The Obama Administration thread

[pilferk]

Pilferk: "...nobody said the pursuit of money is a crime...well, other than Axl...."

When did Axl say that?

Paradise City.

Not that HE thought it was a crime....just that, in general, it is treated that way....even though everyone's ultimately doing it.

[pilferk]

There is quite a difference between taking out a loan to buy a house that incurs you a monthly payment you can afford and living paycheck to paycheck because you have maxed out credit cards and decide to buy a new car every 5 years.  There are real people out there who got fucked by the system.  I acknowledge that and they truly get my deepest sympathies.  But those people who got fucked are few and far between. 

You have proof of that?  Or is it simply that it "wraps nicely within your political ideology".

I work in an area where I can honestly tell you more get fucked than not fucked.  I don't have categoric, numeric, proof, but I have enough anecdotal proof to convince ME...and that's good enough for me. I see it EVERY day.  That high school education you talk up so nicely?  Coming from some of the inner city schools that will get you a job at flipping burgers or ringing on a cash register.  It won't get you into college, it won't get you scholarships to PAY for college.  It'll get you pretty much the same types of jobs that a high school dropout will get after working 2 years in retail or food service....So what's the value of those 2 years of school again?  Especially in light of your family struggling to make ends meet (and we're not talking because of maxed out credit cards...these people largely don't HAVE credit) and the fact you could contribute a pay check for those 2 years to help support it?  It doesn't sound like you know the meaning of "tough choices", here.  Not realistic ones, anyway.

So please don't patronize me and say that my conception isn't based on, at least, some pretty well  founded life experience.

Can you say the same??

[pilferk]

Should Obama put us back on the Gold Standard?  I say yes.... I guess most will say no.  Do we need to shut down the fed reserve's power?  I say yes, most of you say no. 

If we went back on the gold standard there wouldn't be enough money for his spending programs.

Gems like these would have never been funded by the American Socialist act of 2009:

Our tax dollars at work.......

1.7 million "for a honey bee factory" in Weslaco, TX

$475,000 to build a parking garage in Provo City, Utah

$200,000 for a tattoo removal violence outreach program that could help gang members or others shed visible signs of their past

$300,000 for the Montana World Trade Center

$1 million for mormon cricket control in Utah

$650,000 for beaver management in North Carolina and Mississippi

$2.1 million for the Center for Grape Genetics in New York

3. $332,000 for the design and construction of a school sidewalk in Franklin, Texas

$2 million ?for the promotion of astronomy? in Hawaii

$1.7 million for pig odor research in Iowa

Again, you're taking issue with 1%-ish of the bill.....and almost every one of those projects that LOOK like pork...could also be justified by saying they create or save jobs.

No bill is perfect.  NO BILL.  So nit-picking the 1% of the bill that looks, at least, shady and condemning the whole bill simply smacks of ideological sour grapes.  Point out the issues...yes.  Point out where you disagree...yes.  Talk about how those things should not have been in the bill, make your case...yes.  Then realize that 99% of the bill is in line with, historically, what's "worked" and move on.

[TheWalkinDude]

There is quite a difference between taking out a loan to buy a house that incurs you a monthly payment you can afford and living paycheck to paycheck because you have maxed out credit cards and decide to buy a new car every 5 years.  There are real people out there who got fucked by the system.  I acknowledge that and they truly get my deepest sympathies.  But those people who got fucked are few and far between. 

You have proof of that?  Or is it simply that it "wraps nicely within your political ideology".

I work in an area where I can honestly tell you more get fucked than not fucked.  I don't have categoric, numeric, proof, but I have enough anecdotal proof to convince ME...and that's good enough for me. I see it EVERY day.  That high school education you talk up so nicely?  Coming from some of the inner city schools that will get you a job at flipping burgers or ringing on a cash register.  It won't get you into college, it won't get you scholarships to PAY for college.  It'll get you pretty much the same types of jobs that a high school dropout will get after working 2 years in retail or food service....So what's the value of those 2 years of school again?  Especially in light of your family struggling to make ends meet (and we're not talking because of maxed out credit cards...these people largely don't HAVE credit) and the fact you could contribute a pay check for those 2 years to help support it?  It doesn't sound like you know the meaning of "tough choices", here.  Not realistic ones, anyway.

