The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

So the newest conservative meme that is flooding Facebook, in virtually word for word posts from people presenting it as original thought...

{shrug} I've seen it a few times but haven't noticed anyone trying to put it over as a particularly original thought.

[JPhillips]

Part of the problem is who would you give the money to? The big reputable charities aren't working in the Gulf and likely won't because the issue isn't food/water/shelter.

That being said, there is a shocking lack of planning at all levels for transitioning many of these people out of the fishing industry. The beaches will come back, likely next year, but the fishing is fucked for years to come.

[larrymcg421]

I just find the whole idea bizarre that we're going to demean someone who helped out during a tragedy that killed 230,000 people just because those people happened to not live in the United States.

And the person that started the meme must have missed those telethons/fundraisers during 9/11 and Katrina.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I just find the whole idea bizarre that we're going to demean someone who helped out during a tragedy that killed 230,000 people just because those people happened to not live in the United States.

And the person that started the meme must have missed those telethons/fundraisers during 9/11 and Katrina.

Where was the one for Tennessee?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by rowech

Where was the one for Tennessee?

Don't ask me. I wouldn't oppose telethons/fundraisers for any tragedy, but I'm certainly not going to criticize (and imply they are unpatriotic) those who gave their time for a tragedy where 230,000 people died, just because they don't hold a telethon for every single tragedy that happens in the United States.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

And the person that started the meme must have missed those telethons/fundraisers during 9/11 and Katrina.

Umm, no, they just aren't relevant to the point they're making.

Read it again, it specifically mentions sit on their... behinds for THIS disaster.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I'm certainly not going to criticize (and imply they are unpatriotic) those who gave their time for a tragedy where 230,000 people died, just because they don't hold a telethon for every single tragedy that happens in the United States.

{shrug again} You aren't. A number of people are. And while I'm not particularly inclined to do so personally, I definitely understand those who are.

[DaddyTorgo]

I'm sure that even with the destruction of the fishing industry for years to come there's billions of people in the world who would trade places with those folks in a heartbeat.

They're still comparatively well off.

I feel as bad for them as anyone, but they're nowhere near as bad off as the folks in Hati were in the aftermath of the earthquake.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Umm, no, they just aren't relevant to the point they're making.

Read it again, it specifically mentions sit on their... behinds for THIS disaster.

Disagree with you here, it is completely relevant. They're clearly implying that celebrities/musicians/etc. care more about tragedies in "other countries" like Haiti than they do about tragedies in the USA. As I've shown, that is clearly not the case as they have stepped up in the past during local tragedies.

But my main point is that I just find entire idea of criticizing people for their charitable work morally repugnant, especially when it focuses on a charity that helped a country that lost 230,000 lives. People can't do everything, and getting self-righteous because they help out in other countries, but not always in the US is just assinine.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

They're clearly implying that celebrities/musicians/etc. care more about tragedies in "other countries" like Haiti than they do about tragedies in the USA. As I've shown, that is clearly not the case as they have stepped up in the past during local tragedies.

No, they're clearly implying (hell, I'd be comfy saying it outright) that they cared more about tragedies in other countries than they do about this particular tragedy. Or as someone pointed out just up the thread, the flooding in Tennessee, although at least some of those with local connections did step up to the plate on that one. And in fairness, at least a few have done so in the Gulf Coast as well.

But my main point is that I just find entire idea of criticizing people for their charitable work morally repugnant, especially when it focuses on a charity that helped a country that lost 230,000 lives. People can't do everything, and getting self-righteous because they help out in other countries, but not always in the US is just assinine.

And there's a number of people who find it at least equally morally repugnant that there's such a discrepancy between the number of people so inspired to devote their time, energy, and money elsewhere and but far less interested in doing anything to help in their own country this time around.

That disgust is pretty much the point to the whole posting you're talking about.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

No, they're clearly implying (hell, I'd be comfy saying it outright) that they cared more about tragedies in other countries than they do about this particular tragedy. Or as someone pointed out just up the thread, the flooding in Tennessee, although at least some of those with local connections did step up to the plate on that one. And in fairness, at least a few have done so in the Gulf Coast as well.



