Obama General Discussion, vol. 4 - Page 7 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-24-2012, 06:04 PM   #121
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Mrs. Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: pig farming in Bolivia
Posts: 7,325
Local Time: 10:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobvok View Post
Well, maybe if no one makes eye contact or responds to Mrs. Garrison, she'll eventually get tuckered out and wander back to her nearest local newspaper website comment thread to yammer into the abyss.

Or not. But she's basically just spitting out random codewords at this point.
Whats this about?

I can put you on the ignore list too, along with the others who've made hateful and trolling remarks or personal attacks. Or would you rather i just report this post to the moderators?

Also, im not a she.
__________________

Mrs. Garrison is offline  
Old 04-24-2012, 06:23 PM   #122
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Mrs. Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: pig farming in Bolivia
Posts: 7,325
Local Time: 10:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
Never said he wasn't.

What I said was that the problems from 2000 to 2008 are spilling over into 2009 and beyond.
I will stop you right here because this is the Obama economy, not anyone other administrations economy.

Quote:
Any problems that haven't been fixed by the time Obama leaves office will be for the next president to fix. And when they can't fix them, the president after that will have to deal with them.
Whatever happened to HOPE & CHANGE and CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN?

Obama ran on turning things around...he hasn't. This is his economy and his war....his success and his failures. End of story.

Quote:
This happens often in history. Every president inherits some problem of some kind, small or large, from the one before. If they do not fix it, they should be held responsible for not doing so, but at the same time if the problem is large enough, no president that follows that sort of disaster will get it fixed right away. Didn't FDR have to go through years of struggle before his plans to fix the mess that lead to the stock market crash, and the depression that followed, started to work? It happens to everyone.
First off, we're not talking about FDR. This is Obama general discussion. Obama is running for re-election, with his economic record. Not FDR, or Bush, or anyone else.

SO did Obama lie then when he said this?



Quote:
Besides that, while I definitely think Obama can and should do more, at the same time, I get the feeling he at least WANTS to fix this, is trying to fix this. If Romney's in office I'm not going to get that same impression. And again, add in a beyond stubborn, pigheaded opposition, an electorate that pretty much sat back and figured Obama would fix everything overnight instead of, you know, doing their own sacrificing and pitching in to help Obama out, the fact that Obama has, like, fifty thousand things on his plate he needs to fix or that people want him to fix, and yeah, I'm not at all surprised we haven't made a whole hell of a lot of progress.
So Obama has 50,000 things on his plate he needs to fix, please tell me why he's found time to play 94 rounds of golf then? Or appear on every late night talk show? Or take several week long vacations in Hawaii? Did he think this was going to be a 4 year vacation? I realize he was a community organizer and an absent senator....what was he expecting though when he came to Washington?

Quote:
Plus, keep in mind, too, any plans Obama DOES try to implement get shot down by people who think it's a sign of a massive government takeover. He's either not doing his job or he's going to turn this country into an evil socialist empire when he does try to fix things. What do people want Obama to do, exactly, help or butt out? They have to quit bitching and make up their minds on that issue already.
What Mr. Obama needs to do, is help create an environment where business will thrive and grow, and not raise taxes on the job creators to the extent where they throw in the towel. Meanwhile half of the country doesn't even pay income taxes. Not create a society where people can collect unemployment insurance for 99 weeks or whatever that figure is, perfectly healthy people depend on stamps and "Obama bucks" because its readily available and they are too lazy to work. The only people he's really really helped is the welfare folks and the wall street execs who got the big bonuses. Everyone else (those of us who pay taxes, that is) gets to pay for him and Michelle to jet set around the world at our expense. Yep, all this for a damn flag.
__________________

Mrs. Garrison is offline  
Old 04-24-2012, 06:35 PM   #123
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Mrs. Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: pig farming in Bolivia
Posts: 7,325
Local Time: 10:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Earnie Shavers View Post
Sincere apologies for the language, but the question(s) still stand: Why on earth is this the fault of the President (any President - same would go for Bush and that spy plane incident with China), and why on earth should Iran give the drone back?
No problem, all is forgiven

To answer your question though:

Iran making overtures to China on access to US drone technology | Fox News

Quote:
While the Iranians claim they've reverse-engineered the American drone that went down last year inside its borders, Fox News has learned that Tehran is making overtures to the Chinese to potentially give them access to the sensitive drone technology.

