Obama's Report Card...

[marolyn]

As for the ones who do not support it... they have that choice, sure. However, they are government property, and I just cannot understand how the government is in the wrong because of what they have their property do?

doc, you really must be tired...you really don't believe in the infallibility of the government...save that for the pope and traffic cops...

Say on a given day I have bad breath and I put my toothbrush into my mouth to clean it. My toothbrush happens to not agree with what I ate that day, and I can understand that, but was it wrong for me to brush my teeth that day? Hell-no! I used my property for what it was meant to do, no matter the circumstances. When I was on the market for a new brush, it was on the rack at the store along with all the rest, and toothbrushes were meant to clean mouths. Nowhere on the package is an asterisk saying "I only clean morally correct mouths". It is not my fault that I happened to pick the one off the rack who happened to like cleaning mouths but hates bad breath. I was under the impression that all of them would clean mouths no questions asked. So what if I had great breath on the day I picked it up... it can go back all it wants later when I get bad breath and say, "I had no idea you were gonna make me do this!".., but it should have known people have a track record of sometimes having bad breath. People should not hate me because of it. Why aren't people mad at the thing that gave me the bad breath rather than being mad at me for trying to correct my bad breath?

problem only arises when you claim you were just eating garlic bread when everyone knows you were sucking on dog shit...sweet dreams, doc...

[docron]

doc, you really must be tired...you really don't believe in the infallibility of the government...save that for the pope and traffic cops...

problem only arises when you claim you were just eating garlic bread when everyone knows you were sucking on dog shit...sweet dreams, doc...

You're implying that sucking on dog shit is worse than eating garlic bread... you can't really prove it, it's just the way culture decided it should be. Fuck it though I guess, I won't try it out, I'll just put it on auto-pilot and go with popular belief.

By the way, this is probably how were going to end up missing the cure for cancer.

[Strider]

ok...need to get this ball rolling...

Really? Why the need? Can't we wait a while...like more than a couple weeks

before passing judgement? This ain't american idol or dancing with the stars.

It used to be people waited at least 100 days...now it seems people are too ADD'led

to wait even that long.

Patience, please.

[TypeO]

Your responses were fruitless and misguided at best. The military has seen a continuous shuffling of enlistment since the war(s) began, but there have been an incredible shortage of enlistments too. Common people willing to die for our country, even those who support Iraq or Afghanistan, are still hestitant to serve when our mission isn't exactly clear.

Perhaps..and this is just an idea...you'd be better suited to discuss politics and bash your head against the wall like the rest of us if you actually knew what the fuck you were talking about. Perhaps.

Maybe if you actually knew what you were talking about.

Your responses were fruitless and misguided at best.

The fact that you're so hung up on "liberals" and their "generalizations" makes me question any real common sense in that beanpod you call a noggin.

Bush wasn't a conservative you fuckhead.

Perhaps..and this is just an idea...you'd be better suited to discuss politics and bash your head against the wall like the rest of us if you actually knew what the fuck you were talking about. Perhaps.

Ad Hominem, thy name is BigStick.

But I'm not really surprised, as you responded to my very first post on this forum, in the Meet and Greet section, no less, with the following:

from one member of the Dirty South to the next...

go fuck yourself.

and don't forget to wrassle up some 'shine before you kick your heels about.

Bottom line, you try to steamroll everyone with your big-picture attitude that you know so much more than the rest of us deluded sheep who have no idea how the real world operates. Your feckless, more-enlightened-than-thou bellowing about how things really are sets you apart about as much as the tattooed and pierced masses expressing their individuality.

I welcome debate.

I can be as much of a smartass as anyone here, to be sure.

And sarcasm/smartass-ism is often effective in making points.

All the "fuckheads" and attempted browbeating, not so much.

[THE FIRST LEDZEP]

ALL U NEED IS LOVE

[bigstickbonzo]

Maybe if you actually knew what you were talking about.

Ad Hominem, thy name is BigStick.

I suppose the term "common people" wasn't entirely suitable and accurate. Sure, our military is getting by; only because they've lifted nearly all the previous restrictions and specific requirements one needed to pass to get in. There are more convicted criminals, foreign born immigrants and illiterate bastards in the Armed Services today than there were in 2002. Before, they rejected anyone who didn't fit their criteria and this was up until 2005-06 when they finally began lifting all sorts of pre-requisits that had shielded so many from joining. A friend of mine, who had a DUI charge tried to enlist in 2001 but was turned down because of his offense. He successfully joined in 2006 and is now an MP with the US Army. My point is, our military continues to suffer because people who could be viable to our country turn down the service because of Iraq and people who have nothing to offer are allowed to serve because that's all we can get. The enlistment trend was a continous downhill spiral until the Pentagon began conceeding with reality and lifted so much red tape.

