the sites is actually quite similar.

Flasch186 02-03-2010 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2217553)
I don't know if 'crushed' is the word I'd use. CNN is the 60th rated site, FoxNews is 208th, and MSNBC is 2,400+. I'd also note that the average user browses the FoxNews site longer than the other two sites (Fox has about 6 minutes per user, CNN is 5 minute, and MSNBC is 2-3 minutes). There's a lot of things that should be considered in the web wars. Traffic is a quick measure, but there's a lot more that goes into the actual analysis. I'd suggest using Alexa.com if you've got some time to burn and want to dig a bit more.


I still havnt figured out when it's ok to use the word 'vast' in the MBBF dictionary.

Mizzou B-ball fan 02-03-2010 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2217580)
In any event, I'm just pointing out why CNN is hurting. Their evening shows are primarily news based and not entertainment shows like the other networks. Many people are finding their news online instead of through a newscast. The CPM across all the sites is actually quite similar.


Really? I'd say just the opposite. Larry King and Nancy Grace are far more entertainment based than the O'Reilly/Hannity and Olbermann/Maddow shows. Larry King regularly rolls in celebrities and Nancy Grace is rarely addressing the news topic of the day. The other two channels and their hosts are much more news focused than CNN. I'd argue that's why CNN is struggling in the evening. People want focus on current events far more than they want to hear interviews by King or Grace. Anderson is the only real news covering person in the evening on CNN and he's sandwiched by a couple of goofballs.

DaddyTorgo 02-03-2010 10:00 AM

I'd actually agree with MBBF on that (*shudders*). I never bother with Larry King and Nancy Grace because they're all interviews of celebrities and crap.

JPhillips 02-03-2010 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2217553)
Fox has about 6 minutes per user, CNN is 5 minute


Is that because Fox News viewers aren't good at reading? :p

RainMaker 02-03-2010 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arles (Post 2217546)
If only Americans would eat less McDonalds and more healthy seafood/starches like the Japanese, they might live 4 years longer. Not sure what "health care plan" prevents people from eating fast food, though...

Yes, because we our genetically predisposed to crave fried foods. It has nothing to do with how the health care systems are setup or what the primary focuses are. The fact that Japan has a system built around keeping obesity at low levels is surely not the reason they live so much longer than us.

Mizzou B-ball fan 02-03-2010 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2217595)
Is that because Fox News viewers aren't good at reading? :p


I was thinking it was because they were trying to decide whether to click on the 'Lose 30 pounds in 7 days!' advertisement. It's a difficult decision.

Flasch186 02-03-2010 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2217587)
Really? I'd say just the opposite. Larry King and Nancy Grace are far more entertainment based than the O'Reilly/Hannity and Olbermann/Maddow shows. Larry King regularly rolls in celebrities and Nancy Grace is rarely addressing the news topic of the day. The other two channels and their hosts are much more news focused than CNN. I'd argue that's why CNN is struggling in the evening. People want focus on current events far more than they want to hear interviews by King or Grace. Anderson is the only real news covering person in the evening on CNN and he's sandwiched by a couple of goofballs.


Isnt Nancy Grace on a different CNN channel? Youre combining them in your comparison? The only entertainment shows at night on CNN is King right? You meant to delineate that right? I mean you wouldnt blend CNN and then a totally different CNN channel together would you for your narrative?

I mean Disney owns a lot of channels but you wouldnt blend those together would you? MSNBC and CNBC you want to combine? As Keyshawn would say, "C'mon man."

RainMaker 02-03-2010 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2217587)
Really? I'd say just the opposite. Larry King and Nancy Grace are far more entertainment based than the O'Reilly/Hannity and Olbermann/Maddow shows. Larry King regularly rolls in celebrities and Nancy Grace is rarely addressing the news topic of the day. The other two channels and their hosts are much more news focused than CNN. I'd argue that's why CNN is struggling in the evening. People want focus on current events far more than they want to hear interviews by King or Grace. Anderson is the only real news covering person in the evening on CNN and he's sandwiched by a couple of goofballs.

Nancy Grace is not on CNN. Larry King makes up one hour of television a night for the network.

From 5pm-Midnight, CNN runs news programs 6 of the 7 hours (with the exception of Larry King). Fox News has a news program for 2 of the 7 hours, while MSNBC runs 0 news shows in those 7 hours.

Arles 02-03-2010 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2217596)
Yes, because we our genetically predisposed to crave fried foods. It has nothing to do with how the health care systems are setup or what the primary focuses are. The fact that Japan has a system built around keeping obesity at low levels is surely not the reason they live so much longer than us.