The drone's stealth coating, which resists detection by radar, is of particular interest to the Chinese, who also sought access to a stealth U.S. helicopter tail from Pakistan after the Usama bin Laden raid.

A former intelligence official earlier told Fox News it's unlikely the Iranians could figure out how to recreate the drone, despite their claims over the weekend -- and that the pressing concern would be they would try to use the technology to bargain with the Chinese or the Russians.

While China does not necessarily have the technology to help significantly advance Iran's nuclear program in exchange for access to drone parts, China could offer Iran an IOU of sorts -- for a favor like a veto at the U.N. Security Council, the former official said.

The Russians also would be interested in any U.S. intelligence collection capability, and could offer Iran ballistics technology useful for a nuclear delivery system.

Still, the former official described any information the Iranians have been able to glean about the drone's reconnaissance history as "low-hanging fruit," since it would be contained in the drone's equivalent of a black box.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta also cast doubt Monday on Iran's claims, as did Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., speaking on "Fox News Sunday."

"I think there is a history here of Iranian bluster, particularly now when they are on the defensive because of our economic sanctions against them," Lieberman said. "I don't have confidence at this point that they are really able to make a copy of it. It's a very sophisticated piece of machinery."

As for Iranian claims they have broken the codes or encryption, the claims were described to Fox News as a stretch because the encryption "keys" are changed on a monthly basis, and sometimes even more frequently than that.

"The Iranians are pulling data down, intercepting data all the time, but they can't decode it," the former intelligence official said.

A 10-week investigation into the downing of the CIA drone in Iran, completed in February, raised questions as to whether the malfunctions inadvertently may have handed the Iranians not only the aircraft but its data.

Based on the review, Fox News was told that investigators think one of the drone's three major "data streams" began sending back bad information to its U.S.-based operator. A leading question is whether the bad data caused the drone's operator to inadvertently land the aircraft. But it also raises the possibility that the faulty data stream could have prevented the drone from dumping the intelligence it had collected. When a drone malfunctions, it is programmed to dump data so it does not fall into the wrong hands.

Fox News was told in February that the CIA's comprehensive review has been unable to replicate the specific malfunction that brought down the drone in Iran. Contact was lost with the drone and its operators on Nov. 29.


Read more: Iran making overtures to China on access to US drone technology | Fox News
I mean, this can't be good, right?
Mrs. Garrison is offline  
Old 04-24-2012, 07:04 PM   #124
ONE
love, blood, life
 
digitize's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New York / Dallas / Austin
Posts: 14,074
Local Time: 09:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Why? It was never designed to provide for a 20 year retirement. When Soc Security was created in the 30's life expectancy at birth was only 58 for men and 62 for women--the original retirement age was 65. You do the math.
Yeah, even in the abstract, I don't see how Social Security is sustainable with increased life expectency without ever raising the retirement age, or increasing payroll taxes. The problem with raising the retirement age is that increased life span does not necessarily mean increased number of useful working years, especially for those with more manual labor type jobs (who happen to be the ones from whom SocSec is probably most useful).

The present SocSec issue may be fixable, but overall there is a long-term demographic issue of how to deal with an aging population that is not necessarily more productive in its later years. Increased taxes may be the only way to deal with that, and that may be uncomfortable, but whether taxes go up or not, people have a responsibility to spend a smaller and smaller portion of their income so that they can subsidize their life past their working years. The root of the issue really lies there, in the demographics; no policy towards SocSec can truly change that.
digitize is offline  
Old 04-24-2012, 07:17 PM   #125
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,435
Local Time: 07:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs. Garrison View Post
Whats this about?

I can put you on the ignore list too, along with the others who've made hateful and trolling remarks or personal attacks. Or would you rather i just report this post to the moderators?

Also, im not a she.
I'm ticked because I thought I made a good point with the gas prices. You listed "higher gas prices" under a list of Obama's failed economic policies, and I pointed out that criticism is flawed because all policies that lower gas prices are not necessarily good policy. Case in point, the financial crisis. And using it as a simple metric for evaluating the economy is also flawed, because gas prices will increase if demand increases- i.e, if the economy is actually doing well and expanding. It's even bad from a geopolitical standpoint, as praising the American government for lowering prices encourages policies that prop up "stable" Middle Eastern dictators!

Your only response was to ignore that and jump to different topics; the housing market and the national debt. If you refuse to engage in any form of actual discussion about your posted views, then I hardly see it as a loss to place me on your ignore list.