And there's a number of people who find it at least equally morally repugnant that there's such a discrepancy between the number of people so inspired to devote their time, energy, and money elsewhere and but far less interested in doing anything to help in their own country this time around.

That disgust is pretty much the point to the whole posting you're talking about.

Or maybe the celebrities are just intelligent enough to realize that these people are comparatively well off and they can't hold telethons for everything otherwise they'll start to lose effectiveness.

There's also the problem of: "what exactly would you do with the money raised?" There's no need for emergency supplies or even building materials or healthcare, like there is after a disaster. There's a need for job training and assisting these people in finding jobs elsewhere essentially. Or transitioning the local economies in some way that I can't even think of and retraining all the locals. Those aren't really things that any charity organization is equipped for.

Are the celebrities supposed to hold a telethon to raise money and just write checks to the individual business owners down there or something?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

good lord this state is just a complete joke when it comes to politics.

I love South Carolina

SI

[JPhillips]

Greene sure does com across as an impressive candidate.

[RainMaker]

Hats off to South Carolina. That's something I would have expected out of Florida. It almost seems like a guy who didn't want to win and just put his name in for fun. Now that he's won, he's shit up a creek.

The lady who won the Senate primary in Nevada is also pretty crazy. She's into conspiracy theories about fluoride and abortions causing cancer. Palin looks like Margaret Thatcher compared to her.

I can't tell if we just have more information available about our candidates and these idiots have always been running, or if people with IQs over 70 are sitting these elections out.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I can't tell if we just have more information available about our candidates and these idiots have always been running, or if people with IQs over 70 are sitting these elections out.

Just generally speaking, I'd figure it's some of both. I mean, the guy who lost the primary in SC just got saved from an serious November beat down. Why not let someone else take the punishment & avoid the taint of a crushing loss just in case you have some better chance down the road someday?

[Edward64]

I thought below article was pretty interesting. It will be interesting to see how all of this evolves and what Obama's decision will be.

Instinctively, I'm for bombing Iran but then the fallout would be significant. Although muslim governments would probably secretly approve, this would set back relations and progress with the populace.

All in all, it would seem easier to aggressively support the opposition and let the country collapse from within.

Saudis clear Israel to bomb Iran? - Iran- msnbc.com

LONDON - Saudi Arabia will allow Israel to use a narrow corridor of its airspace in the north of the country to shorten the distance for a bombing run on Iran's nuclear facilities, the London Times reported on Saturday.

Quoting unnamed U.S. defense sources, the newspaper said Riyadh conducted tests to be sure its own jets would not be scrambled and missile defenses not be activated so Israeli bombers could pass by without problems.

The path would shorten Israel's bomb run, The Times said.
:
Sources in Saudi Arabia said it is common knowledge within kingdom defense circles that an arrangement is in place if Israel decides to launch the raid, the Times said. Despite the tension between the two governments, they share a mutual loathing of the regime in Tehran and a common fear of Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
:
Passing over Iraq would require Washington's consent. The Obama administration has refused to give its approval as it pursues a diplomatic solution to curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the Times said.

[JPhillips]

Sometimes it's fun to play revolutionary!

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I'm guessing history is not his strong suit.

Whiskey Rebellion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[miked]

Wait, the IRS is forcing me to buy insurance?

[DaddyTorgo]

Umm - pretty sure you have representation Rick. In fact, you're running to be one of those representatives and pass those taxes.

Fucking idiot.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by miked

Wait, the IRS is forcing me to buy insurance?

It's somewhat of a half-truth. I'm guessing he's referring to the fact that the IRS is the government branch that will enforce penalties if you do not get insurance.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It's somewhat of a half-truth. I'm guessing he's referring to the fact that the IRS is the government branch that will enforce penalties if you do not get insurance.

.