Lifestyle choices does not equal quality of Health Care. You can have a free pass to the Mayo Clinic, but if you eat big macs for every meal and don't exercise, you will have a much lower quality of health than some Japanese fisherman who doesn't even have an HMO ;)

The biggest issue for our health care system is lifestyle choices. That's the only reason we lag behind other countries when it comes to measurable health items. If people chose to eat less fast food, exercise more and watch less TV (like most countries do), we would be much healthier - and that's without one more person covered or one penny spent on improving health insurance. The problem is that we actually allow people to make broad choices on their lifestyle and many choose some that don't positively impact their health.

No government program (outside of fascism) is going to change that.

ace1914 02-03-2010 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arles (Post 2217606)
Lifestyle choices does not equal quality of Health Care. You can have a free pass to the Mayo Clinic, but if you eat big macs for every meal and don't exercise, you will have a much lower quality of health than some Japanese fisherman who doesn't even have an HMO ;)

The biggest issue for our health care system is lifestyle choices. That's the only reason we lag behind other countries when it comes to measurable health items. If people chose to eat less fast food, exercise more and watch less TV (like most countries do), we would be much healthier - and that's without one more person covered or one penny spent on improving health insurance. The problem is that we actually allow people to make broad choices on their lifestyle and many choose some that don't positively impact their health.

No government program (outside of fascism) is going to change that.


I agree with Arles on this. I'm required to pay for someone else's inability to turn down a Big Mac. Now that's real freedom. In other news, looks like Las Vegas is mad at Obama...again.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_las_vegas

RainMaker 02-03-2010 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arles (Post 2217606)
Lifestyle choices does not equal quality of Health Care. You can have a free pass to the Mayo Clinic, but if you eat big macs for every meal and don't exercise, you will have a much lower quality of health than some Japanese fisherman who doesn't even have an HMO ;)

The biggest issue for our health care system is lifestyle choices. That's the only reason we lag behind other countries when it comes to measurable health items. If people chose to eat less fast food, exercise more and watch less TV (like most countries do), we would be much healthier - and that's without one more person covered or one penny spent on improving health insurance. The problem is that we actually allow people to make broad choices on their lifestyle and many choose some that don't positively impact their health.

No government program (outside of fascism) is going to change that.

Japan citizens are free to make the same lifestyle choices Americans are. They are free to eat crappy fried foods filled with sugar all they want. Somewhere along the line there is a difference between ourselves and all these other countries.

I do think education of citizens is part of any health care plan and vital to lowering obesity rates. I think a big reason our obesity rates are high is because of bad information our government gave out over decades that have carried with people to this day.

Countries with national health care systems also have obesity and weight loss programs in place that are covered by their tax dollars. That is something few health care plans allow these days in the United States.

RainMaker 02-03-2010 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ace1914 (Post 2217618)
I agree with Arles on this. I'm required to pay for someone else's inability to turn down a Big Mac. Now that's real freedom. In other news, looks like Las Vegas is mad at Obama...again.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_las_vegas

You are not required to pay for anyone's inability to turn down a Big Mac.

JPhillips 02-03-2010 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arles (Post 2217606)
Lifestyle choices does not equal quality of Health Care. You can have a free pass to the Mayo Clinic, but if you eat big macs for every meal and don't exercise, you will have a much lower quality of health than some Japanese fisherman who doesn't even have an HMO ;)

The biggest issue for our health care system is lifestyle choices. That's the only reason we lag behind other countries when it comes to measurable health items. If people chose to eat less fast food, exercise more and watch less TV (like most countries do), we would be much healthier - and that's without one more person covered or one penny spent on improving health insurance. The problem is that we actually allow people to make broad choices on their lifestyle and many choose some that don't positively impact their health.

No government program (outside of fascism) is going to change that.


Since so many people believe quality of healthcare doesn't effect life expectancy why don't we just shut down all our healthcare and save a shit ton of money? Afterall we'll live just as long without it, right?

Flasch186 02-03-2010 10:33 AM

well the GOP says they have a plan that can cover 40million more Americans and it wont cost a thing {shrug}

molson 02-03-2010 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2217623)
Since so many people believe quality of healthcare doesn't effect life expectancy why don't we just shut down all our healthcare and save a shit ton of money? Afterall we'll live just as long without it, right?


I think either taking the federal government completely out of health care, or having a one-payer system, would be an improvement. Both would lower costs.

Costs are really the issue. The European systems everybody loves cost less than half (both per person costs, and health spending as a % of GDP) of what our system costs now, and probably way less than half of what any new system will cost here. Everything in the U.S. has to be a jumbled, administrative, corrupt, nightmare.