So please don't patronize me and say that my conception isn't based on, at least, some pretty well  founded life experience.

Can you say the same??

I'm not here to be disputatious, so if you read the tone in my argument as such, I apologize.  My point is that I have seen many, many people make foolish financial decisions.  Buying homes in a volatile market on mediocre income knowing layoffs could be around the corner.  I sat on a plane a couple weeks ago listening to a guy give "advice" on how not to save for retirement and spend it all because "it's not like they're going to let you die in the streets.  Someone will take care of you."  That is the mentality I see rampant in my neck of the woods which is Appalachia.  My point is a step further than you want to go.  I say people shouldn't have a family until they are financially stable.  Children aren't accidents.  The stork just doesn't show up.  And if you do have an unwanted pregnancy, get rid of it.  And don't give me this moral objection crap, because I morally object to giving up amounts of my modest paycheck (though in the fairness of this discussion I must admit that currently my paycheck is tax free outside of SS and Medicaire) so that others can continue down their path of destruction. 

Bottlom line is this, we have a fundamental difference on our view of government.  I don't believe it is the government's responsibility to proivde for the people.  You obviously do at some level at least.  And that is where our differeces lie.

[SLCPUNK]

No bill is perfect.  NO BILL.  So nit-picking the 1% of the bill that looks, at least, shady and condemning the whole bill simply smacks of ideological sour grapes.  Point out the issues...yes.  Point out where you disagree...yes.  Talk about how those things should not have been in the bill, make your case...yes.  Then realize that 99% of the bill is in line with, historically, what's "worked" and move on.

I'm also curious if they oppose our everyday tax money going to infrastructure prior to this??? What do you think tax money is for in the first place?

Since when is using tax money for a public school sidewalk an outrage? Are you serious? Or just stupid?

Pig odor research may sound ridiculous but any neighborhood that has fallen prey to this can tell you (besides the stench) what effects it has on property values. Low values equal lower tax assessment and less revenue for the city. Less revenue may equal what? Less infrastructure (building infrastructure would create jobs) growth perhaps? Less money for police (another job)? Firemen (another job)? Obviously they also make the area less desirable and businesses (ie, jobs) would probably look elsewhere to set up camp. I know Las Vegas has an area that is well known for it's foul smelling hood which are downwind of a pig farm. Home prices there are pretty damn affordable, even during the boom....wonder why.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Ah, yes, the PUNK stupid tag,  that means I've gotten your attention.

Taxes normally do fund public works projects such as sidewalks, but what does that have to do with a bill to stimulate the economy? I can think of better things to do with all that money, maybe give it to us to spend, the people who paid for it in taxes in the first place.

Biggest bullshit line form last weeks State of the Union is when Obama said that the stimulus bill was free of earmarks. Is he fucking kidding?

[Axl4Prez2004]

Pilferk, SLC, Freedom, you guys make sense.

Beckett, I agree with this snippet:  "I say people shouldn't have a family until they are financially stable.  Children aren't accidents.  The stork just doesn't show up.  And if you do have an unwanted pregnancy, get rid of it.  And don't give me this moral objection crap, because I morally object to giving up amounts of my modest paycheck (though in the fairness of this discussion I must admit that currently my paycheck is tax free outside of SS and Medicaire) so that others can continue down their path of destruction."

I agree!  There are things we agree on...but we spend an awful lotta time talking about stuff we don't agree on.  

btw, Pilferk knows his shit.  

Smoking Guns, either you are like me and saw Ron Paul's speech on c-span last night, or, unlike me, you saw snippets of it on foxnews.  

Rush Limbaugh, what a fat fucking son of a bitch (now that's pig odor).  This is just one of the a-holes talking about "Obama's messiah-complex..." and just watching his bullshit speech at cpac, this fucker made a crack where God has a chair with the name Rush Limbaugh on it because "God thinks he's Rush Limbaugh."  If Barack made a comment like that, jack-off religious right a-holes would be up in arms.  