But I'm not really surprised, as you responded to my very first post on this forum, in the Meet and Greet section, no less, with the following:

from one member of the Dirty South to the next...

go fuck yourself.

and don't forget to wrassle up some 'shine before you kick your heels about.

Bottom line, you try to steamroll everyone with your big-picture attitude that you know so much more than the rest of us deluded sheep who have no idea how the real world operates. Your feckless, more-enlightened-than-thou bellowing about how things really are sets you apart about as much as the tattooed and pierced masses expressing their individuality.

That was a joke, bud. Obviously you missed the Sesame Street as a kid that discussed sarcasm and its many forms. But now that you take such offense over nothing, you may now literally go fuck yourself. I never pretend to know more than I do. I, however, don't roll over and play dead when someone spouts out garbage that is disheartening to the truth. We can disagree to disagree but that's the bottom line.

I welcome debate.

I can be as much of a smartass as anyone here, to be sure.

And sarcasm/smartass-ism is often effective in making points.

All the "fuckheads" and attempted browbeating, not so much.

Sarcasm is only as effective as the truth behind the laughter.

[redrum]

ALL U NEED IS LOVE

Government is NOT the solution to our problems, government IS the problem!!---RR

No truer words were ever spoken.

[danelectro]

So far I'm not impressed. The only thing BO had going for him before the elections was he was able to get people behind him and there was message of unity. Now that he's in office he's lost momentum and with every new day he becomes just another politician. I don't expect miracles but he is losing his sizzle in a hurry and I don't think anyone can afford that now. He needs to find a way to restore confidence, forget fixing what can't be fixed and get the people on the street moving again. People are scared and he is playing President, we need a leader not a politician.

[wanna be drummer]

Government is NOT the solution to our problems, government IS the problem!!---RR

No truer words were ever spoken.

Surpassed, perhaps only by these words spoken by Agent Kay in Men In Black

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals..."

[redrum]

Surpassed, perhaps only by these words spoken by Agent Kay in Men In Black

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals..."

[docron]

Surpassed, perhaps only by these words spoken by Agent Kay in Men In Black

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals..."

That quote should replace E pluribus unum...

... or, to add new-age emphasis to an old friend, we can combine them to create this little diddy:

E pluribus [dumb panicky dangerous animals] unum [is smart]

"Out of many dumb panicky dangerous animals, one is smart."

It slides right off the tongue, though we may have trouble fitting that on our currency...

[TypeO]

I suppose the term "common people" wasn't entirely suitable and accurate. Sure, our military is getting by; only because they've lifted nearly all the previous restrictions and specific requirements one needed to pass to get in. There are more convicted criminals, foreign born immigrants and illiterate bastards in the Armed Services today than there were in 2002. Before, they rejected anyone who didn't fit their criteria and this was up until 2005-06 when they finally began lifting all sorts of pre-requisits that had shielded so many from joining. A friend of mine, who had a DUI charge tried to enlist in 2001 but was turned down because of his offense. He successfully joined in 2006 and is now an MP with the US Army. My point is, our military continues to suffer because people who could be viable to our country turn down the service because of Iraq and people who have nothing to offer are allowed to serve because that's all we can get. The enlistment trend was a continous downhill spiral until the Pentagon began conceeding with reality and lifted so much red tape.

Agreed, they have most certainly relaxed standards for enlistments.

But as for convicted criminals, I think we can safely say it's not like they're taking rapists and armed robbers - DUI is less of an active crime (robbery, burglary, etc.) than an instance of poor judgment. I draw these distinctions only to illustrate the broad brush "convicted criminal" covers.

Same with foreign-born immigrants - it was allowed before, no? And they still require their legal status to cover their enlistment period, i.e., they won't take someone whose green card is up in 6 months.

As for "illiterate bastards" - again, yes, standards relaxed on grades and such. But they still require some form of completion of either HS, GED, Adult education, etc. to be Tier I, and they only accept a very small percentage of total enlistments as non-tier I, ranging from 1% with the Air Force to up to 10% with the Army, and even then they have to attain a certain score on the AFQT (Armed Forces Qualifying Test). Again, relaxed standards? Obviously. Illiterate? I think not.