Mizzou B-ball fan 02-03-2010 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2217602)
Nancy Grace is not on CNN. Larry King makes up one hour of television a night for the network.

From 5pm-Midnight, CNN runs news programs 6 of the 7 hours (with the exception of Larry King). Fox News has a news program for 2 of the 7 hours, while MSNBC runs 0 news shows in those 7 hours.


My bad. Thought Grace was part of that lineup.

I would disagree with your characterization that there are no news shows on MSNBC and 2 on Fox. All of those shows deal directly with the current news. Just because there is some opinions voiced in regards to that news doesn't mean that they don't cover news.

Arles 02-03-2010 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2217620)
Japan citizens are free to make the same lifestyle choices Americans are. They are free to eat crappy fried foods filled with sugar all they want. Somewhere along the line there is a difference between ourselves and all these other countries.

Yes, it's our culture and the history of freedom in all choices we have. The Japanese haven't had fast food joints on every corner for the past 30 years. Their culture involves more focus on preparing fresh food and cooking meals. Our culture is an instant gratification one that wants to drive through a taco bell or McDonalds each night so that we don't have to cook and miss our favorite prime time TV show.

The same goes with many places in Europe that focus on street side markets, daily grocery shopping and preparing their own meals.

Quote:

I do think education of citizens is part of any health care plan and vital to lowering obesity rates. I think a big reason our obesity rates are high is because of bad information our government gave out over decades that have carried with people to this day.
Education is fine, but it's not enough. That's like saying we can end crime in inner cities by simply improving the "crime is bad" education in local schools and boys clubs in those cities. We need to change our priorities to value preparing and using fresh food (and taking more time to make dinner) instead of just grabbing fast food because we're too tired/don't want to cook. It's ingrained in our culture and priorities right now.

Quote:

Countries with national health care systems also have obesity and weight loss programs in place that are covered by their tax dollars. That is something few health care plans allow these days in the United States.
Honestly, the only way to change it is to penalize people who are obese. Maybe charge a higher health insurance rate if you have a BMI over a certain number. I know it's not fair and many people have legitimate issues that cause their obesity, but unless people pay more for their health care - they won't care about changing it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2217623)
Since so many people believe quality of healthcare doesn't effect life expectancy why don't we just shut down all our healthcare and save a shit ton of money? Afterall we'll live just as long without it, right?

That's a bit of a scarecrow. No one is saying that quality of healthcare doesn't effect life expectancy, I was saying that it's just not the only variable - which is something I would hope you would agree with.

You can have a high quality of health care services and a crappy lifestyle and have lower life expectancy. You can also be like some of the underdeveloped nations and have a very active lifestyle, but crappy health care services and still have lower life expectancy. I would say that Japan has one of the better combinations of healthy lifestyle and quality of health care, so it makes sense that they have a high life expectancy. However, that doesn't mean that the US can achieve that same level by simply pumping money into the health care system. There are major lifestyle choices that would need to change in this country before we can even think of reaching their level in some areas.

We have fundamental flaw in the US of thinking that if we spend tons of money time perfecting a re-occurring hang nail on our right finger, it will make up for the massive, untreated knife wound on our other arm. The only way to see real improvements in health care in the US is lifestyle changes - but that's an issue no politician wants to admit or try to deal with.

Mizzou B-ball fan 02-03-2010 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ace1914 (Post 2217618)
In other news, looks like Las Vegas is mad at Obama...again.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_las_vegas


You would think someone would tell Obama at some point that Nevada was a key win for him during the election. Reid sounded pretty pissed about Obama's statement. He's got to be tired of Obama tossing his home state under the bus when he's fighting to be reelected.

ace1914 02-03-2010 10:43 AM

Ok, maybe I shouldn't say required. However, if I want decent healthcare, I do pay through an increased premium. More risk in the group, the higher my premium.

ace1914 02-03-2010 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2217640)
You would think someone would tell Obama at some point that Nevada was a key win for him during the election. Reid sounded pretty pissed about Obama's statement. He's got to be tired of Obama tossing his home state under the bus when he's fighting to be reelected.


I think that's trash. He's not saying something that isn't true. People are complaining about not having jobs, but yet they should go splurge in Vegas? We'll never maintain our #1 status with that attitude.

cartman 02-03-2010 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2217640)
You would think someone would tell Obama at some point that Nevada was a key win for him during the election.


Well, which is it MBBF? Earlier you were complaining that Obama was acting like he was still in campaign mode, and now you are complaining that he isn't?