Now I know there are right-leaning folks here...I will keep asking until I get an answer, how much total wealth should the richest 1% own?  50%? 80%?  With our current graduated tax system, what was it, 40%?  How high should it go?  

[SLCPUNK]

Ah, yes, the PUNK stupid tag,  that means I've gotten your attention.

Taxes normally do fund public works projects such as sidewalks, but what does that have to do with a bill to stimulate the economy?

Oh gee golly, I dunno...maybe creating a fucking job and rebuilding infrastructure???

Children aren't accidents.

I'd argue the opposite.

I can think of better things to do with all that money, maybe give it to us to spend, the people who paid for it in taxes in the first place.

Why should you get a handout? Why not create jobs instead? Create jobs and help build the community, what a concept.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

$332,000 can be used more effectively than employing a few people to create a sidewalk.

[*Timothy*]

$332,000 can be used more effectively than employing a few people to create a sidewalk.

Yeah !!! It can pay for some wall street ceo types to have a decent vacation.

[SLCPUNK]

Biggest bullshit line form last weeks State of the Union is when Obama said that the stimulus bill was free of earmarks. Is he fucking kidding?

Are you? All you are doing is repeating what your boy junkie Rush tells you to.

I've pointed out plenty of examples of how this money could go to helping the economy. You have refused to examine these point, but rather repeat the right wing stooge talk. Is that stupid or no?

Again, if the stench of pig shit essentially lowers the value of homes in a surrounding area does it not effect revenue for the city? What about health aspects? What if we could create jobs to find a way to eliminate this, while keeping our water supply clean, making the nearby neighborhoods more desirable and raising the assessed tax value in the process? What if that in turn gave the city more money to hire more policemen, or provide teachers with a much needed raise. Where would that extra money then go? Possibly into restaurants? Movies? Travel?

You seem to cling to the failed Bush vision of handing out 600 dollar checks and telling them to go shopping. Just like everything else he did, it didn't work. According to you guys were weren't in a recession for MONTHS, right? You denied it until it was impossible to do so. Now that we have somebody in the driver's seat that is going to tell America the truth and try to fix it, you come out crying like a bunch of bitches. My advise to you Rush losers is to either STFU or provide some sort of intelligent alternative. I doubt your capable of either.

[SLCPUNK]

$332,000 can be used more effectively than employing a few people to create a sidewalk.

As usual, I'd guess it's a typical GOP over-exaggeration or simplification. How much sidewalk? How big is the project? What other sub-projects fall under this one? Is this a one time project? Will there be any cross walk lights involved (these are expensive)? City codes that need to be addressed? Or are the funds to cover a 10-15 yr infrastructure horizon? On and on....What are the fucking deets?

More stupid manufactured outrage from the idiots who got us here in the first place.

[SLCPUNK]

And since when did you bitches care about spending? After eight years of defending Bush you're all suddenly fiscal conservatives splitting hairs, with your panties in a wad about the 1-3% of a stimulus package? I wouldn't mind a few million in funds to help clean up that stench, because you're fucking full of it!

[Dr. Blutarsky]

And since when did you bitches care about spending? After eight years of defending Bush you're all suddenly fiscal conservatives splitting hairs, with your panties in a wad about the 1-3% of a stimulus package? I wouldn't mind a few million in funds to help clean up that stench, because you're fucking full of it!

So angry....

We just had 2 Presidents within a year tell us we need to spend a shitload of money or the sky will fall. So forgive me if I'm very skeptical. Govt is screwing us over again, just because we have a Prez with a D in front of his name makes it OK for you.

All political discussions are so black & white for you. Dems are good and GOP is bad - it's not that simple.

[Axl4Prez2004]

And since when did you bitches care about spending? After eight years of defending Bush you're all suddenly fiscal conservatives splitting hairs, with your panties in a wad about the 1-3% of a stimulus package? I wouldn't mind a few million in funds to help clean up that stench, because you're fucking full of it!

So angry....

We just had 2 Presidents within a year tell us we need to spend a shitload of money or the sky will fall. So forgive me if I'm very skeptical.