Oh FFS.

[panerd]

Obviously MSNBC's smear campaign of everything anti-big government continues but can somebody explain how this is newsworthy and why it isn't a good thing for Rand Paul?

National group: Paul isn't a board-certified doc - Decision 2010- msnbc.com

For those that plan on only skimming and then commenting about how he is crazy here is the jist... Paul doesn't like the tenure system that Kentucky's eye doctor ceritifying board uses. (You don't have to be re-evalauted if you were an eye doctor before 1991) So he created another one that requires everyone to be re-evaluated. He was once a member of their organization, and he quit due to the re-cerification issue, so he did meet their standards when he was a member. This sounds like someone that would oppose teacher tenure (I am sure most would agree this would be a postive thing) or to take it to an extreme someone who wants those over 55 to have to renew their driver's licenses periodically. How is this bad at all? (Obviously most will read the headline and think that Paul cheated at becoming a doctor which is what they are hoping for)

(And this isn't any spin or Paul clarifying that I am doing, everything I just said is in the body of the ridiculously titled article)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Not a single post discussing the speech last night? Did no one care to even watch it or were you just disappointed with it as the concensus seems to be?

Obama's Oil Speech Panned: Short On Details, Broader Climate Plan

[sterlingice]

It was a boring, pretty much pointless speech. I can see the math behind making the speech as there's a lot of anger about it and his speaking could have helped blunt that. But he needed to do three things, in my mind

1) Talk about how it's going to get fixed
2) Talk about the pound of flesh he's getting from BP
3) Hammer home the need for climate change legislation now

He did some of 2 but that's about it. If you're not going to do those three things, why even have the speech at all?

SI

[Edward64]

It seemed a little grandstanding to me (but I am sure there is more to the story than what I know right now).

Todays meeting with BP top brass should be more interesting.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by panerd

Obviously MSNBC's smear campaign of everything anti-big government continues but can somebody explain how this is newsworthy and why it isn't a good thing for Rand Paul?

National group: Paul isn't a board-certified doc - Decision 2010- msnbc.com

For those that plan on only skimming and then commenting about how he is crazy here is the jist... Paul doesn't like the tenure system that Kentucky's eye doctor ceritifying board uses. (You don't have to be re-evalauted if you were an eye doctor before 1991) So he created another one that requires everyone to be re-evaluated. He was once a member of their organization, and he quit due to the re-cerification issue, so he did meet their standards when he was a member. This sounds like someone that would oppose teacher tenure (I am sure most would agree this would be a postive thing) or to take it to an extreme someone who wants those over 55 to have to renew their driver's licenses periodically. How is this bad at all? (Obviously most will read the headline and think that Paul cheated at becoming a doctor which is what they are hoping for)

(And this isn't any spin or Paul clarifying that I am doing, everything I just said is in the body of the ridiculously titled article)

I skimmed the article and don't see how it qualifies as a smear. It had most of the facts that you mentioned, along with quotes from both campaigns (which is obviously why it is newsworthy -- if Paul was not running for Congress, no one would care). There are plenty of biased programs and editorials on MSNBC, but this seems like a straight new story to me.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I don't know. I skimmed the article and he sounds crazy.

[Swaggs]

I don't know -- I can understand the appeal of a Libertarian candidate in theory (although I don't think the entire platform is in anyway realistic in practice), so I'm not going to slam the guy's opinions.

I essentially read it as he didn't like the club, so he formed his own club and keep this quote from the article in mind:

Neither group has anything to do with medical licensure, which is handled by state boards.

Most of these organizations are just resume-builders for physicians and a lot of them are just moneymakers (although the article does point out that Paul is not salaried for his position as president of his org).

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I don't know -- I can understand the appeal of a Libertarian candidate in theory (although I don't think the entire platform is in anyway realistic in practice), so I'm not going to slam the guy's opinions.