Still, all this was a tangent from a minor point I was addressing with marolyn.

A friend of mine, who had a DUI charge tried to enlist in 2001 but was turned down because of his offense. He successfully joined in 2006 and is now an MP with the US Army. My point is, our military continues to suffer because people who could be viable to our country turn down the service because of Iraq and people who have nothing to offer are allowed to serve because that's all we can get.

I think it would be far more accurate to say that SOME people who could be viable to our country turn down the service because of Iraq.

And I wouldn't call the others "nothing to offer."

Maybe not as preferable of a skill set as some, but still possessing a skill set nonetheless.

And you know your friend better than I, but it sounds like he's been given an awesome opportunity to get beyond his earlier DUI conviction, and MP is an excellent jump start into many areas in the private sector.

I never pretend to know more than I do. I, however, don't roll over and play dead when someone spouts out garbage that is disheartening to the truth.

In the end, truth at times remains perception.

Neither of us (none of us, in reality) can know the intricate details of the actual truth of what happens at the very top level of government, where the actual truth of all this discussion lies. We both believe in our perception of what's the truth.

And on some points, we actually agree.

I can admit to a hyper-awareness of liberal generalizations that you mentioned earlier, but they don't consume me beyond rationality.

Basically, I just tried to take your dare with actual reasoning.

I don't actually think you're a liberal.

Sarcasm is only as effective as the truth behind the laughter.

Amen, my brutha.

:nailonthehead:

[Bong-Man]

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/10/news/econo...sion=2009021106]

The truth about stimulus and the Depression

Did FDR's New Deal prolong the Great Depression, as some critics of Obama's 'new New Deal' argue?

By Jia Lynn Yang, writer reporter

February 11, 2009: 6:03 AM ET

NEW YORK (Fortune) -- You often hear President Obama's stimulus plan referred to as the new New Deal. So it shouldn't come as a surprise that some critics of the stimulus aren't big fans of Franklin Roosevelt either. In fact, if you've been following the debate, you may have heard a surprising number of people put forth the notion that the New Deal actually prolonged the Great Depression.

If that doesn't sound like anything your high school history teacher taught you, you're not alone. So let's take a closer look at what the New Deal's critics are claiming.

It's inarguably true that in the very short-term, the New Deal did not fix the economy. Roosevelt's programs were first passed in 1933 but economists generally agree that the Great Depression did not end until 1939, when the country began preparing for World War II. Unemployment rates, which reached as high as 25%, took several years to recover and did not get below 9% until 1940.

Critics say the New Deal failed because some of the government's actions suppressed competition, slowing the economy's ability to rebound. A central culprit was the National Recovery Administration (NRA), from 1933. The goal of the NRA was to lift wages for workers. But to do this, it encouraged industry leaders to meet and establish minimum prices and wages, effectively creating cartels. The result was wholesale prices rising 23 percent in two years.

It's hard to find anyone now who will defend the NRA, which academics agree was a bad program because it stifled competition. It was obvious to people even then that the NRA was seriously flawed; in 1935, the Supreme Court ruled the program unconstitutional

"Anytime you put in price and wage controls, you are more likely than not to make the economy worse off," says Valerie Ramey, professor of economics at University of California, San Diego. "That's the lesson of all economic history."

Economists differ, though, in their estimates of how badly the NRA's bad policies damaged the economy. On the more dire end of the scale, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian, economics professors at the University of Pennsylvania and UCLA respectively, estimate the New Deal's labor and industrial policies caused the Depression to last seven years longer than otherwise. (Here's one of Cole and Ohanian's papers.)

But it's important to remember that, like today's stimulus, the New Deal was a program of many parts improvised as the economy continued to sink into oblivion. We think of it as a monolith now, but that's not how it felt at the time. As Price Fishback, an economic historian at the University of Arizona, recently wrote, "It was a broad-ranging mix of spending, regulation, lending, taxation, and monetary policies that can best be described as 'See a problem and try to fix it.'" (That should sound familiar to Hank Paulson.)

In fact, one charge leveled at Roosevelt by his critics is that the uncertainty over the government's strategy discouraged business from investing. This is the argument of economist Robert Higgs and journalist Amity Shlaes, who shows in her book "The Forgotten Man: A New History of The Great Depression" how business people struggled to respond to the government's many actions.

"We know uncertainty played a role but measuring how big an effect it had is really difficult," says Fishback.

