The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

im trying to find a SFW image of "full of shit" but Im giving up suffice to say that this page, 140, again showed that MBBF is what we thought he is.

You're right. I'm a citizen concerned with the debacle that is this administration's economic policies. I've been outed again.

[AENeuman]

FWIW, I would find this board a whole lot less entertaining if MBBF became reasonable.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

You're right. I'm a citizen concerned with the debacle that is this administration's economic policies. I've been outed again.

your post to start all of this was spun and disingenuous however.

I asked for a link and you clipped it or posted some footage from a past rally to make it look different than it really was. I guess it was a simple mistake and not intentional.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

FWIW, I would find this board a whole lot less entertaining if MBBF became reasonable.

There are some days when I miss Bubba Wheels, but it soon passes.

[flere-imsaho]

Bubba Wheels was at least honest about his intentions.

[Flasch186]

+1

[DaddyTorgo]

this page delivers

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Gosh, I guess your right. It never ends. I guess we're stuck.

Where did I ever say jobs were solely responsible for bringing an economy out of a recession?

You said no jobs are created in a recession. If that's true, how do we ever get out of a recession?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

There's no innovation involved. There's reduced profits all around. They can't lead us out of recession with more loans. They need a tax break. It's as simple as that. Offering them the opportunity to increase their debt is going to draw little more than laughter from business looking to survive this recession. They may take the loan to survive, but it's not going to be used for investment or job creation. Anyone who believes that is whistling through the graveyard.

I'd disagree with that. First, I'm all for paying less in taxes so I won't argue that at all. But you only get taxed on what you make. So if a company is hurting badly in a recession, tax isn't an issue.

And you're right, the loan will mostly be used to ride out the recession. That may mean not having to lay off workers that are valuable.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'd disagree with that. First, I'm all for paying less in taxes so I won't argue that at all. But you only get taxed on what you make. So if a company is hurting badly in a recession, tax isn't an issue.

And you're right, the loan will mostly be used to ride out the recession. That may mean not having to lay off workers that are valuable.

and if those workers keep their jobs they can keep spending!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

You said no jobs are created in a recession. If that's true, how do we ever get out of a recession?

Where did I say "no jobs are created in a recession"?

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

FWIW, I would find this board a whole lot less entertaining if MBBF became reasonable.

What? You like seeing the exact same 5 guys posting their spin over and over and over against 1 guy with his dubious spin?

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

What? You like seeing the exact same 5 guys posting their spin over and over and over against 1 guy with his dubious spin?

Shhh, don't ruin the fantasy for them...

[panerd]

Originally Posted by duckman

Shhh, don't ruin the fantasy for them...

Isn't that the truth?

Fill in JPhillips, Flasch, DaddyTorgo, flere "I am conservative on a lot of issues" = I have made 500 posts in this thread, 498 of them are liberal.

MBBF "I voted Democrat a few years ago" = I have made 600 posts in this thread, 600 are conservative"

[DaddyTorgo]

i'm pretty sure i don't just throw up a ton of links and spin them, but rather try to engage in actual conversations with people, particularly those on the other side, that are constructive. just sometimes you have to call a spade a spade when the spade is like a frigging klieg light panerd.

could throw your name in there too as far as being a caricature...everything is "government bad...libertarianness good"

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

i'm pretty sure i don't just throw up a ton of links and spin them, but rather try to engage in actual conversations with people, particularly those on the other side, that are constructive. just sometimes you have to call a spade a spade when the spade is like a frigging klieg light panerd.

could throw your name in there too as far as being a caricature...everything is "government bad...libertarianness good"

But that is a constructive viewpoint, I admit to being partisan. Every one of your discussions tries to paint the other side as extreme while your idea isn't. I make no bones about it that my idea is extreme. And it is the only one that hasn't at least been tried. Your viewpoints aren't working! Why not try mine?

[JPhillips]

Except we have tried a gold standard, and no central bank, and no social safety net and the people decided changing those things was better.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Except we have tried a gold standard, and no central bank, and no social safety net and the people decided changing those things was better.

How about doing something simple instead, like maybe balance the budget and not increase the deficit (and interest payments)?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Except we have tried a gold standard, and no central bank, and no social safety net and the people decided changing those things was better.