I essentially read it as he didn't like the club, so he formed his own club and keep this quote from the article in mind:



Most of these organizations are just resume-builders for physicians and a lot of them are just moneymakers (although the article does point out that Paul is not salaried for his position as president of his org).

Pretty much how I read it. It would be like a teacher running for Congress that didn't join the NEA because it is basically in bed with the states and their outragous tenure system. You don't have to be in the NEA (or AFT if you live in a different area) to be a quality teacher but you had better believe they will slam you for it. But if you don't think the title of the article is intentionally misleading...

"Paul has philosophical differnce with Kentucky board certifying rules"
vs
"Paul isn't a board certified doc"'

On a side note Rand Paul is actually a very pragmatic libertarian (unlike his dad) so I would like to hear which of his ideas are not realistic in practice. People may not agree with some of them but that doesn't make them unrealisitic. It used to be real easy to say "legal drugs" or "gold standard" and ellict laughter but now variations of both of these ideas seem to be legit alternatives to the nonsense that is going on in DC everyday.

[AENeuman]

Last night my wife encountered a strange debate on her high school reunion facebook page, here is my favorite post:

Obama will be using this tragedy as an opportunity to show an increase in jobs to make himself look better. It will only create more... See More beaurocracy and the "new jobs" will be given to his cronies paid for by the taxpayers.
As for getting big business out of government, how bout the fact that we bailed out all those banks with taxpayer dollars and now thanks to Obama, General Motors is owned by the government. How is that getting big business out of government?
As for him being black, that's pretty cool but the radical muslim lurking not too far beneath the skin is down right scary. The man will not even salute our flag. He is a disgrace to America. I could go on and on as you well know but I'd rather play farmville.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

Pretty much how I read it. It would be like a teacher running for Congress that didn't join the NEA because it is basically in bed with the states and their outragous tenure system. You don't have to be in the NEA (or AFT if you live in a different area) to be a quality teacher but you had better believe they will slam you for it. But if you don't think the title of the article is intentionally misleading...

"Paul has philosophical differnce with Kentucky board certifying rules"
vs
"Paul isn't a board certified doc"'

On a side note Rand Paul is actually a very pragmatic libertarian (unlike his dad) so I would like to hear which of his ideas are not realistic in practice. People may not agree with some of them but that doesn't make them unrealisitic. It used to be real easy to say "legal drugs" or "gold standard" and ellict laughter but now variations of both of these ideas seem to be legit alternatives to the nonsense that is going on in DC everyday.

since when is any variation of the gold standard a legit alternative?

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

As for him being black, that's pretty cool but the radical muslim lurking not too far beneath the skin is down right scary. The man will not even salute our flag. He is a disgrace to America. I could go on and on as you well know but I'd rather play farmville.

Sounds like someone parroting one of those chain emails people like to send out when they don't like the current president.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by panerd

On a side note Rand Paul is actually a very pragmatic libertarian (unlike his dad) so I would like to hear which of his ideas are not realistic in practice. People may not agree with some of them but that doesn't make them unrealisitic. It used to be real easy to say "legal drugs" or "gold standard" and ellict laughter but now variations of both of these ideas seem to be legit alternatives to the nonsense that is going on in DC everyday.

I'm just going off of Wikipedia, but I'll take a couple of easy swings:
Rand Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some of his stuff is very rational and consistent. But some of it still falls into the pie-in-the-sky category of more unrealistic than even the most crazy optimistic of liberals.

"He opposes legislation limiting the amount of money individuals, corporations, and organizations can give to candidates. Additionally, Paul has proposed "mandating a clause in all federal contracts over $1 million that requires the recipient to pledge not to lobby government or contribute to campaigns during the terms of the contract."
*Totally unrealistic position. Yeah, you can give as much as you want but you have to sign a pledge to not lobby that isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