No, I won't forgive you.  An overwhelming majority of leading economists and business leaders have advocated the needed stimuli.  Bush's mistake was not making sure the money went where it was needed, but that's another argument.

Economists for the most part are very boring, analytical people.  They aren't Jim Cramer's from Mad Money.  Oh trust me, I'm sure there was a small % of economists opposes, but then again, it's probably in the same % as "scientists" who believe evolution is trumped by creation myths.


on a separate note, how 'bout this gem from the "ha, well we could have told ya that!":

"So Robert Gates, what's it like working for Barack Obama after serving under George W. Bush?

The defense secretary says Obama is somewhat more analytical and wants to hear from everyone in the room on an issue ? and will call on people who don't speak up.

Gates says Bush was interested in different points of view, but didn't go out of his way to get them."


PS to SLC, I should rephrase my wording...instead of "children aren't accidents," I should have said, "children shouldn't be accidents."  ...because obviously, many times they are...it's just that in my eyes, they shouldn't be.   

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Im not denying the need for a stimulus in these economic times, but the last one failed miserably and this latest one has so much shit stacked in it calling it a true stimulus package is laughable.

[Axl4Prez2004]

Im not denying the need for a stimulus in these economic times, but the last one failed miserably and this latest one has so much shit stacked in it calling it a true stimulus package is laughable.

You do realize the 1st stimulus under Bush failed because it had no conditions, right?

...and, just because you bring up stimulus projects included which amount to about 1% of the entire stimulus package, doesn't make it "stacked with shit."

Blutarsky, what did you think of the Gates' statement?  Predictable, eh?

[Dr. Blutarsky]

No conditions is is one of the main reasons why it failed. But not the only reason.

On the latest one, only 1/3rd could be categorized as stimulus. The bill was over 1000 pages and senators only had a few hours to read it. I don't call that transparency.

I don't doubt Gates is probably pretty accurate with his statement. I'm not really finding fault with Obama on his foregn policy thus far. He's not really following what he said he'd do during the campaign, I'm kinda relieved.  We aren't pulling out as fast as he said he was, instead he's taking McCain's stance by letting the conditions on the ground dictate our actions. . Iraq is pretty much a won war, so it is time to focus on Afghanistan.


It's his domestic policy I take issue with.

[Smoking Guns]

I think Ron Paul and Dave Ramsey locked in a room for 30-45 minutes could come up with an excellent plan to fix our ECONOMY.  I am not saying either would be a good president, but they both understand economics and fiscal responsibility.  I would seek the advice of real experts in this.  Ramsey would be there to keep Paul in check.  Actaully, Ramsey could probably handle this on this own, but anyway somebody needs to get control of the fed and we need to stop creating money out of thin air. 

[pilferk]

I'm not here to be disputatious, so if you read the tone in my argument as such, I apologize.  My point is that I have seen many, many people make foolish financial decisions.  Buying homes in a volatile market on mediocre income knowing layoffs could be around the corner.  I sat on a plane a couple weeks ago listening to a guy give "advice" on how not to save for retirement and spend it all because "it's not like they're going to let you die in the streets.  Someone will take care of you."  That is the mentality I see rampant in my neck of the woods which is Appalachia.  My point is a step further than you want to go.  I say people shouldn't have a family until they are financially stable.  Children aren't accidents.  The stork just doesn't show up.  And if you do have an unwanted pregnancy, get rid of it.  And don't give me this moral objection crap, because I morally object to giving up amounts of my modest paycheck (though in the fairness of this discussion I must admit that currently my paycheck is tax free outside of SS and Medicaire) so that others can continue down their path of destruction. 

Bottlom line is this, we have a fundamental difference on our view of government.  I don't believe it is the government's responsibility to proivde for the people.  You obviously do at some level at least.  And that is where our differeces lie.

I think if I pay the government money, ANY money, they should use it on things that help it's people: I think the issue is that I view things like health care much the same as I do things like roads and other public works projects.  And I think the best entity to fund those projects is government, because...especially having seen how our system works...I don't "trust" the private sector to handle those projects willingly or equally.