Except that you are acting like what we have now is better... I know nothing about economics and will leave the gold standard debate to people more competent than me. I know a little about basic economics and know central banking and fixed prices and fixed interest rates are a scam. And I am fairly certain that welfare is a complete sham. My brother-in-law has 3 brothers and sisters that skirt welfare law for their own gains. (They would make less working at Wal-Mart than they do on welfare and sham disability) This has to be prevalent among all people living in poverty. What a joke! You really should have left that off there.

[JPhillips]

I'm with you on a balanced budget, but not before the recovery takes hold. Taking several hundred billion more out of the economy now will only extend the recession and the budget will never get balanced until more people go back to work. I would have preferred not to have to do the stimulus, but in that situation it made sense and it seems to have helped. (Although it would have been better to keep it to proven stimulus rather than non-stimulative tax cuts, and the reduction of direct aid to the states by the moderates was stupid as can be.)

The major reason I'm for letting all the Bush tax cuts expire is because the budget can't realistically be balanced with the current tax scheme. You can talk all you want about bloated government, but no way will Congress pass enough spending cuts given the current tax rates. I don't think Obama will go fully back to the Clinton rates and that's a mistake IMO.

One of the reasons I support health care reform is the clear reality that Medicare spending has to be controlled soon. This bill may not be perfect, but it will reduce Medicare spending and has a chance at reducing the cost curve in healthcare spending overall. Importantly, the Senate bill also reduces the deficit by 100bil+.

I've been pretty consistent in arguing the big problem is the structural deficit brought about by the last administration. I'll give Obama a pass on the stimulus as it had to be done to spur the economy, and the lack of revenue due to lack of employment isn't his fault. Healthcare reform is critical to long-term deficit reduction, and while I'm sure you disagree, I see him trying to bring healthcare costs more under control. Now after employment turns around I'd like to see a plan to get to a balanced budget both through increased taxes and spending reductions. I don't support Bayh's chickenshit commission that just provides cover for cowardly politicians.

edit: I agree a lot with former Reagan staffer Bruce Bartlett's take on spending and taxes, but now that he sees the reality of needing increased taxation to get to a balanced budget he's no longer claimed by the GOP.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

Except that you are acting like what we have now is better... I know nothing about economics and will leave the gold standard debate to people more competent than me. I know a little about basic economics and know central banking and fixed prices and fixed interest rates are a scam. And I am fairly certain that welfare is a complete sham. My brother-in-law has 3 brothers and sisters that skirt welfare law for their own gains. (They would make less working at Wal-Mart than they do on welfare and sham disability) This has to be prevalent among all people living in poverty. What a joke! You really should have left that off there.

The overwhelming majority of PhD economists would disagree with you about the central ban and interest rates.

The social safety net is much bigger than welfare, which I'm sure is abused, but not in ways approaching corporate handouts. For m the social safety net includes child labor laws, worker safety, unemployment insurance, Social Security, Medicare, WIC, traditional welfare, etc. People want those things and initially wanted them because they didn't have them and wanted something better.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm with you on a balanced budget, but not before the recovery takes hold. Taking several hundred billion more out of the economy now will only extend the recession and the budget will never get balanced until more people go back to work. I would have preferred not to have to do the stimulus, but in that situation it made sense and it seems to have helped. (Although it would have been better to keep it to proven stimulus rather than non-stimulative tax cuts, and the reduction of direct aid to the states by the moderates was stupid as can be.)

The major reason I'm for letting all the Bush tax cuts expire is because the budget can't realistically be balanced with the current tax scheme. You can talk all you want about bloated government, but no way will Congress pass enough spending cuts given the current tax rates. I don't think Obama will go fully back to the Clinton rates and that's a mistake IMO.

One of the reasons I support health care reform is the clear reality that Medicare spending has to be controlled soon. This bill may not be perfect, but it will reduce Medicare spending and has a chance at reducing the cost curve in healthcare spending overall. Importantly, the Senate bill also reduces the deficit by 100bil+.