Because the New Deal was so sprawling, there are also programs that historians and economists agree were deeply effective, like establishing the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or FDIC, which stopped the run on banks. The Civil Works Administration quickly employed 3.6 million people. And Fishback has done some research showing that an added dollar of public works and relief spending was tied to an increase in retail sales of 40 to 50 cents. There's also a correlation between areas of the country that received more relief spending and lower infant mortality and property crime rates.

"You don't want to say, 'Oh, don't do any of it,' because some aspects did work, but they were impeded by other aspects that led the economy to be worse," says Ramey.

As for what took so long for the unemployment figures to come back up, some economists who are sympathetic to Roosevelt point out how low the economy had fallen. "It was a broken economy on a scale we have never seen anything like," says Eric Rauchway, a history professor at the University of California, Davis and the author of "The Great Depression and the New Deal: A Short History." "To repair an economy that's that broken you have to figure it's going to take some time. That's a homely explanation but that's the best explanation I can do."

So what's the moral here?

Roosevelt and his New Deal were not as saintly or ruinous as either side claims. As usual the truth lies somewhere in the middle. The biggest thing we have in common, perhaps, is that like Roosevelt, we can only take our best guess at what will work. And hopefully, the cure this time will take hold faster.

[TypeO]

Roosevelt and his New Deal were not as saintly or ruinous as either side claims. As usual the truth lies somewhere in the middle. The biggest thing we have in common, perhaps, is that like Roosevelt, we can only take our best guess at what will work. And hopefully, the cure this time will take hold faster.

good read.

My problems with Obama's plan are:

First, our economy is nowhere near the state of ruin that he keeps claiming ("worst since the great depression" - it's simply not true.) The economy coming out of the Carter administration was much, much worse.

Second, on the one hand he faults the massive deficit he inherited ("found when he took office" using his own words from a recent speech, as though he was previously unaware) and then in the same breath advocates massive increases to that same massive deficit as a solution.

Third, he portrayed opposition to his plan as "doing nothing" - that taking action was better than doing nothing. This was patently partisan rhetoric (which, btw, he promised to bring an end to with his administration of change) when in fact opponents of his plan had specific, proven tactics for stimulating the economy that didn't generate anywhere even approaching the amount of debt his spending bill does.

Fourth, it's more than painfully obvious he wants Republican support as cover when the plan fails, so that he can point to bipartisan agreement on the failed strategy. If it's such a great strategy, he should take full ownership of it, as he did when refusing Republican options across the board, citing his victory as a mandate (hey, WE won).

Fifth, after all this wrangling and finally getting approval, Treasury Secretary Geightner explains that they are "formulating a plan" to use these massive funds? WTF? He doesn't have a plan in place? The guy we were told was the ONLY person who could hold this position because he was so instrumental in designing the TARP? But I thought TARP was a massive failure/clusterfuck?

And is it just me, or does Obama only seem comfortable when he's out giving campaign-style speeches?

Dude, you won.

The campaign is over.

We need performance, not speeches.

[TypeO]

Last thing:

Bush was forever accused of fear-mongering by the left.

But 9/11 actually happened.

We WERE attacked by terrorists.

Obama is fear-mongering just as intently, except it's all based on guesses, assumptions, and biased extrapolation.

And talk about a phantom statistic - how exactly do we measure "jobs saved"?

Enough already.

[Bong-Man]

First, our economy is nowhere near the state of ruin that he keeps claiming ("worst since the great depression" - it's simply not true.) The economy coming out of the Carter administration was much, much worse.

Most people agree that the stock market is a leading indicator by at least 6 months. It reacted to the financial crisis in the Fall, so we are just beginning to feel the effects of this downturn on Main St. Things will get far worse before they get better.

Second, on the one hand he faults the massive deficit he inherited ("found when he took office" using his own words from a recent speech, as though he was previously unaware) and then in the same breath advocates massive increases to that same massive deficit as a solution.

Bush and the Republicans were talking about a needed stimulus package long before Obama took office. Let's not forget that the Republican response to a new "War on Terror" was a policy of decreasing taxes for business and investors (cap. gains) for 8 years. Is that what you are advocating now ?....Because it didn't work.

Third, he portrayed opposition to his plan as "doing nothing" - that taking action was better than doing nothing. This was patently partisan rhetoric (which, btw, he promised to bring an end to with his administration of change) when in fact opponents of his plan had specific, proven tactics for stimulating the economy that didn't generate anywhere even approaching the amount of debt his spending bill does.