INDY, I see your post and will get to it.
mobvok is offline  
Old 04-24-2012, 07:23 PM   #126
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 09:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitize View Post
The root of the issue really lies there, in the demographics; no policy towards SocSec can truly change that.
Ponzi scheme:

an investment swindle in which some early investors are paid off with money put up by later ones in order to encourage more and bigger risks.

This one, and similar schemes in Europe, just took 80 years to unravel.
INDY500 is offline  
Old 04-24-2012, 08:28 PM   #127
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,435
Local Time: 07:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Why? It was never designed to provide for a 20 year retirement. When Soc Security was created in the 30's life expectancy at birth was only 58 for men and 62 for women--the original retirement age was 65. You do the math.
But why do I care about the life expectancy at birth, if we're talking about the expected length of retirement? Then we want life expectancy, age 65 in the 30s vs. today. It's not exact, but this link shows that from 1940 to 1990, at age 65 gained 2.5 years of retirement and women gained 5.

But remember, the full retirement age is already scheduled to increase to 67 for people in my generation. By these stats, I've gained only half a year of retirement.

I completely disagree with the implied conclusion of your point, which is that residents of one of the richest, most powerful, most productive countries on the planet should not be allowed to invest that ability into another year or two of leisure before death.

Quote:
Please make note of something I put in bold from the article:
Quote:
“The general fund has been borrowing from Social Security and we've borrowed well over $2 trillion,” he said. “That money has got to be paid back. How's it going to be paid back? It's going to be paid back by the other general expenditures of the federal government having to be reduced to make way for the payments that we're going to have to make on those bonds.”
We've seen the government almost come to a halt over the cutting of 10 billion dollars from projected spending raises somewhere down the road and yet Congress is going to find the meddle to cut spending in order to payback the 2 trillion dollars owed to Social Security? Really?
I'm confused, how does that change the fact that raising the retirement age is among the relatively least effective options of saving money?

Quote:
I'd like to see more on those stats. Counting the deaths of the poor from drug abuse or murder, for instance, against live expectancy would render a false picture of health in senior years.
How is that a false picture? Dead people are dead, and lower income people die faster than higher income people. So not only are poorer people more likely to die of drug abuse or become a homicide, we should also make them work longer!

Quote:
Which in inflationary times would truly be a penalty.
...what am I supposed to conclude from this general sniping at alternatives like COLA or the payroll tax? That raising the retirement age is the harm-free option?
mobvok is offline  
Old 04-24-2012, 08:32 PM   #128
ONE
love, blood, life
 
digitize's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New York / Dallas / Austin
Posts: 14,074
Local Time: 09:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Ponzi scheme:

an investment swindle in which some early investors are paid off with money put up by later ones in order to encourage more and bigger risks.

This one, and similar schemes in Europe, just took 80 years to unravel.
Ehh, in all honesty, pretty much every government in the world acts in a way similar to a Ponzi scheme right now. It's probably possible to prevent unravelling in general, although SocSec may be an exception.
digitize is offline  
Old 04-24-2012, 08:36 PM   #129
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,228
Local Time: 09:48 AM
Stay the course Mrs G, keep ignoring context, keep throwing shit maybe some will stick, keep putting those that push you to engage on the ignore list, and please whatever you do, mention "hope and change" as much as you can because that really shows you have a true understanding of politics.

BVS is offline  
Old 04-24-2012, 08:43 PM   #130
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,435
Local Time: 07:48 AM
Noooooooooo

A ponzi scheme definitionally must work by bringing in ever-more new investors and their cash, until it reaches an unsustainable number and collapses. After a few rounds, more people than are alive on planet Earth are required to keep the system going. If you somehow reach that, we soon start hitting the raw # of atoms in the universe, and on from there.

For Social Security or any other transfer program, as long as the money coming in from workers matches the money going out to recipients, it can be sustained forever. You either take a little more or give a little less until it reaches balance.

Other than an apple not being an orange, apples and oranges are quite similar!
mobvok is offline  
Old 04-24-2012, 09:04 PM   #131
ONE
love, blood, life
 
digitize's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New York / Dallas / Austin
Posts: 14,074
Local Time: 09:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobvok View Post
Noooooooooo

A ponzi scheme definitionally must work by bringing in ever-more new investors and their cash, until it reaches an unsustainable number and collapses. After a few rounds, more people than are alive on planet Earth are required to keep the system going. If you somehow reach that, we soon start hitting the raw # of atoms in the universe, and on from there.
The problem is that SocSec is only really sustainable in its current form if the number of young people keeps growing, which is not at all happening in the United States. As the number of retirees expands, SocSec is in trouble if the number of workers doesn't expand too.
digitize is offline  
Old 04-24-2012, 09:17 PM   #132
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 09:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobvok View Post
But remember, the full retirement age is already scheduled to increase to 67 for people in my generation. By these stats, I've gained only half a year of retirement.
Life after retirement is longer as well.