:rolleyes:

Arles 02-03-2010 10:52 AM

Yeah, I don't see the problem with what Obama said. At some point, we need to start hammering home the idea of personal responsibility when it comes to finances (heck, we should be going the same to the gov't). If that means the gambling community or pay day loan shops get their panties in a bind, so be it.

molson 02-03-2010 10:53 AM

"When times are tough, you tighten your belts," Obama said, according to a White House transcript of his appearance Tuesday at a high school in North Nashua, N.H.

"You don't go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage," Obama said. "You don't blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you're trying to save for college. You prioritize. You make tough choices."

He's definitely right about that - though I don't think the words are ever supported by actions. When is the federal government going to make tough choices and tighten their belt? We saw criticism two pages ago (and I'm sure elsehwere on the internet) about a city trying to make tough choices.

So which is it?

(I do understand where the Nevada governor is coming from, when he said that Obama seems to have a "psychological hang-up" of using Las Vegas as an example of excessive spending).

RainMaker 02-03-2010 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arles (Post 2217638)
Yes, it's our culture and the history of freedom in all choices we have. The Japanese haven't had fast food joints on every corner for the past 30 years. Their culture involves more focus on preparing fresh food and cooking meals. Our culture is an instant gratification one that wants to drive through a taco bell or McDonalds each night so that we don't have to cook and miss our favorite prime time TV show.

The same goes with many places in Europe that focus on street side markets, daily grocery shopping and preparing their own meals.

I think this notion that every person who picks up McDonalds is just some lazy bum who doesn't want to cook is a bad stereotype. Obesity is more preveland in poorer people in this country and can be attributed to having less time to cook based on having to work longer hours or lack of money. It's just much cheaper to eat unhealthy stuff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arles (Post 2217638)
Education is fine, but it's not enough. That's like saying we can end crime in inner cities by simply improving the "crime is bad" education in local schools and boys clubs in those cities. We need to change our priorities to value preparing and using fresh food (and taking more time to make dinner) instead of just grabbing fast food because we're too tired/don't want to cook. It's ingrained in our culture and priorities right now.

If you ask the average person basic health facts regarding food, they won't know what the hell is going on. Ask the average 20 year old if drinking a lot of water will make them gain weight. Or if almonds are bad because they contain a lot of fat. As a society we have been told bad information for the last few decades. That fat is bad and the less a product has of it, the healthier it is.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Arles (Post 2217638)
Honestly, the only way to change it is to penalize people who are obese. Maybe charge a higher health insurance rate if you have a BMI over a certain number. I know it's not fair and many people have legitimate issues that cause their obesity, but unless people pay more for their health care - they won't care about changing it.

I don't know about that. No one wants to be overweight. They may not have the motivation to fix it or the skills to do so, but they don't celebrate it. I think access to programs that educate and support people in weight loss is important. The Jenny Craig's of the world have been succesful in part due to their group aspect that offers support.

RainMaker 02-03-2010 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2217634)
My bad. Thought Grace was part of that lineup.

I would disagree with your characterization that there are no news shows on MSNBC and 2 on Fox. All of those shows deal directly with the current news. Just because there is some opinions voiced in regards to that news doesn't mean that they don't cover news.

It's still different. You don't turn to the editorial page of a newspaper for your news. You turn to it for entertainment and to read perspectives on the news. I think people today are finding out what is going on in the world through the internet. I didn't find out Michael Jackson died by watching the nightly news, I found out because the internet exploded.

ace1914 02-03-2010 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 2217657)
"When times are tough, you tighten your belts," Obama said, according to a White House transcript of his appearance Tuesday at a high school in North Nashua, N.H.

"You don't go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage," Obama said. "You don't blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you're trying to save for college. You prioritize. You make tough choices."

He's definitely right about that - though I don't think the words are ever supported by actions. When is the federal government going to make tough choices and tighten their belt? We saw criticism two pages ago (and I'm sure elsehwere on the internet) about a city trying to make tough choices.

So which is it?

(I do understand where the Nevada governor is coming from, when he said that Obama seems to have a "psychological hang-up" of using Las Vegas as an example of excessive spending).


So it would be better if he used Atlantic City? My pops and I, refer to gambling as an idiot tax. Sin City is the most well known place to pay the idiot tax. There was nothing wrong with Obama's statement.

Mizzou B-ball fan 02-03-2010 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cartman (Post 2217653)
Well, which is it MBBF? Earlier you were complaining that Obama was acting like he was still in campaign mode, and now you are complaining that he isn't?

:rolleyes:


Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 2217657)
"When times are tough, you tighten your belts," Obama said, according to a White House transcript of his appearance Tuesday at a high school in North Nashua, N.H.

"You don't go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage," Obama said. "You don't blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you're trying to save for college. You prioritize. You make tough choices."