I've been pretty consistent in arguing the big problem is the structural deficit brought about by the last administration. I'll give Obama a pass on the stimulus as it had to be done to spur the economy, and the lack of revenue due to lack of employment isn't his fault. Healthcare reform is critical to long-term deficit reduction, and while I'm sure you disagree, I see him trying to bring healthcare costs more under control. Now after employment turns around I'd like to see a plan to get to a balanced budget both through increased taxes and spending reductions. I don't support Bayh's chickenshit commission that just provides cover for cowardly politicians.

But sentence one you lose everyone. It is basic economics. If my brother-in-law said "I know your sister and me owe $150,000 but we are going to take out a loan for $1,000,000 and now we don't owe that $150,000 anymore." We would say they are fucking lunatics. How is this different?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The overwhelming majority of PhD economists would disagree with you about the central ban and interest rates.

The social safety net is much bigger than welfare, which I'm sure is abused, but not in ways approaching corporate handouts. For m the social safety net includes child labor laws, worker safety, unemployment insurance, Social Security, Medicare, WIC, traditional welfare, etc. People want those things and initially wanted them because they didn't have them and wanted something better.

Hasn't the government ever looked wrong in 20/20 hindsight? "No, Copernicus the Sun does not revolve around the Earth."

Years later, "Perhaps we were wrong. Go ahead try something that might actually work!"

"Fixing interest rates and costs may actually create bubbles that eventually burst causing much worse repercussions."

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

But sentence one you lose everyone. It is basic economics. If my brother-in-law said "I know your sister and me owe $150,000 but we are going to take out a loan for $1,000,000 and now we don't owe that $150,000 anymore." We would say they are fucking lunatics. How is this different?

Depends on the future prospects for your brother-in-law. By taking out that loan can he reasonably assume he'll keep his job and over the next few years greatly increase his earnings? What if he rationally believed that loan was the only way to keep his house and somehow his neighbor's houses as well? Macroeconomics isn't the same thing as microeconomics.

Stimulus spending works well if it's short term and targeted to the right things. The CBO just released a report showing how parts of the current stimulus boosted GDP by 1.5 to 2 dollars per dollar spent. Now some of it performed much more poorly, most notably the tax cuts, but overall it seems to have done what economists would expect. In a crisis of demand stimulus spending can alleviate a recession to some degree. It's not always the proper prescription, but given the circumstances of last Winter it was what the doctor ordered.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Depends on the future prospects for your brother-in-law. By taking out that loan can he reasonably assume he'll keep his job and over the next few years greatly increase his earnings? What if he rationally believed that loan was the only way to keep his house and somehow his neighbor's houses as well? Macroeconomics isn't the same thing as microeconomics.

Stimulus spending works well if it's short term and targeted to the right things. The CBO just released a report showing how parts of the current stimulus boosted GDP by 1.5 to 2 dollars per dollar spent. Now some of it performed much more poorly, most notably the tax cuts, but overall it seems to have done what economists would expect. In a crisis of demand stimulus spending can alleviate a recession to some degree. It's not always the proper prescription, but given the circumstances of last Winter it was what the doctor ordered.

And I almost forgot to add... "I know your sister and me owe $150,000 but we are going to take out a loan for $1,000,000 and now we don't owe that $150,000 anymore." + "Plus while we are trying to recover we will buy a boat (health care package) and continue our membership at the country club (war in Afganistan)"

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by panerd

And I almost forgot to add... "I know your sister and me owe $150,000 but we are going to take out a loan for $1,000,000 and now we don't owe that $150,000 anymore." + "Plus while we are trying to recover we will buy a boat (health care package) and continue our membership at the country club (war in Afganistan)"

I don't think that's quite a fair analogy. I'll take a stab:

I'm going to take out a $50K home improvement loan (when I already have a mortgage) so that I can improve my future earnings when I sell but there's no guarantee on it. Not only that, but I'm going to weatherproof my house (health care)- sure it's going to cost something up front but it's going to bring down costs in the long run. Oh, and we're idiots so we're going to continue our membership at Khandahar Lakes under some guise that living next to the golf course and being well known will prevent any crime that could happen to us.