Average Remaining Life Expectancy for Those Surviving to Age 65

------ Male Female

1940 12.7 14.7
1950 13.1 16.2
1960 13.2 17.4
1970 13.8 18.6
1980 14.6 19.1
1990 15.3 19.6

Quote:
I completely disagree with the implied conclusion of your point, which is that residents of one of the richest, most powerful, most productive countries on the planet should not be allowed to invest that ability into another year or two of leisure before death.
Unfortunately,now we're the brokest nation in the history of the world.

Quote:
I'm confused, how does that change the fact that raising the retirement age is among the relatively least effective options of saving money?
Your stat about raising the rate 1% or tweaking the COLA, that's only AFTER the U.S. Treasury pays back to the Social Security trust fund the 2 trillion dollars they borrowed to fund "investments" of previous presidents and congresses. In other words, Social Security is really broke now with trillions more in unfunded liabilities on the horizon. But not to fear, Nancy Pelosi has assured us that "these vital initiatives remain strong."

Quote:
How is that a false picture? Dead people are dead, and lower income people die faster than higher income people. So not only are poorer people more likely to die of drug abuse or become a homicide, we should also make them work longer!
I'd just like to see more details.
Misleading statistics 101: If 10 rich guys all live to be 100 but only 8 poor guys live to 100 because 2 were killed at the age of 20, the average life expectancy for the poor guys would be 84 even though, if you avoided getting killed in your youth, you would live just as long as the rich guys.

Quote:

...what am I supposed to conclude from this general sniping at alternatives like COLA or the payroll tax? That raising the retirement age is the harm-free option?
It's not snipping. Inflation is really a form of taxation and if you're living on a fixed income it makes a great deal of difference. And as for increased payroll taxes:
1) I think we have more than enough income redistribution going on in this country already without raising taxes further on the young to transfer to the old.
2) And enough joblessness without making it even more expensive for a business to hire a worker.
INDY500 is offline  
Old 04-24-2012, 09:19 PM   #133
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,435
Local Time: 07:48 AM
Quote:
The problem is that SocSec is only really sustainable in its current form if the number of young people keeps growing, which is not at all happening in the United States. As the number of retirees expands, SocSec is in trouble if the number of workers doesn't expand too.
That is an overly-narrow definition of "current form", as all that needs to be done once to absorb the baby boomer bump is slightly adjust either the payroll tax higher by a point or two or cut benefits slightly. My objections with INDY are of the best and worst relative ways of doing that, but they are ultimately the same sort of tweaks the program has already been through over the last several decades.
mobvok is offline  
Old 04-24-2012, 09:40 PM   #134
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,435
Local Time: 07:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Life after retirement is longer as well.


Average Remaining Life Expectancy for Those Surviving to Age 65

------ Male Female

1940 12.7 14.7
1950 13.1 16.2
1960 13.2 17.4
1970 13.8 18.6
1980 14.6 19.1
1990 15.3 19.6
Well, these are the same numbers I used. Projecting out a bit, men gained 2.6 years of LE between 1940 and 1990, while my retirement age went up two years to 67, so..... I get an extra six tenths of a year's retirement? That's an extra 7 months, six days. Woooo. Women will have an extra 3 years. That's it.

Quote:
Your stat about raising the rate 1% or tweaking the COLA, that's only AFTER the U.S. Treasury pays back to the Social Security trust fund the 2 trillion dollars they borrowed to fund "investments" of previous presidents and congresses. In other words, Social Security is really broke now with trillions more in unfunded liabilities on the horizon. But not to fear, Nancy Pelosi has assured us that "these vital initiatives remain strong."
If Social Security is "broke", that suggests it's a distinct body with its own accounting separate from the federal government, like....the Red Cross, or Intel. But it can't be broke, because its spent the last thirty years putting surplus deposits into US Treasuries. If I won a million bucks thirty years ago, started dropping that million into buying US Treasuries, and now started pulling that back into cash, am I broke? My understanding is that the trust fund treasuries are already on the US debt.