"Paul opposes the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the Federal Reserve's control of the nations money supply and interest rates. He wants to allow the free market to regulate interest rates, and supports congresses constitutional role of controlling the money supply...Paul opposes inflation and supports "restoring the value of the dollar that has devalued by approximately 95% since the Federal Reserve's inception in 1913"."
*Which is totally untenable. It's great to just rail on the Fed. There are huge issues here. But I haven't seen any realistic plan of his that would actually, you know, unwind the fed that wouldn't just completely devalue the dollar. Yes, an average of 3% inflation is what's killing the dollar

But, really, you have a plethora of answers where he says "the free market should decide" (energy, education, regulation, etc) on issues that the most profitable will not be what is in the utilitarian common good, which is where the government should be doing things. But now we're getting into deeper philosophical differences of "what is the role of the federal government"- I just think that hiding behind the free market is disingenuous and ignores the reality of what will actually happen.

Oh, and his abortion views run counter to the rest of his thoughts as he's cool with intruding there and same sex marriage but hides behind "it's the state's right to choose", completely ignoring how most states will react to that. Again, it's convenient to hide behind theory when you're smart enough to know how practicality will run its course.

Then again, that was perfectly illustrated when he was easily (and, arguably, unfairly) baited and then summarily crushed and had to reverse course on the Civil Rights Act question. The free market and the states don't act in the best interest of the people a lot of times and that's where it can be argued that government needs to step in, either to protect from the tyranny of the majority or to support programs that are in the public good, as a whole, but not profitable.

SI

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

since when is any variation of the gold standard a legit alternative?

For the Democrats: You want health care but don't like the wars. Take the money from the war part of the budget and spend it on health care.

For the Republicans: Vice versa.

Instead we just print money at will. How about I call it not spending more money than you have instead of the confusing concept of tying your money to something and not just printing trillions on a printing press?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I'm just going off of Wikipedia, but I'll take a couple of easy swings:
Rand Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



But, really, you have a plethora of answers where he says "the free market should decide" (energy, education, regulation, etc) on issues that the most profitable will not be what is in the utilitarian common good, which is where the government should be doing things. But now we're getting into deeper philosophical differences of "what is the role of the federal government"- I just think that hiding behind the free market is disingenuous and ignores the reality of what will actually happen.



SI

I will just reply to this point because I really don't care to debate the Austrian school of economics vs the Keynesian system that we use. But it is pretty telling that the Austrians have answers for why these bubbles keep happening that actually have some logic and proof and not just "big business bad". But to your point on not letting free markets decide education, regulation, energy... You are right the American public school sytem is top notch, those millions of pages of government regulations really work, those endless wars are really helping with our energy problem... More government is the answer!

[panerd]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I'm just going off of Wikipedia, but I'll take a couple of easy swings:
Rand Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some of his stuff is very rational and consistent. But some of it still falls into the pie-in-the-sky category of more unrealistic than even the most crazy optimistic of liberals.

"He opposes legislation limiting the amount of money individuals, corporations, and organizations can give to candidates. Additionally, Paul has proposed "mandating a clause in all federal contracts over $1 million that requires the recipient to pledge not to lobby government or contribute to campaigns during the terms of the contract."
*Totally unrealistic position. Yeah, you can give as much as you want but you have to sign a pledge to not lobby that isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

"Paul opposes the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the Federal Reserve's control of the nations money supply and interest rates. He wants to allow the free market to regulate interest rates, and supports congresses constitutional role of controlling the money supply...Paul opposes inflation and supports "restoring the value of the dollar that has devalued by approximately 95% since the Federal Reserve's inception in 1913"."
*Which is totally untenable. It's great to just rail on the Fed. There are huge issues here. But I haven't seen any realistic plan of his that would actually, you know, unwind the fed that wouldn't just completely devalue the dollar. Yes, an average of 3% inflation is what's killing the dollar


SI

May I suggest a simple primer to Austrian Economic Theory, "What ever happened to Penny Candy?" by Rick Maybury? Of course there is deeper reading like Rothbard, Hayek, von Mises, etc but this does a pretty good job of explaining the problems with what we are doing and with a central bank like the federal reserve.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by panerd

I will just reply to this point because I really don't care to debate the Austrian school of economics vs the Keynesian system that we use. But it is pretty telling that the Austrians have answers for why these bubbles keep happening that actually have some logic and proof and not just "big business bad". But to your point on not letting free markets decide education, regulation, energy... You are right the American public school sytem is top notch, those millions of pages of government regulations really work, those endless wars are really helping with our energy problem... More government is the answer!