It's not the way I'd want to live my life but I can see the logic. (Also, it does beat "My life budget isn't balanced so rather than just working some overtime and cutting that deluxe cable package and country club membership, I've got a better plan. I'm going to start working less hours, turn off the electricity, water, stop doing any maintenance, leave my home unlocked and door wide open, maybe even take a chainsaw to half the house to decrease the area I have to take care of and then expect my home value to go up." But I think at this point, the analogy is breaking down a bit)

SI

[panerd]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I don't think that's quite a fair analogy. I'll take a stab:

I'm going to take out a $50K home improvement loan (when I already have a mortgage) so that I can improve my future earnings when I sell but there's no guarantee on it. Not only that, but I'm going to weatherproof my house (health care)- sure it's going to cost something up front but it's going to bring down costs in the long run. Oh, and we're idiots so we're going to continue our membership at Khandahar Lakes under some guise that living next to the golf course and being well known will prevent any crime that could happen to us.

It's not the way I'd want to live my life but I can see the logic. (Also, it does beat "My life budget isn't balanced so rather than just working some overtime and cutting that deluxe cable package and country club membership, I've got a better plan. I'm going to start working less hours, turn off the electricity, water, stop doing any maintenance, leave my home unlocked and door wide open, maybe even take a chainsaw to half the house to decrease the area I have to take care of and then expect my home value to go up." But I think at this point, the analogy is breaking down a bit)

SI

While we don't see eye to eye on health care I will take it out of my previous analogy. I think it is an unecceasary government intrusion that will make us less free and more broke in the long run but the current system is also very screwed up. I stick with the war part which you seem to also agree with but lets add this final part...

"I know your sister and me owe $150,000 but we are going to take out a loan for $1,000,000 and now we don't owe that $150,000 anymore." + And I almost forgot our million dollar loan will be paid by everyone who did keep an eye on their finances the past couple of years. You didn't overbuy for your house and you ignored a loan agent who said you could afford putting 50%+ of your income into a house? Too bad, I couldn't live in an apartment so I need $50 of your money towards my $1 million loan. You exercise, eat healthy, and don't visit the doctor for stress tests and MRI's when you have indigestion or sprain your ankle. Too bad give me $25 of your money towards my loan so that I can keep eating McDonalds and have my blood pressure medicine and diabetes treatment paid for by the government. You think that in 20 years there is going to be some unintended consequence of the Afghan war? (Maybe Pakistan will be our "good friends" then and we will have created a powerful enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan) Well even though blowback is the root of all of our problems in the middle East right now we still want your money to fight this war, to hell with history!!! You actually read to your kids and care about their education? Well we think that is solely the teachers' and government's job so please give us another $10 of your money towards a federal program so you can be a parent to our kids also. You decided that you couldn't afford to live your lifestyle if you had more than 2 kids. Well we wanted 5 kids so please give us $25 of your money to raise ours. And on and on and on................."

But you're right my Libertarian views are wacky! I shouldn't be responsible and expect my tax money not to go to those who aren't. Maybe I will go out and take advantage of this cash for appliances thing that is coming down the road. What, every economist on the planet can explain how these programs are bad ideas? But what about populism!!!???!!! Why can't I have my piece of the pie also!!! Fuck personal responsibility!!!!! Yeah one party system!!!!!! Long live Rome!!!!

What happened to the Roman Empire? Well, that's ancient history, it never repeats itself!

[Flasch186]

...and this is the problem, or one of them as I see it. Very few people are debating individual topics even when theyre the one at hand. Instead people are talking about the topic at hand but are really hiding their feelings 'on the whole' behind the topic at hand label. So instead of talking about the pros and cons of reforming health care were talking about that as a guise for our fear of bigger government, or socialism intruding. We cant talk about the pros and cons of individual bills or ideas because it'ssimply the tallest nail of what is the entirety of our ideology. To argue otherwise is bunk IMO.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by panerd

Isn't that the truth?

Fill in JPhillips, Flasch, DaddyTorgo, flere "I am conservative on a lot of issues" = I have made 500 posts in this thread, 498 of them are liberal.

MBBF "I voted Democrat a few years ago" = I have made 600 posts in this thread, 600 are conservative"

When have I stated that? Link?