Quote:
I'd just like to see more details.
Misleading statistics 101: If 10 rich guys all live to be 100 but only 8 poor guys live to 100 because 2 were killed at the age of 20, the average life expectancy for the poor guys would be 84 even though, if you avoided getting killed in your youth, you would live just as long as the rich guys.
I went back and grabbed this figure from the PDF at my link



It's "at age 65", so I believe that addresses your concern. Note that lower-income men of 2006 are still worse off than high-income men of 1982 despite 24 years of medical and social advances. Income inequality is a big concern with raising the retirement age.

Quote:
It's not snipping. Inflation is really a form of taxation and if your living on a fixed income it makes a great deal of difference. And as for increased payroll taxes, I think we have more than enough income redistribution going on in this country already without raising taxes further on the young to transfer to the old.
I would just like you to make the case directly that a higher retirement age would do the most benefit at the least harm. Simply saying "that option harms somebody because of X" is a bit frustrating, yeah I know it will but my position is that it's less worse than the alternatives.
mobvok is offline  
Old 04-24-2012, 10:04 PM   #135
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 32,495
Local Time: 11:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs. Garrison View Post
and not raise taxes on the job creators to the extent where they throw in the towel.

seriously?


Quote:
Meanwhile half of the country doesn't even pay income taxes.

ok, well, that sums it up.

Quote:
Not create a society where people can collect unemployment insurance for 99 weeks or whatever that figure is, perfectly healthy people depend on stamps and "Obama bucks" because its readily available and they are too lazy to work.
you mean like you, unemployment benefits recipient?
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 04-24-2012, 10:55 PM   #136
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,600
Local Time: 07:48 AM
Quote:
half of the country doesn't even pay income taxes.
that really gets me riled up,
and I know a good portion of them are just kickin' back, suckin on a teat, getting fat, shiting themselves

how I hate those g-damn babies, next time one of those little free-loaders gets on a plane with me I am going to lose it!
deep is offline  
Old 04-24-2012, 11:04 PM   #137
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 20,245
Local Time: 10:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs. Garrison View Post
I will stop you right here because this is the Obama economy, not anyone other administrations economy.
No, sorry, you HAVE to look at what happened in the past to try and figure out why things are going the way they are now. We need to look at how the Bush administration handled the economy-if it took eight years for us to go from a surplus to being so far in debt, then naturally one should expect that the incoming president would have a long uphill battle to get us out of such a hole and as a result we need to do a compare/contrast scenario. We're in way deeper than I think most people realize, no way in hell would this ever have been solved as quickly as people think it should have been.

We should definitely scrutinize Obama's policies on fixing things, yes, and critique him when we think his ideas aren't going to aid in recovery. But he could be doing every single thing right in terms of economic policy, and yet it'd STILL take a long time for things to be back to normal. They might come back a bit quicker than they would otherwise in that scenario, but it's going to be a while. Sorry to say it, but it's true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs. Garrison View Post
Whatever happened to HOPE & CHANGE and CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN?

Obama ran on turning things around...he hasn't. This is his economy and his war....his success and his failures. End of story.
Again, you are obsessing over campaign slogans. EVERY single politician is going to have an inspirational campaign slogan. EVERY single politician runs on, "I will change things and make this country better." That's what helps them get elected. Sure, it'd be great if someone had a more realistic slogan, or realistic suggestions, but those don't get people all charged up and don't always lead to more votes.

I was hopeful with those slogans, too, yes, but I also wasn't naive enough to think it'd all be solved by the day after his inaguration or whatever. If someone had unrealistically high expectations upon hearing Obama speak, well, that's their issue to deal with.

You don't think I want to wake up tomorrow morning and see everyone in prosperous jobs and comfortable homes and our debt eliminated? Of course I do. But I also know that, like I said above, we're in so far in debt that no matter what happens, it's going to be a while before things start truly looking up. I know that's not news anyone WANTS to hear-my family's struggled and it's sure as hell not anything I'm happy to hear about, but it's the truth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs. Garrison View Post
First off, we're not talking about FDR. This is Obama general discussion. Obama is running for re-election, with his economic record. Not FDR, or Bush, or anyone else.

SO did Obama lie then when he said this?