The American public school system- I love that example.

Was the public school system 10 years ago that much different than now? If you think 10 years has made the huge difference, then I will just respectfully disagree with you as I think the problems are much older than that. The reason I say 10 years is because NCLB really did increase the reach of the Federal Government into education substantially and not for the better. I think it will have long term bad effects not because mandates are bad but because unfunded and underfunded ones are.

But back to the example, of all the "federal" agencies, that's the one where the most control is at the local level. Who determines the funding? Again, pre-NCLB, states determined some funding and policy but a lot more was handled at a local level. What property taxes to charge, what to teach- these were done at a municipal level.

It *is* that system that most plays to that libertarian ideal of control being pushed down to the most local level. And you know what- it also sucks.

But what's the alternative? Completely private schools? Some Rand-ian dystopia where the poor are all poor by their own hand and continue to fail?

Lots of other countries seem to be brutally destroying us with their public schools. So maybe it's not that they're public that's the issue.

SI

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by panerd

Pretty much how I read it. It would be like a teacher running for Congress that didn't join the NEA because it is basically in bed with the states and their outragous tenure system. You don't have to be in the NEA (or AFT if you live in a different area) to be a quality teacher but you had better believe they will slam you for it. But if you don't think the title of the article is intentionally misleading...

"Paul has philosophical differnce with Kentucky board certifying rules"
vs
"Paul isn't a board certified doc"'

The headline is a straight fact, though. He is not a board certified doctor. If you read the content, you can find out why. I don't even particularly think the article speaks ill of him -- it explains why he disagreed with the requirements for gaining that particular board certification. It doesn't discredit that he went to medical school, completed his residency, or that he is a practicing physician. It doesn't try to discredit his qualifications.


Your analogy makes some sense, but is it much different than:

"Clemens and Bonds Broke Rules"
vs
"Clemens and Bonds Disagree With MLB's Banned Substance Requirements"

Originally Posted by panerd

On a side note Rand Paul is actually a very pragmatic libertarian (unlike his dad) so I would like to hear which of his ideas are not realistic in practice. People may not agree with some of them but that doesn't make them unrealisitic. It used to be real easy to say "legal drugs" or "gold standard" and ellict laughter but now variations of both of these ideas seem to be legit alternatives to the nonsense that is going on in DC everyday.

I don't know enough about him or have time to read up on him for his intricacies to pursue this (nor did I claim to). I said that I can understand the appeal of the candidate, but don't think the entire Libertarian platform is practical. It is just another set of pie-in-the-sky campaign promises that are unattainable, in my eyes. They just have not had the opportunity to break their promises.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

The American public school system- I love that example.

Was the public school system 10 years ago that much different than now? If you think 10 years has made the huge difference, then I will just respectfully disagree with you as I think the problems are much older than that. The reason I say 10 years is because NCLB really did increase the reach of the Federal Government into education substantially and not for the better. I think it will have long term bad effects not because mandates are bad but because unfunded and underfunded ones are.

But back to the example, of all the "federal" agencies, that's the one where the most control is at the local level. Who determines the funding? Again, pre-NCLB, states determined some funding and policy but a lot more was handled at a local level. What property taxes to charge, what to teach- these were done at a municipal level.

It *is* that system that most plays to that libertarian ideal of control being pushed down to the most local level. And you know what- it also sucks.

But what's the alternative? Completely private schools? Some Rand-ian dystopia where the poor are all poor by their own hand and continue to fail?

Lots of other countries seem to be brutally destroying us with their public schools. So maybe it's not that they're public that's the issue.