I'll say it before and I'll say it again. Anybody who wants to box me into a conservative mold is making a generalization that simply doesn't hold water. Regarding economics, I'm as conservative as they come. Regarding social issues, I'd be an immediate outcast of the GOP due to my heavy leanings towards the liberal end of the issues.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

When have I stated that? Link?

I'll say it before and I'll say it again. Anybody who wants to box me into a conservative mold is making a generalization that simply doesn't hold water. Regarding economics, I'm as conservative as they come. Regarding social issues, I'd be an immediate outcast of the GOP due to my heavy leanings towards the liberal end of the issues.

Listen I like you a lot, you are one of my favorite posters to read. Your posts often jibe with mine in this thread and I love your Mizzou posts, espeically when the rest of the board gets super pissed off. But you are a Republican talking points machine (some of which are very true and some of which just keep the one-party system going) and the fact that you can't see this doesn't make it untrue.

Your description of yourself sounds very Libertarian. Why argue the Republican talking points all the time?

[panerd]

As far as the link goes I really don't want to dig through this thread but I am sure someone will. If you really don't see this about yourself I will do some digging later.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

What? You like seeing the exact same 5 guys posting their spin over and over and over against 1 guy with his dubious spin?

I do. Maybe that's why I like reality TV so much.

"This is the true story of 6 strangers forced to post on a chat board....

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

...and this is the problem, or one of them as I see it. Very few people are debating individual topics even when theyre the one at hand. Instead people are talking about the topic at hand but are really hiding their feelings 'on the whole' behind the topic at hand label. So instead of talking about the pros and cons of reforming health care were talking about that as a guise for our fear of bigger government, or socialism intruding. We cant talk about the pros and cons of individual bills or ideas because it'ssimply the tallest nail of what is the entirety of our ideology. To argue otherwise is bunk IMO.

That is why I stay out of the health care reform thread. This thread is about the Obama presidency and I feel like my Libertarian viewpoints at least resonate with some people. I think a few pages back I had a couple of people say that my message actually made them rethink their phiolosophy.

I don't care if you guys want to argue talking points all day, I just wish you would step back and realize this is what the one party system wants you to do. Keep arguing talking points while the two sides (one party) retain control of not only the government but more speicifically you.

[panerd]

I would second the suggestion made a few pages back to read the book "Are you... Liberal? Conservative? or Confused?" by Richard Maybury. Real simple read but a real eye opener.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by panerd

Your description of yourself sounds very Libertarian. Why argue the Republican talking points all the time?

It mostly has to do with the nature of this thread discussion. The discussion has to do with economics, whether it's debt, taxes, or even health care so I'm almost exclusively falling on the conservative side in this thread. We rarely discuss abortion, stem cell research, legalizing drugs, etc. If we talked about those things in this thread instead of money issues, my nickname would likely be 'Captain Liberal'.

I don't have a problem with people noting that I'm very conservative when it comes to economic issues. I do have a problem with being lumped into the GOP just because of those stances. I'm not registered with either party for a reason. Both of them only fit half of my stances.

[Flasch186]

No. For you, all of the issues fall into the Economics debate while for some of us the economics of something are simply one facet of the discussion. For example, I view Health Care reform as having moral implications as well as economical and when I say economical I mean it'll save us money and lower our debt load in the long run. When I was for the war in Iraq it was for Moral reasons (being Jewish it is something that differs from many other people but Im highly interventionist when it comes to Genocide) not for the economics of it. etc. etc. etc. You steer issues where you want to steer them so that it makes sense for your stance. When the CBO said the first Health care bills (ish) it would raise the deficit you and the GOP touted that, when the CBO came out and stated that the new bill (ish) would lower it, the GOP and yourself argued that the CBO estimates are wrong/watered down/untrue etc. And then of course you simply move on to the topic/talking point du jour instead of admitting what may have been on a previous page.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

How about doing something simple instead, like maybe balance the budget and not increase the deficit (and interest payments)?

took a break after i got a lil heated at panerd so didn't see this last night.