He's definitely right about that - though I don't think the words are ever supported by actions. When is the federal government going to make tough choices and tighten their belt? We saw criticism two pages ago (and I'm sure elsehwere on the internet) about a city trying to make tough choices.

So which is it?


Agreed. His words fall on deaf ear when compared to his actions. At this point, he might as well return to the campaign chatter of 2008 because when he starts pretending to care for citizen, no one believes him.

Mizzou B-ball fan 02-03-2010 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ace1914 (Post 2217668)
So it would be better if he used Atlantic City? My pops and I, refer to gambling as an idiot tax. Sin City is the most well known place to pay the idiot tax. There was nothing wrong with Obama's statement.


Some would argue that the largest idiot tax is being run up in Washington D.C. by the same guy who believes that the citizens are the irresponsible ones.

RainMaker 02-03-2010 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 2217657)
"When times are tough, you tighten your belts," Obama said, according to a White House transcript of his appearance Tuesday at a high school in North Nashua, N.H.

"You don't go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage," Obama said. "You don't blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you're trying to save for college. You prioritize. You make tough choices."

He's definitely right about that - though I don't think the words are ever supported by actions. When is the federal government going to make tough choices and tighten their belt? We saw criticism two pages ago (and I'm sure elsehwere on the internet) about a city trying to make tough choices.

So which is it?

(I do understand where the Nevada governor is coming from, when he said that Obama seems to have a "psychological hang-up" of using Las Vegas as an example of excessive spending).

The government has always been a bunch of hypocrits when it comes to that stuff. I love how they say that we need to start saving and being smart with our money but then put out massive credits for buying new homes and cars.

DaddyTorgo 02-03-2010 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2217602)
Nancy Grace is not on CNN. Larry King makes up one hour of television a night for the network.

From 5pm-Midnight, CNN runs news programs 6 of the 7 hours (with the exception of Larry King). Fox News has a news program for 2 of the 7 hours, while MSNBC runs 0 news shows in those 7 hours.


burnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

JPhillips 02-03-2010 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2217672)
Some would argue that the largest idiot tax is being run up in Washington D.C. by the same guy who believes that the citizens are the irresponsible ones.


And yet, he's a really nice guy, right?

RainMaker 02-03-2010 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2217672)
Some would argue that the largest idiot tax is being run up in Washington D.C. by the same guy who believes that the citizens are the irresponsible ones.

What do you believe should be cut to curb the deficit? We saw the massive graph on the previous page showing where the majority of our spending was going.

ace1914 02-03-2010 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 2217657)

He's definitely right about that - though I don't think the words are ever supported by actions. When is the federal government going to make tough choices and tighten their belt? We saw criticism two pages ago (and I'm sure elsehwere on the internet) about a city trying to make tough choices.

So which is it?


Federal financial responsibility will only come about if personal responsibility is applied by the majority of Americans. I agree that Colorado Springs is doing the right thing for themselves and in a small way, for the country.

Mizzou B-ball fan 02-03-2010 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2217678)
And yet, he's a really nice guy, right?


Sure. You can be a lousy decision maker and still be a nice guy. I'm not sure the two are mutually exclusive.

He and I could have a beer summit and likely have a very good time.

ace1914 02-03-2010 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2217672)
Some would argue that the largest idiot tax is being run up in Washington D.C. by the same guy who believes that the citizens are the irresponsible ones.


When the average household carries $8000 in debt, I'd agree that we are pretty irresponsible. Don't blame government for that.

Mizzou B-ball fan 02-03-2010 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2217680)
What do you believe should be cut to curb the deficit? We saw the massive graph on the previous page showing where the majority of our spending was going.


Show me a deficit that you believe can't be reduced and I'll show you a bigger blowtorch. Nothing is easy, but much like the 'too big to fail' saying, there's no deficit that can't be turned around. It'll be awfully painful, but it's important to do so.

RainMaker 02-03-2010 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 2217114)
At the city/state level, it's not about choosing whether to cut, its about choosing what to cut.

Maybe they should have cut teachers instead of police. Or more firefighters instead of the budget for flowers. That's the balancing act.

What city or state out there has made up their entire budget shortfall through increased taxation?? Definitely not San Francisco, or Massachusetts. Everybody's cutting.

It sucks, but I would definitely cut the flower budget before I cut a lot of other things. If people are concerned about property values, they can definitely take maintenance into their own hands to some extent. They can't replace other services as easily.

I understand that, I'm just saying that on the surface something like flowers or watering grass could seem like a luxury expense that a city doesn't need. But if that city relies heavily on tourism in those areas or people coming in to town to shop, that could take off a large chunk from future sales tax earnings in the area and cause an even bigger shortfall the following year.