SI

You seem to be proving my point. What did NCLB accomplish? Nothing. So why waste federal money trying to fix problems that can't be fixed with a giant brush? Some things suck. But the federal government just adds another layer of bureaucracy on top of it. Are they really doing anything to help poorer failing schools with all of the money (our tax money) they are throwing at the problem?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

You seem to be proving my point. What did NCLB accomplish?

I disagree wholeheartedly. While I'll agree that, in practice, it accomplished less than desired & in theory may have actually attempted the impossible, it accomplished something extremely worthwhile.

In at least some states NCLBA put the education cabals on notice that the taxpayers are sick of the lack of accountability for their piss poor performance & aren't willing to continue to throw money down the increasingly dry hole of public education without some measure of performance.

Whether those measures are perfect, whether they're as effective as they could or should be, and any other flaws inherent to the Act pale in comparison to that accomplishment afaic.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

For the Democrats: You want health care but don't like the wars. Take the money from the war part of the budget and spend it on health care.

For the Republicans: Vice versa.

Instead we just print money at will. How about I call it not spending more money than you have instead of the confusing concept of tying your money to something and not just printing trillions on a printing press?

Two totally different things.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

I will just reply to this point because I really don't care to debate the Austrian school of economics vs the Keynesian system that we use. But it is pretty telling that the Austrians have answers for why these bubbles keep happening that actually have some logic and proof and not just "big business bad". But to your point on not letting free markets decide education, regulation, energy... You are right the American public school sytem is top notch, those millions of pages of government regulations really work, those endless wars are really helping with our energy problem... More government is the answer!

The Austrian school of economics is laughed at by serious economists.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by panerd

May I suggest a simple primer to Austrian Economic Theory, "What ever happened to Penny Candy?" by Rick Maybury? Of course there is deeper reading like Rothbard, Hayek, von Mises, etc but this does a pretty good job of explaining the problems with what we are doing and with a central bank like the federal reserve.

At no point did I argue that the Central Bank and Federal Reserve are problem-free. In fact, I'm still up in the air as to whether they create or solve more problems.

You seem to think by what I'm reading as a condescending tone that everyone loves piling up masses of government debt and wishing everyone a free pony. Hell, I would have voted for Ross Perot in 1992 if I were of voting age because I liked his approach to fighting to deficit.

And while those of us on the left get a little annoyed with the cheap-seats smugness of Libertarians, that's just bound to come from being able to throw out crazy "easy" answers that will never happen in the real world. But I think we genuinely think you're all crazy because you don't just want to exercise fiscal prudence. But you want to completely strip the government away including any government services that people feel are a good investment and do add to society just because they are a function of the government.

Speaking specifically to the Federal Reserve point you only tangentially referenced, it's completely naive to say "we're just going to abolish it". I'm not saying you can't unwind it and strip away many of its powers but you talk as if you could do it tomorrow, with no difficulty, and there would be no repercussions like a 3000 point stock market drop, a slew of bank closures, and rampant chaos. That's more pie in the sky than believing government can actually do something effectively.

In that vein, it's really hard for me to take anything seriously with the oil spill going on. You know what- the government regulation didn't work because business was too intertwined in the government. I just don't see the logical answer as "strip down the government further" and I suppose that's where we differ.

SI

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

The Austrian school of economics is laughed at by serious economists.

No shit? The "serious" economists are Keynesian. The Austrian view is the complete opposite. Of course they wouldn't agree with them at all. In other news Republicans laugh at Democrats views' and vice versa. Read a book and make a decision for yourself. It would make sense that Paul Krugman and friends would win Nobel Prizes from a country with a planned economy. Barrack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for continuing two wars and most likely beginning a third one.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

May I suggest a simple primer to Austrian Economic Theory, "What ever happened to Penny Candy?" by Rick Maybury? Of course there is deeper reading like Rothbard, Hayek, von Mises, etc but this does a pretty good job of explaining the problems with what we are doing and with a central bank like the federal reserve.