FWIW I'm for a balanced budget amendment to the constitution

[Buccaneer]

Another editorial

Survey shows pro-isolationist shift

gazette.com
December 05, 2009 4:00 PM

Shortly after boarding a commercial aircraft, passengers are told what they should do if the cabin loses pressure at high altitude. It’s important information, because people lose consciousness within moments when oxygen becomes scarce. In the pre-flight lecture, flight attendants tell parents something that sounds counterintuitive and selfish. They tell them to secure their own masks first, before worrying about the kids they are with. It’s sounds cruel. That’s because normal, rational human beings instinctively want to help others who are less self-reliant.

The airline advice is sound. If the parents don’t don their own masks first, they are likely to lose consciousness before saving their kids. That means nobody survives, including the children.

For decades, the United States has served as a veritable guardian to less fortunate countries around the globe. Because of the right to prosper, this country has produced extraordinary amounts of wealth. And largely because of this country’s Judeo-Christian values, this wealth has been shared. Our country’s wealth, combined with the charitable attitudes of a majority of Americans, has comprised the best hope for those in less free environments. We have been the hope and salvation for victims of ruthless dictators with evil armies that chop and maim with machetes, trying to oppress religious beliefs or resolve tribal feuds. The United States has been like the international 911 rescue response for countries devastated by tsunamis, floods, famines and plagues. From Cambodia, to Somalia, to Rwanda, to Haiti, to Iraq, the United States has used force and other vast resources to replace barbarism with civility.

Today, in Barack Obama, we have a man who some consider the most internationally-minded president in United States history. He has traveled the globe explaining how the U.S. should be a better partner with other nations. Last week he committed 30,000 more troops in an effort to stabilize Afghanistan. He also promises to commit the United States in ways he says might change the climate.

Yet Americans are feeling like passengers on a troubled flight, ready to save themselves before they help others. As the president promises more to the world, his constituents feel they have less than ever to give. A survey by the Pew Research Center, released Thursday, found that for the first time in 40 years the number of Americans with so-called “isolationist” sentiments outnumber those who have more charitable international concerns. A full 44 percent of those surveyed agree the U.S. “should go our own way in international matters, not worrying about whether other countries agree with us or not.”

Though the United States should never stop concerning itself with reasonable efforts to address suffering in other parts of the world, Americans are rightly beginning to understand their own dilemma. We have been losing young men and women, while hemorrhaging money, in two foreign wars for most of the past decade. There’s no end in sight for these wars, and it not clear how either benefits the United States. Meanwhile, growing numbers of Americans find themselves living in tents down along the creek, with unemployment topping 10 percent. All this, as Americans watch a president and Congress spend money as if we were doing well.

To the average American, it feels like an flight in peril at 30,000 feet. We have a long way to fall, but we seem to be in jeopardy of losing control. We care about others, as we always have. We care because we’re productive, rational humans. We also know we have nothing to offer the less fortunate if we are not safe, secure, strong and affluent.

President Obama and the Congress should think about this survey, and monitor this growing sentiment. Americans don’t want to be in a state of perpetual war. They don’t want to be the world’s police force. They don’t want to impose so-called “democracy” on tribal cultures that neither desire our way of life nor intend to maintain it.

Citizens of the United States love the people of the world, as they’ve shown throughout this country’s short history. But they love their own country most. It’s time for those who steer public policy to listen to Americans and place the wants and need of the United States above all else. If they don’t, this country will have no life support to offer.

[JPhillips]

I agree with a lot of that, but I'm not sure their interpretation of "go our own way" is correct. I'd bet some percentage of those respondents think we should be more engaged internationally, but in a more unilateral manner.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Another editorial

snip

A survey by the Pew Research Center, released Thursday, found that for the first time in 40 years the number of Americans with so-called “isolationist” sentiments outnumber those who have more charitable international concerns. A full 44 percent of those surveyed agree the U.S. “should go our own way in international matters, not worrying about whether other countries agree with us or not.”

Without going to hunt this particular Pew poll, I almost have to assume that this alleged pro-isolationist trend is based on a lot more than the "go our own way" citation. Looks like just a shitty choice of items to highlight if that's the point the writer was trying to make since I'm pretty established in the "fuck what they think" category but that would not be an indication that I'm an isolationist in any way.

[Buccaneer]

I think unilateralism works only if it furthers America's interests. Sometimes maintaining the status-quo is best, sometimes going along with others is best for us and sometimes going against the many that are jealous, envious, hating of us is best.