I think you missed my point. I was using an example of another president who had to deal with similar situations as Obama (though arguably a lot worse). He managed to fix things eventually, yes, but it took a lot of time and a few screwups along the way. It took a good number of years. There have been many comparisons between the two presidents over the years, so if the comparisons are valid, then it stands to reason that as FDR had problems fixing the economic situation of his day, so too does Obama now.

No, I don't think he lied. I think he was making a truthful observation-even if he is trying to do his best, he's fully aware that the American people will be expecting improvement by the time his re-election comes around, and if they don't see it in their lives, they'll project that onto him and his re-election chances will not be as airtight. And he's right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs. Garrison View Post
So Obama has 50,000 things on his plate he needs to fix, please tell me why he's found time to play 94 rounds of golf then? Or appear on every late night talk show? Or take several week long vacations in Hawaii? Did he think this was going to be a 4 year vacation? I realize he was a community organizer and an absent senator....what was he expecting though when he came to Washington?
That you make a fair point on and I don't disagree with you. The talk shows...well, apparently that's the new way to try and win people over. And the Republicans have been appearing on shows, too, instead of working on their campaigns and coming up with proper solutions to the problems they would be inheriting should they become president, though, so hey. Seems everyone on Capitol Hill is more interested in getting the hell away from D.C. than staying there and working for any length of time on anything of substance.

The fact does remain, though, that everyone wants Obama to fix this and fix that (when they're not calling him a socialist commie Nazi who's trying to control our lives), and I ask those people then, what do you want him to take care of first? He can't solve all these problems at once, nor can he solve them alone. So what do you want him to do, and what are you willing to do to help him get there?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs. Garrison View Post
What Mr. Obama needs to do, is help create an environment where business will thrive and grow, and not raise taxes on the job creators to the extent where they throw in the towel. Meanwhile half of the country doesn't even pay income taxes. Not create a society where people can collect unemployment insurance for 99 weeks or whatever that figure is, perfectly healthy people depend on stamps and "Obama bucks" because its readily available and they are too lazy to work. The only people he's really really helped is the welfare folks and the wall street execs who got the big bonuses. Everyone else (those of us who pay taxes, that is) gets to pay for him and Michelle to jet set around the world at our expense. Yep, all this for a damn flag.
I really am getting tired of the "too lazy to work" stuff that people keep coming up with. Seriously. I know there are some people who fit that description, but how many times do I have to explain that not everyone is like that? You remember my posts about my family from recent pages, right, how we didn't fit that stereotype of people on welfare you seem to keep repeating constantly? Please stop with that insinuation, because it's really getting beyond insulting.

And as for the "job creators"-if they're job creators, why are jobs being shipped overseas? Why are CEOs getting big bonuses while average employees aren't getting raises or paid more in minimum wage or whatever? Why are "overqualified" or "underqualified" people being rejected for perfectly simple work that it shouldn't be too hard to train anyone to do? I work a part-time job at a small Midwestern chain bookstore, and the higher-ups are so cheap, nobody gets raises there and they're very hesitant to shell out money for anything, including someone to help out my manager so that when she's gone, we have someone else to help us out when we need it, to help train new people and such. The only full-time job is that of my manager. We had 6 people quit within this last month because they found better-paying jobs elsewhere. And those that stay have to take on a second job because of the low pay of the one they're at.

Hell, ask my mom what happened when she worked at KMart and those stores started shutting down. The CEO walked off with a big bonus. My mom, however? Got nothing. And they had to close the store because they were struggling financially...well, apparently they weren't struggling TOO much if that CEO was able to get his millions in bonuses. And so on and so on. Job creators, my ass.

If we can prove a business is actually creating jobs, yes, they should get breaks for that. But if they're not willing to help keep their employees with any of what I mentioned above, they're not job creators and they're not deserving of any breaks. I like how those of us who are underemployed are called lazy for not paying much, if anything, in taxes, but if the "job creators" have to do it, it's "damaging" to them and their business. Really? If I'm expected to pony up money, so are the job creators. If I have to sacrifice, they do, too, so they can shut it and quit their whining.

Obama DOES want a world where people are getting prosperous jobs. Unfortunately, again, any attempts he makes to do so get blocked by idiot Republican politicians who are saying he's plotting an evil government takeover. So how do you respond to that problem? What's your suggestion on how Obama should deal with those people who block, or try to block, any plans of Obama's from going through? I'm so far beyond tired of the Republican line about protecting job creators and alternately bitching because Obama isn't fixing everything yet saying his policies are akin to socialist Nazi whatever BS. You can't have it both ways, guys, get a clue already.