Is the subtitle for that book, "What ever happened to working for a dollar a day?"

Inflation has raised wages over time as well as prices and there's no good proof that the average person would have a substantially higher real wage if we were still on the gold standard.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

At no point did I argue that the Central Bank and Federal Reserve are problem-free. In fact, I'm still up in the air as to whether they create or solve more problems.

You seem to think by what I'm reading as a condescending tone that everyone loves piling up masses of government debt and wishing everyone a free pony. Hell, I would have voted for Ross Perot in 1992 if I were of voting age because I liked his approach to fighting to deficit.

And while those of us on the left get a little annoyed with the cheap-seats smugness of Libertarians, that's just bound to come from being able to throw out crazy "easy" answers that will never happen in the real world. But I think we genuinely think you're all crazy because you don't just want to exercise fiscal prudence. But you want to completely strip the government away including any government services that people feel are a good investment and do add to society just because they are a function of the government.

Speaking specifically to the Federal Reserve point you only tangentially referenced, it's completely naive to say "we're just going to abolish it". I'm not saying you can't unwind it and strip away many of its powers but you talk as if you could do it tomorrow, with no difficulty, and there would be no repercussions like a 3000 point stock market drop, a slew of bank closures, and rampant chaos. That's more pie in the sky than believing government can actually do something effectively.

In that vein, it's really hard for me to take anything seriously with the oil spill going on. You know what- the government regulation didn't work because business was too intertwined in the government. I just don't see the logical answer as "strip down the government further" and I suppose that's where we differ.

SI

The more I read your posts I really think we differ less than you might think. We are human beings and have lots of failures. The free market doesn't work a lot of the time. But here is the difference... If Ford wants to make cars that nobody wants to buy and then fail that is a problem for Ford and their employees. When the government steps in and improves nothing it adds me to the equation. Both aren't very effective at a lot of things but one is private companies making mistakes on their own dime the other is mistakes made on the taxpayer's.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

No shit? The "serious" economists are Keynesian. The Austrian view is the complete opposite. Of course they wouldn't agree with them at all. In other news Republicans laugh at Democrats views' and vice versa. Read a book and make a decision for yourself. It would make sense that Paul Krugman and friends would win Nobel Prizes from a country with a planned economy. Barrack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for continuing two wars and most likely beginning a third one.

Friedman also thought the Austrian school was incorrect.

and also won a Nobel.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

No shit? The "serious" economists are Keynesian. The Austrian view is the complete opposite. Of course they wouldn't agree with them at all. In other news Republicans laugh at Democrats views' and vice versa. Read a book and make a decision for yourself. It would make sense that Paul Krugman and friends would win Nobel Prizes from a country with a planned economy. Barrack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for continuing two wars and most likely beginning a third one.

I've likely read more books than you, so fuck you very much.

This is where what SI referred to as your "cheap-seat smugness" really shines through. Anybody who doesn't agree with your ideas you immediately label a sheep and an idiot, instead of recognizing that they quite possibly could have intellectually-derived views that differ from your own.

Fuck...even the fucking Republicans aren't as bad as you self-appointed know-it-all Libertarians.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Last night my wife encountered a strange debate on her high school reunion facebook page, here is my favorite post:

Obama will be using this tragedy as an opportunity to show an increase in jobs to make himself look better. It will only create more... See More beaurocracy and the "new jobs" will be given to his cronies paid for by the taxpayers.
As for getting big business out of government, how bout the fact that we bailed out all those banks with taxpayer dollars and now thanks to Obama, General Motors is owned by the government. How is that getting big business out of government?
As for him being black, that's pretty cool but the radical muslim lurking not too far beneath the skin is down right scary. The man will not even salute our flag. He is a disgrace to America. I could go on and on as you well know but I'd rather play farmville.

I've got an old friend that has been posting today that Obama is purposefully stalling cleanup efforts as punishment for Gulf states voting for McCain. It didn't take too long to get to, "Well what do you expect? He's a Muslim and hates America."