Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 09-11-2010, 06:53 AM   #41 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Why do Republicans and Democrats alike use nationalization as a strategy? If it's socialism, why are Republicans using socialist philosophies?
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 09-11-2010, 08:30 AM   #42 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla View Post
'Temporary' nationalism is like being a 'little bit pregnant'. Obama nationalized GM. Again, from Wikipedia article on nationalism

Nationalization, also spelled nationalisation, is the act of taking an industry or assets into the public ownership of a national government or state.
Taking into the public ownership is not the same thing as purchasing a majority of shares. Nationalization would be the government seizing a company (or companies) in their entirety and taking control of them. What the Treasury did was purchase stocks while GM was going through Chapter 11. This is colloquially known as partial nationalization, but in truth it's quite different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla View Post
That's exactly what Obama did by having the feds buy controlling interest in GM and throwing out GM's CEO.
this isn't true. Frederick Henderson resigned due to pressure from the board. According to his own words: "There was no direction or input from the government," he said. "It was completely by the board and of the board."

Barack Obama is not a socialist and anyone that says otherwise is flat out wrong. It's not a legitimate complaint.
Willravel is offline  
Old 09-11-2010, 08:45 AM   #43 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel View Post
Barack Obama is not a socialist and anyone that says otherwise is flat out wrong. It's not a legitimate complaint.
To bring this back to the OP: it's not a legitimate complaint because past presidents have done similar things, both Democrat and Republican, throughout the 20th century.

If they want to criticize the nationalization, partial or no, they should focus on how it is carried out, not that it happened at all. Obama said it was temporary. Hold him to that. That's a legitimate criticism. Let's not call him a socialist for doing what's a part of the American tradition in politics and economic policy.

He's not a far-left Marxist radical seeking to dismantle the republic. To harp on about that is folly.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 09-11-2010, 01:19 PM   #44 (permalink)
Junkie
 
dogzilla's Avatar
 
Location: New York
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel View Post
Taking into the public ownership is not the same thing as purchasing a majority of shares. Nationalization would be the government seizing a company (or companies) in their entirety and taking control of them. What the Treasury did was purchase stocks while GM was going through Chapter 11. This is colloquially known as partial nationalization, but in truth it's quite different.

this isn't true. Frederick Henderson resigned due to pressure from the board. According to his own words: "There was no direction or input from the government," he said. "It was completely by the board and of the board."
I wasn't referring to Frederick Henderson. I was referring to Rick Wagoner who was thrown out by Obama when Obama nationalized GM.

The White House admitted to booting Rick out.

GM CEO resigns at Obama's behest - Mike Allen and Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

Quote:
The White House confirmed Wagoner was leaving at the government's behest after The Associated Press reported his immediate departure, without giving a reason
.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel View Post
Barack Obama is not a socialist and anyone that says otherwise is flat out wrong. It's not a legitimate complaint.
I don't know what you call it when a government takes over a company but that alone sounds like socialism to me based on the links I posted previously.

What is a legitimate complaint? That Obama is a tax and spend liberal, based on his latest plan to give a $100 billion tax break and then raise taxes to pay for it?
dogzilla is offline  
Old 09-11-2010, 01:33 PM   #45 (permalink)
Who You Crappin?
 
Derwood's Avatar
 
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
citation please for this tax break/raise?
__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel
Derwood is offline  
Old 09-11-2010, 01:50 PM   #46 (permalink)
Junkie
 
dogzilla's Avatar
 
Location: New York
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood View Post
citation please for this tax break/raise?
This has been in the news a lot in the last week. Here's one reference

News Headlines Obama Unveils Plan to Spend $50 Billion on Infrastructure

Quote:
President Barack Obama, scrambling to jump-start job creation in a sluggish U.S. economy, announced Monday a six-year plan to revamp aging roads, railways and airport runways with an initial $50 billion investment.
Quote:
Administration officials say Obama will ask the U.S. Congress on Wednesday to increase and permanently extend a tax credit for business research as a way of boosting job growth. The proposal, which was widely expected by investors, would cost $100 billion over 10 years.
Quote:
Asked how the administration would pay for the plan, the senior administration official said one option was to scrap some tax breaks for oil and gas companies.
Do you really expect the oil companies to just absorb this tax hike and not pass it on to us consumers? Even if BP is one of the collection agents for this tax, it's still a tax.
dogzilla is offline  
Old 09-11-2010, 01:59 PM   #47 (permalink)
Who You Crappin?
 