By the way, the editorial is from our local libertarian-centric editorial philosophy, owned by Freedom Communications.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I agree with a lot of that, but I'm not sure their interpretation of "go our own way" is correct. I'd bet some percentage of those respondents think we should be more engaged internationally, but in a more unilateral manner.

I gotta third this (after JPhillips and JIMGA)- I think they just misread the survey. I read that solution more as people saying "eff the international community" rather than isolationism.

SI

[JPhillips]

Interesting poll results from Rasmussen. A theoretical Tea Party fairs better than the GOP in a generic ballot. From Talking Points Memo:

The question was phrased as follows: "Okay, suppose the Tea Party Movement organized itself as a political party. When thinking about the next election for Congress, would you vote for the Republican candidate from your district, the Democratic candidate from your district, or the Tea Party candidate from your district?"

The results: Democratic 36%, Tea Party 23%, Republican 18%.

[sterlingice]

That seems to me more like a "devil you know" sort of question. Yeah, a lot of Conservatives aren't happy with the GOP. Turns out when you start putting candidate names to that face, tho, I bet the picture is a lot different. You know who the majority of GOP (and Dem) figures are in your area and we're a lot better about being dissatisfied with our politicians than being satisfied. But when you actually fill those shoes with, say, Doug Hoffman- you end up with a carpetbagger (sic) who doesn't know the district and hands the district over to the Democrats.

SI

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by panerd

Isn't that the truth?

Fill in JPhillips, Flasch, DaddyTorgo, flere "I am conservative on a lot of issues" = I have made 500 posts in this thread, 498 of them are liberal.

I think you're confusing me with someone else. I'm pretty sure I've never said "I'm conservative on a lot of issues".

I like to think I've been pretty clear about where I stand on issues and have prefaced a number of posts by reminding people that I am biased a particular way (which way should be obvious). I'm almost positive I have never claimed to be nonpartisan or something like that.

Having said that, it's true i'll criticize Democrats on occasion and I do have a tendency to agree with the older version of the GOP on a number of economic points (though not all). However, if the national mood were to move 15 percentage points to the left tomorrow you wouldn't see me bemoaning the loss of bipartisanship.

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

What? You like seeing the exact same 5 guys posting their spin over and over and over against 1 guy with his dubious spin?

I'm trying to quit, but honestly it's a bit like crack....

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

That seems to me more like a "devil you know" sort of question. Yeah, a lot of Conservatives aren't happy with the GOP. Turns out when you start putting candidate names to that face, tho, I bet the picture is a lot different. You know who the majority of GOP (and Dem) figures are in your area and we're a lot better about being dissatisfied with our politicians than being satisfied. But when you actually fill those shoes with, say, Doug Hoffman- you end up with a carpetbagger (sic) who doesn't know the district and hands the district over to the Democrats.

SI

I think you're right, but if there's enough money behind it, now does seem like a good time to start a third party. I wonder if what would happen if a money man got Palin to lead the charge?

On another note, I think it also gives some evidence to the notion that some part of the rise in independents are actually to the right of the GOP as opposed to all in the middle.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Good discussion about the reasons why the foreclosure program has failed. It appears the Obama administration oversight is the main reason for the failure. Thousands were incorrectly rejected by the program.

Anatomy Of A Failed Foreclosure Program

Health care reform bill faces opposition in Reid's home state of Nevada, putting his re-election bid in question......

OPINION POLL: Fewer back health reform - News - ReviewJournal.com

[Flasch186]

I wouldve expected your first comment about the oversight would have been positive in that the rules were so tight that they were careful not give out or subsidize people too loosely. Instead you left that out. It is true that the plan isnt working out like I had hoped and still hope but you simply left out...for your fiscal vein that you admit is so conservative, that the administration's oversight is too careful, too conservative. strange you didnt opine on that.

According to the poll, 80 percent of Nevadans, including 67 percent of Democrats, believe the reform package's estimated cost of almost $1 trillion over 10 years will require tax increases.

That mind-set exists despite continued assurances by Obama and Reid that no new taxes will be imposed on families making less than $250,000 in order to pass health reform.