Remember that Colorado Springs is in this crunch because their sales tax earnings have tanked in the last year. And these "bastions of conservatism tried to triple the property taxes in the area".

RainMaker 02-03-2010 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2217687)
Show me a deficit that you believe can't be reduced and I'll show you a bigger blowtorch. Nothing is easy, but much like the 'too big to fail' saying, there's no deficit that can't be turned around. It'll be awfully painful, but it's important to do so.

Ok, so what would you like to see cut?

cartman 02-03-2010 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2217689)
Ok, so what would you like to see cut?


BIGGER BLOWTORCH

Don't you get it??? Or are you just whistling in the graveyard...............

Mizzou B-ball fan 02-03-2010 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ace1914 (Post 2217686)
When the average household carries $8000 in debt, I'd agree that we are pretty irresponsible. Don't blame government for that.


No one's blaming the government for personal responsibility. But when the head of that government takes shots at people while his government is running up a debt that now totals $45,000/citizen, he and the other politicians responsible have little room to talk about financial sensibility. If our country was run better, people would be able to keep more of their money and maybe they wouldn't have to carry so much debt.

Mizzou B-ball fan 02-03-2010 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2217689)
Ok, so what would you like to see cut?


For starters.....

No stimulus
No TARP (and if anything is left pay off debt)
Health care where obesity is taxed
No care to illegal aliens without payment
Government welfare
Across the board cut of Social Security with a higher retirement age
Defense cuts

I could go on and on. It's painful as hell, but people need to stop pretending that changes can't happen.

RainMaker 02-03-2010 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2217694)
No one's blaming the government for personal responsibility. But when the head of that government takes shots at people while his government is running up a debt that now totals $45,000/citizen, he and the other politicians responsible have little room to talk about financial sensibility. If our country was run better, people would be able to keep more of their money and maybe they wouldn't have to carry so much debt.

Most of that debt was put in place by the last 3 Republican Presidents. Stop pretending that Obama created this debt and long list of bills that we can't get out of it.

If you knock out the cost that we pay for interest on the deficit that the last 3 Republicans ran up, he's probably got a surplus.

Crapshoot 02-03-2010 11:36 AM

This is amazing ; according to a Research 2000 poll,, 73% of Republicans (self-identified) believe that openly gay teachers should not be allowed to teach. Just wow.



Can this kind of idiotic bigotry seriously be status quo? Are these people that retarded?

Why I Am Not a Republican | Capital Gains and Games

Mizzou B-ball fan 02-03-2010 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2217696)
Most of that debt was put in place by the last 3 Republican Presidents. Stop pretending that Obama created this debt and long list of bills that we can't get out of it.

If you knock out the cost that we pay for interest on the deficit that the last 3 Republicans ran up, he's probably got a surplus.


Reread my post and show me where I didn't include the other parties responsible, which included ALL politicians. Don't let your political slant get in the way of understanding my post. I've said plenty about Bush's spending already. It was brutal. I just never thought that Obama would make Bush's deficit spending seem small.

RainMaker 02-03-2010 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2217695)
For starters.....

No stimulus
No TARP (and if anything is left pay off debt)
Health care where obesity is taxed
No care to illegal aliens without payment
Government welfare
Across the board cut of Social Security with a higher retirement age
Defense cuts

I could go on and on. It's painful as hell, but people need to stop pretending that changes can't happen.

The stimulus is still an extremely small part of the budget. I will give you that though.

TARP was by many economists necessary to save our financial system and ensure we didn't fall into a massive depression. Regardless, most of the major financial institutions have paid back the money and many experts predict it will lose very little, break even, or turn a profit in the long run. TARP is more of a moral hazard than adding anything to our deficit.

Illegal aliens are such a small percent of our total budget that even eliminating giving them basic care would not save this country much at all. You're going to have to look much farther to save money than tired talking point.

The rest of the issues are something he really can't make happen. There is no fucking way that any Congress would ever pass bills massively cutting those programs. Your issue here is with Congress, not the President. Not to mention the insanity of telling a bunch of people that have prepared for Social Security or set their lives around their checks will now have to stop getting checks and wait another 5 years.

The biggest costs to this country are not areas the President will ever have an ability to cut without massive changes in Congress. Unless the Libertarian Party suddenly becomes the party of choice of the people, you'll never see this happen.

lungs 02-03-2010 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crapshoot (Post 2217700)
This is amazing ; according to a Research 2000 poll,, 73% of Republicans (self-identified) believe that openly gay teachers should not be allowed to teach. Just wow.



Can this kind of idiotic bigotry seriously be status quo? Are these people that retarded?