Derwood's Avatar
 
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
you're being disingenuous. he's extending an already existing tax credit (not starting a new one) and he's scrapping some tax breaks on companies that don't need them (not raising taxes on the populace).

at least be honest when you're describing something
__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel
Derwood is offline  
Old 09-11-2010, 02:23 PM   #48 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla View Post
I wasn't referring to Frederick Henderson. I was referring to Rick Wagoner who was thrown out by Obama when Obama nationalized GM.

The White House admitted to booting Rick out.
No. The White House asked him to resign after the treasury purchased controlling interest in the company. They didn't demand it, he wasn't booted out. They asked. And, just like with Henderson, they had the backing of the board.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla View Post
I don't know what you call it when a government takes over a company but that alone sounds like socialism to me based on the links I posted previously.
Quote:
=Dictionary.com]so·cial·ism   [soh-shuh-liz-uhm]
–noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2.
procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
Source
Nope.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oxford Dictionary
socialism (so·cial·ism)
Pronunciation:/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole
policy or practice based on this theory
(in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism
Source
Nope.

Quote:
so·cial·ism noun \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Definition of SOCIALISM

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Source
This one is slightly closer, but it wasn't the means of production and the distribution of goods, it was just temporarily purchasing controlling interest in a corporation which had just gone bankrupt.

Sorry, but it's not socialism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla View Post
What is a legitimate complaint? That Obama is a tax and spend liberal, based on his latest plan to give a $100 billion tax break and then raise taxes to pay for it?
You're saying tax breaks somehow become socialism when you agree to pay for them?
Willravel is offline  
Old 09-11-2010, 02:37 PM   #49 (permalink)
Junkie
 
dogzilla's Avatar
 
Location: New York
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood View Post
you're being disingenuous. he's extending an already existing tax credit (not starting a new one) and he's scrapping some tax breaks on companies that don't need them (not raising taxes on the populace).

at least be honest when you're describing something
That tax credit had an expiration date. Obama wants to extend it for 10 years at the expense of another $100 billion that isn't on the books now.

By closing a loophole, the oil companies tax bills are going to go up. I really don't expect them to absorb that cost. So part of the higher cost of petroleum products will be to cover the increased tax bills.

Corporations don't pay taxes. People pay taxes.

---------- Post added at 06:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:36 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel View Post

You're saying tax breaks somehow become socialism when you agree to pay for them?
No, that was a reference to Obama's latest spending/tax plan. If I was Obama and Biden, I'd hang my head in shame too.
dogzilla is offline  
Old 09-11-2010, 02:40 PM   #50 (permalink)
Who You Crappin?
 
Derwood's Avatar
 
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
so you're in favor of the government redistributing the tax payer's money to the energy companies in order to keep the energy companies from raising prices on the tax payers? Sounds like the tax payers are getting fucked either way, so it seems odd to be really for one side of it and really against the other
__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel
Derwood is offline  
Old 09-12-2010, 02:27 AM   #51 (permalink)
Junkie
 
dogzilla's Avatar
 
Location: New York
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood View Post
so you're in favor of the government redistributing the tax payer's money to the energy companies in order to keep the energy companies from raising prices on the tax payers? Sounds like the tax payers are getting fucked either way, so it seems odd to be really for one side of it and really against the other
That's another form of subsidy which can be eliminated, along with Obama being honest and admitting he is raising taxes on all of us.
dogzilla is offline  
Old 09-12-2010, 04:35 AM   #52 (permalink)
Who You Crappin?
 