Also, anitram, EXCELLENT post. Interestingly enough, my parents have said the same thing for years.
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 04-25-2012, 07:24 AM   #138
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 64,732
Local Time: 11:48 AM
this guy is such a nerd.
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 04-25-2012, 09:53 AM   #139
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 32,495
Local Time: 11:48 AM
look where mindless austerity gets you:


Quote:
UK Slides Back Into Recession in First Double Dip Since 1970s
Published: Wednesday, 25 Apr 2012 | 8:23 AM ET Text Size
By: Reuters

Britain's economy slid into its second recession since the financial crisis after official data unexpectedly showed a fall in output in the first three months of 2012, piling pressure on Prime Minister David Cameron's embattled coalition government.

The Office for National Statistics said Britain's gross domestic product fell 0.2 percent in the first quarter of 2012 after contracting by 0.3 percent at the end of 2011, confounding forecasts for 0.1 percent growth.

Most economists had expected Britain's $2.4 trillion economy to eke out modest growth in the early 2012, but these forecasts were upset by the biggest fall in construction output in three years coupled with anaemic service sector growth and a fall in industrial output.

Wednesday's figures will be a deep blow for Britain's Conservative / Liberal Democrat coalition, which has slid in opinion polls since a poorly received annual budget statement in March and risks embarrassment at local elections on May 3.

The government is also under pressure over revelations about its close relationship with media tycoon Rupert Murdoch.

The government desperately needs growth to achieve its overriding goal of eliminating Britain's large budget deficit over the next five years.

Britain's economy contracted by 7.1 percent during its 2008-2009 recession and recovery since has been slow, with headwinds from the euro zone debt crisis, government spending cuts, high inflation and a damaged banking sector.

Wednesday's data showed that output was still 4.3 percent below its peak in the first quarter of 2008, and the economy has only grown by 0.4 percent since the government came to power in the second quarter of 2010.

Output in Britain's service sector - which makes up more than three quarters of GDP - rose by just 0.1 percent in the first quarter after falling 0.1 percent in Q4 2011, kept down by a fall in output in the large business services and finance sector.

Industrial output was 0.4 percent lower, while construction - which accounts for less than 8 percent of GDP - contracted by 3.0 percent, the biggest fall since Q1 2009.

Britain's Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts growth of 0.8 percent this year.

Wednesday's data shows that first quarter output was no higher than a year earlier.

The Bank of England has warned that there is a risk of another contraction in the second quarter of 2012, due to an extra public holiday.

But unlike during the previous two quarters, it does not appear keen to provide further monetary stimulus through quantitative easing asset purchases, due to above-target inflation which looks stickier than before.

The BoE, and a number of private-sector economists, had argued before Wednesday that the underlying health of Britain's economy was stronger than ONS data suggested, due to relatively upbeat private-sector surveys and a fall in unemployment.

The ONS's preliminary estimates of GDP are the first released in the European Union, and are based partly on estimated data.

On average, they are revised by 0.1 percentage points up or down by the time a second revision is published two months later, but bigger moves are not uncommon.

News Headlines

there's no question that the US is in better shape than many of the other developed western nations (Australia and Canada, probably Germany, seem to be better off than the US, though), and that's likely due to measures like the stimulus taken by the Obama administration in 2009 that have resulted in an economy that will grow by a small but real 2% over the next year and the unemployment rate will continue to trickle down. all this despite all efforts by the GOP to keep the unemployment rate high by slashing public sector jobs.

mindless slashing due to deficit panic is bad policy. this isn't to say that entitlements don't need reform and defense spending doesn't need to be cut and stupid wars need to be ended, but we're certainly better off than we were on January 19, 2009.
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 04-25-2012, 12:53 PM   #140
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,608
Local Time: 04:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs. Garrison
I mean, this can't be good, right?
No, of course the US would *want* it back, but there's absolutely no reason why Iran *have* to give it back. Illegally flying into Iranian airspace and crashing a machine purpose built for only spying on Iranian soil isn't the same as accidentally kicking a ball into your neighbours yard. Remember also that Iran don't say it crashed, they say they shot it down, and they have every right in the world to do that too.

But yes, the resulting diplomatic mess and decision on what to do about getting it back do go to the President. Perhaps the decision was that it's not actually worth whatever Iran would likely want in return, especially with everything else in regards to Iran at the moment?
__________________

Earnie Shavers is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×