Instead of direct help to taxpayers, the Republican idea is to give tax breaks to private business and investors in the hope that prosperity will again trickle down to you and me. We spent billions on TARP, and not one martgage was saved or rewritten to benefit Joe the Plumber or anybody else. The problem is still there.

Fourth, it's more than painfully obvious he wants Republican support as cover when the plan fails, so that he can point to bipartisan agreement on the failed strategy. If it's such a great strategy, he should take full ownership of it, as he did when refusing Republican options across the board, citing his victory as a mandate (hey, WE won).

Welcome to politics. You really didn't think that part was going to change, did you ?

Fifth, after all this wrangling and finally getting approval, Treasury Secretary Geightner explains that they are "formulating a plan" to use these massive funds? WTF? He doesn't have a plan in place? The guy we were told was the ONLY person who could hold this position because he was so instrumental in designing the TARP? But I thought TARP was a massive failure/clusterfuck?

I think the approach here is to make sure that any new TARP funds available to these crooks is used to get credit moving, and take bad housing loans off the books. My gut tells me that the gov't is assisting the investment crooks at this time from fully revealing the financial mess we're in. Housing became a legal ponzi scheme when the Gov't allowed the crooks to repackage bad mortgage loans many times over and sell them as AAA rated investments to investors. The Gov't and the crooks don't want you to know that they are Bernie Madoff. In short, unless we print lots and lots of money....we're fucked.

Actually...I think we're fucked anyway.

As for Obama, I think his toughest critics eventually won't be the Republicans, but the minorities that helped elect him. During economic downturns, minorities and the already poor tend to get the short end of the stick. I think those people will be his harshest critics once they realize that he won't be able to do a thing for them.

[docron]

I've got a fairly large boner right now

[redrum]

I've got a fairly large boner right now

Here comes the porn tax!

[bigstickbonzo]

Overall, I'd give his speech a solid B...

But having to stare at Pelosi's mug the whole time, it bottoms out to a C-

Honestly, I was waiting for her face to melt ala Raiders.

[wanna be drummer]

Overall, I'd give his speech a solid B...

But having to stare at Pelosi's mug the whole time, it bottoms out to a C-

Honestly, I was waiting for her face to melt ala Raiders.

Guess who was working throughout the whole speech?

This guy

Oh well, thats what Youtube is for

[TypeO]

I like Bobby Jindal, but he sounded a little stilted in his delivery.

But he's pretty sharp, and definitely knows what he's talking about.

[wanna be drummer]

I like Bobby Jindal, but he sounded a little stilted in his delivery.

But he's pretty sharp, and definitely knows what he's talking about.

The Republican Party, I think, is trying to move towards the whole "Hey, we have brown people too!" approach to combat the Democrats' minority vote...

[TypeO]

The Republican Party, I think, is trying to move towards the whole "Hey, we have brown people too!" approach to combat the Democrats' minority vote...

Doesn't alter the fact the guy's got good ideas, and he's a genuine conservative, and has been all along. Not like they're recruiting "ringers" or something.

But that's gonna be the left/democratic response - "they're just trying to appear more diverse."

But as the realization *slowly* spreads, and African-Americans begin to pay attention to what's really happening, people like Star Parker will help lead many to the realization of which party more closely reflects their personal values.

Yes, I said S-L-O-W-L-Y.

But hot-button issues will help hasten the realization.

[Bong-Man]

Doesn't alter the fact the guy's got good ideas, and he's a genuine conservative, and has been all along. Not like they're recruiting "ringers" or something.

But that's gonna be the left/democratic response - "they're just trying to appear more diverse."

But as the realization *slowly* spreads, and African-Americans begin to pay attention to what's really happening, people like Star Parker will help lead many to the realization of which party more closely reflects their personal values.

Yes, I said S-L-O-W-L-Y.

But hot-button issues will help hasten the realization.

Oh I'm glad you added s-l-o-w-l-y. A good start might be inviting more than 10 African-Americans to their convention.

[bigstickbonzo]

The Republican Party, I think, is trying to move towards the whole "Hey, we have brown people too!" approach to combat the Democrats' minority vote...

Yuuuup. I've been saying it since Steele got the top bid. Greeeeeat move!

Jindel's a smart guy but he sounded like a dipshit last night, further adding to my whole problem with the Republicans. They aren't attempting to "solve" any of the problems. Rather, they're only sabre-rattling with what won't work and how much Obama is gonna screw everything up.

Ok..so fucking come up with a better plan!!