Why I Am Not a Republican | Capital Gains and Games


Don't want my boy catchin' queer from them teachers... or worse yet, AIDS!

lungs 02-03-2010 11:48 AM

dola Though I don't pretend homophobia is only a Republican phenomenon.

RainMaker 02-03-2010 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2217701)
Reread my post and show me where I didn't include the other parties responsible, which included ALL politicians. Don't let your political slant get in the way of understanding my post. I've said plenty about Bush's spending already. It was brutal. I just never thought that Obama would make Bush's deficit spending seem small.

I have no political slant. I don't care about parties. I don't like Obama's spending at all. I just don't like hypocrites.

But the notion that this is all his fault is laughable. Major recessions have huge impacts on revenues coming in. The overwhelming majority of his budget is in areas that were put in place by previous administrations that he has little control over cutting. You can't shut down Medicare, Social Security, Defense Department, or paying interest on your debt. Our deficit problem is so much deeper than a President coming in and spending more money that many economists believe is the smart thing to do during a recession.

There just isn't a lot that can be cut by a President without Congress passing massive reform in Social Security, Medicare, and Defense. Things that will never happen.

ace1914 02-03-2010 12:00 PM

The president doesn't vote on a budget. Get your congressperson's ass in gear if you are truly looking for "federal financial responsibilty." That's why i agree with the Colorado Springs local goverment. You can't really believe that things will change on a federal scale without implementing change locally or on an even smaller scale, personally. A bigger blowtorch will not work. However millions of small ones will. Damn I sound like a politician maybe I should run for office. What are the odds that another black man is elected president? :eek:

Flasch186 02-03-2010 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2217701)
Reread my post and show me where I didn't include the other parties responsible, which included ALL politicians. Don't let your political slant get in the way of understanding my post. I've said plenty about Bush's spending already. It was brutal. I just never thought that Obama would make Bush's deficit spending seem small.


where were your posts during the bush era? seriously just a few links will do and Ill shut up.


...and what Rainmaker said 2 posts above. Oh, and BTW, you were and are wrong about TARP.

DaddyTorgo 02-03-2010 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2217696)
Most of that debt was put in place by the last 3 Republican Presidents. Stop pretending that Obama created this debt and long list of bills that we can't get out of it.

If you knock out the cost that we pay for interest on the deficit that the last 3 Republicans ran up, he's probably got a surplus.


seriously. typical Republican MO - run up a massive deficit then let a Democrat get elected and heckle them while they try to fix it, shifting the blame for it onto them.

DaddyTorgo 02-03-2010 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crapshoot (Post 2217700)
This is amazing ; according to a Research 2000 poll,, 73% of Republicans (self-identified) believe that openly gay teachers should not be allowed to teach. Just wow.



Can this kind of idiotic bigotry seriously be status quo? Are these people that retarded?

Why I Am Not a Republican | Capital Gains and Games



yes

DaddyTorgo 02-03-2010 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2217713)
I have no political slant. I don't care about parties. I don't like Obama's spending at all. I just don't like hypocrites.

But the notion that this is all his fault is laughable. Major recessions have huge impacts on revenues coming in. The overwhelming majority of his budget is in areas that were put in place by previous administrations that he has little control over cutting. You can't shut down Medicare, Social Security, Defense Department, or paying interest on your debt. Our deficit problem is so much deeper than a President coming in and spending more money that many economists believe is the smart thing to do during a recession.

There just isn't a lot that can be cut by a President without Congress passing massive reform in Social Security, Medicare, and Defense. Things that will never happen.



what he said.

molson 02-03-2010 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crapshoot (Post 2217700)
This is amazing ; according to a Research 2000 poll,, 73% of Republicans (self-identified) believe that openly gay teachers should not be allowed to teach. Just wow.

Can this kind of idiotic bigotry seriously be status quo? Are these people that retarded?

Why I Am Not a Republican | Capital Gains and Games


A think a lot people think of Sacha Baron Cohen's Bruno character when they imagine a gay person. Or child molesting priests.

sterlingice 02-03-2010 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2217640)
You would think someone would tell Obama at some point that Nevada was a key win for him during the election. Reid sounded pretty pissed about Obama's statement. He's got to be tired of Obama tossing his home state under the bus when he's fighting to be reelected.


Obama (under his breath): "Hey, Harry, this is for your part in screwing up health care"

And, on the next campaign stop: "I don't want all of America to be redneck hicks like people in Montana, Nebraska, and Arkansas." ;)

"And I don't even know what to think about crazy idiots from Connecticut. They're the worst drivers in the world! And they like to eat puppies and kick kittens."