Again, if you trust the CBO when the analysis was in your favor, and then dont trust the CBO whent he analysis isnt in your favor, im not sure how you debate it. Its like the Pres. campaign. There is nothing to debate if you take one side's rhetoric as the truth when they say it and the other side's rhetoric as lies when they say it. There is no even platform to debate.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Good discussion about the reasons why the foreclosure program has failed. It appears the Obama administration oversight is the main reason for the failure. Thousands were incorrectly rejected by the program.

Anatomy Of A Failed Foreclosure Program

Health care reform bill faces opposition in Reid's home state of Nevada, putting his re-election bid in question......

OPINION POLL: Fewer back health reform - News - ReviewJournal.com

i'll be the first to admit that the program has been a huge dissapointment and I wish it could have accomplished a ton more, but your reading comprehension is really poor man.

Straight out of the article:

Out of every 100 homeowners who came to JPMorgan Chase for help under the program, just 15 have or will likely receive a permanent payment reduction.

What happened to the other 85? For every 100 trial plans initiated from April through September 2009 under the Home Affordable Modification Program:

• 29 borrowers did not make all required payments under their trial plan;
• 20 borrowers did not submit all documents required for underwriting;
• 31 borrowers submitted all required documents but the documents did not meet HAMP underwriting standards, due to such things as missing signatures or nonstandard formats;
• 4 borrowers were or are likely to be rejected for undisclosed reasons;
• 1 borrower will not or is not likely to get their payment lowered.

So in 49/85 cases it wasn't the government's fault. Being generous, in 36/85 cases it was (to some degree we're unsure of - depending on what was wrong in those 31 cases...missing signatures is clearly not the govt. fault, but i'm sure there were some cases in there that could have been the fault of the HAMP program).

Reading further down in the article, sure it seems that the government's "formula" that they were giving to people was "wrong" according to JP Morgan Chase - and that's a massive fucking blunder. They should have gotten the lenders participating in the program to agree ahead of time on whatever-the-fuck the formula was going to be...line up all their ducks in a row before going out with the program. I'll be the first to admit that.

But clearly if 49/85 cases as I showed above, are failing due to homeowner's being idiots or being unable to make their payments, you can't lay THAT on the government's doorstep. Personal motherfucking responsibility.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

i'll be the first to admit that the program has been a huge dissapointment and I wish it could have accomplished a ton more, but your reading comprehension is really poor man.

Straight out of the article:

Out of every 100 homeowners who came to JPMorgan Chase for help under the program, just 15 have or will likely receive a permanent payment reduction.

What happened to the other 85? For every 100 trial plans initiated from April through September 2009 under the Home Affordable Modification Program:

• 29 borrowers did not make all required payments under their trial plan;
• 20 borrowers did not submit all documents required for underwriting;
• 31 borrowers submitted all required documents but the documents did not meet HAMP underwriting standards, due to such things as missing signatures or nonstandard formats;
• 4 borrowers were or are likely to be rejected for undisclosed reasons;
• 1 borrower will not or is not likely to get their payment lowered.

So in 49/85 cases it wasn't the government's fault. Being generous, in 36/85 cases it was (to some degree we're unsure of - depending on what was wrong in those 31 cases...missing signatures is clearly not the govt. fault, but i'm sure there were some cases in there that could have been the fault of the HAMP program).

Reading further down in the article, sure it seems that the government's "formula" that they were giving to people was "wrong" according to JP Morgan Chase - and that's a massive fucking blunder. They should have gotten the lenders participating in the program to agree ahead of time on whatever-the-fuck the formula was going to be...line up all their ducks in a row before going out with the program. I'll be the first to admit that.

But clearly if 49/85 cases as I showed above, are failing due to homeowner's being idiots or being unable to make their payments, you can't lay THAT on the government's doorstep. Personal motherfucking responsibility.

I merely cited the situations the government could control, which was the formula as you mentioned. I said nothing about the other situations, but feel free to lump it all in if it makes your argument. It certainly had nothing to do with mine. I was pointing out the screw-up in the formula, which you agreed with. I'm not sure why you're disagreeing with me when you agree with my original statement concerning the blunder.