SI

sterlingice 02-03-2010 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ace1914 (Post 2217717)
What are the odds that another black man is elected president? :eek:


It's happened before ;)

SI

sterlingice 02-03-2010 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2217519)
CNN actually went to try and cover news in January which is suicide for a cable "news" network.


This is like that thread about the History Channel and, yes, I still can't get over that there's a show called "Punkin' Chunkin'" where people demonstrate their ability to blow up pumpkins on the increasingly misnamed Science channel.

SI

RainMaker 02-03-2010 12:24 PM

LOL, I thought the Punkin Chunkin was just a joke in the Onion article. I didn't know it actually existed.

Punkin Chunkin : Science Channel

JPhillips 02-03-2010 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 2217733)
A think a lot people think of Sacha Baron Cohen's Bruno character when they imagine a gay person. Or child molesting priests.


This is true with a lot of bigotry. I had a great uncle from Texas that hated Mexicans except his favorite person was his Mexican home healthcare assistant. He made it clear she wasn't like the other Mexicans.

Crapshoot 02-03-2010 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 2217733)
A think a lot people think of Sacha Baron Cohen's Bruno character when they imagine a gay person. Or child molesting priests.


Okay - is that a justification in any way? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, because that reads as a quasi-defense.

Flasch186 02-03-2010 12:34 PM

HArdball last night, Chris Matthews has a guy on who was against repealing DADT and in the end he got the guy to admit that he wanted Homosexuality outlawed. It was awesome. Chris Matthews will sometimes just hit 'em out of the park....then other times he says dumbass shit.

http://video.aol.co.uk/video-detail/...ell/1713043106

gstelmack 02-03-2010 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2217696)
Most of that debt was put in place by the last 3 Republican Presidents. Stop pretending that Obama created this debt and long list of bills that we can't get out of it.

If you knock out the cost that we pay for interest on the deficit that the last 3 Republicans ran up, he's probably got a surplus.


So wait, Obama is not at fault for the debt, his Congress is, but Republican presidents are responsible for the debt prior to this? Which is it, Congress or the President?

FWIW, I blame Congress in all these cases.

RainMaker 02-03-2010 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crapshoot (Post 2217747)
Okay - is that a justification in any way? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, because that reads as a quasi-defense.

I think you can make a defense for many for their lack of understanding of homosexuality. In some parts of the country, there just aren't a lot of openly gay people and most stay closeted. They get their impression of gays strictly through entertainment like Sasha Baron Cohen or the news which covers a gay pride parade.

There is an element of fear of the unknown. I guarantee that a lot of people would change their impressions once they had experience with people who are gay. Once you realize they are basically the same as everyone else with different sexual attractions.

flere-imsaho 02-03-2010 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crapshoot (Post 2217700)
This is amazing ; according to a Research 2000 poll,, 73% of Republicans (self-identified) believe that openly gay teachers should not be allowed to teach. Just wow.


The best part about this is that when such an initiative came up as potential legislation (as a ballot initiative in California in 1978), among the people who opposed it was that well-known liberal Ronald Reagan. :D

Quoth the Great Communicator: "Whatever else it is, homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles. Prevailing scientific opinion is that a child's teachers do not really influence this."

I guess this really isn't your father's GOP. :D

Mizzou B-ball fan 02-03-2010 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2217713)
But the notion that this is all his fault is laughable.

There just isn't a lot that can be cut by a President without Congress passing massive reform in Social Security, Medicare, and Defense. Things that will never happen.


Again, I never said it was all his fault. Congresses and presidents in recent years are just as much to blame.

What will happen and what should happen are two different things.

RainMaker 02-03-2010 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstelmack (Post 2217753)
So wait, Obama is not at fault for the debt, his Congress is, but Republican presidents are responsible for the debt prior to this? Which is it, Congress or the President?

FWIW, I blame Congress in all these cases.

It's both. A President has every right to veto a budget till it comes back to something he approves of. I'm saying that right now, the major reforms that need to take place would have to take place in Congress which will never happen. There is no Congress that will ever target Seniors who are a massive voting block. So any President in power has his hands tied on a large portion of the budget.

I do blame previous administrations and Congresses for running up the massive debt and causing our politicians today to have to try and put together budgets with all these entitlements and a ton of interest to pay on top of it. Most of our budgets right now would not be adding to the deficit if we had been fiscally responsible in the 80's and early 90's.

JPhillips 02-03-2010 12:45 PM

Look at this chart from the CBO. It shows a deficit line based on continuing the status quo and a line based on Obama's budget projections.



You can argue that Obama isn't doing enough to reduce the deficit if you'd like, but there's no basis to argue that Obama is making the deficit worse.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:54 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.