Derwood's Avatar
 
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
wait, so you're saying that cutting the subsidy will result in the energy companies passing the cost on to the consumers (bad) but you're in FAVOR of cutting the subsidy?
__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel
Derwood is offline  
Old 09-12-2010, 04:40 AM   #53 (permalink)
Living in a Warmer Insanity
 
Tully Mars's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Yucatan, Mexico
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla View Post
That's another form of subsidy which can be eliminated, along with Obama being honest and admitting he is raising taxes on all of us.

Obama has repeatedly said he does not wish to raise taxes on the middle class. The Bush tax cuts are set to expire this next year. He's been very consistent about stating he's only interested allowing those cuts to expire on the top 2.5% of tax payers.
__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club
Tully Mars is offline  
Old 09-12-2010, 04:58 AM   #54 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
But tully, he may wish to not do it but those articles and pieces on the healthcare program I've read will increase money coming out of the middle classes pockets. If you don't want to call them taxes and call them fees fine, but they still are an increase of money out of pocket with no choice to decline, just like taxes.

re: the bush tax cuts, because people with any sort of wealth have some sort of financial adviser even if it is just an accountant doing their tax planning, they have already been planning on moving as much wealth as possible this year from direct gifts to building more family trusts. I think that the impact on the rich will be minimal because of this, and if it's not done this year it will be pushed out in future years because let's face it, all politicians fit that rich mold and they have a conflicted interest in protecting their own family money.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 09-12-2010, 05:05 AM   #55 (permalink)
Junkie
 
dogzilla's Avatar
 
Location: New York
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood View Post
wait, so you're saying that cutting the subsidy will result in the energy companies passing the cost on to the consumers (bad) but you're in FAVOR of cutting the subsidy?
The government shouldn't be subsidizing any business. Businesses succeed or fail on their own. Remove the subsidy to the oil company and let them deal with that. If their price goes up, so be it. We are already paying that price anyway by means of the subsidy.

Next, Obama starts aggressively cutting spending on all government programs, including funding the military to the point we have a credible defense.

Then Obama starts paying down the deficit with the money he saves by cutting government spending.

No more $50 billion giveaways to his construction buddies. No more $100 billion giveaways to his favorite corporations. His last exercise in giveaways to the tune of a $750 billion stimulus program flopped. He should not get to do it again.
dogzilla is offline  
Old 09-12-2010, 05:15 AM   #56 (permalink)
Living in a Warmer Insanity
 
Tully Mars's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Yucatan, Mexico
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq View Post
But tully, he may wish to not do it but those articles and pieces on the healthcare program I've read will increase money coming out of the middle classes pockets. If you don't want to call them taxes and call them fees fine, but they still are an increase of money out of pocket with no choice to decline, just like taxes.

re: the bush tax cuts, because people with any sort of wealth have some sort of financial adviser even if it is just an accountant doing their tax planning, they have already been planning on moving as much wealth as possible this year from direct gifts to building more family trusts. I think that the impact on the rich will be minimal because of this, and if it's not done this year it will be pushed out in future years because let's face it, all politicians fit that rich mold and they have a conflicted interest in protecting their own family money.
All I was doing was pointing out that Obama has not said he wants to raise taxes on everyone.

On the health care issue some of what you're saying I agree with and some I do not.

Really for years costs and fees have been increasing due to tax cuts. Everything from fees to use national parks to playing sports in school. I remember when playing sports at school was a given. Now it's a pay to play program in many places. This of course has little effect on the wealthy and serious effects on the poor.

You make an interesting point about taxes and how the wealthy deal with them, almost makes me wonder why they spend so much time fighting against them. Because in many ways you're right, they simply find loop holes and shelters and don't pay anyway. Reminds me of a stump speech Bush Jr. used to give where he stated "you can't raise taxes on the wealthy, they're just going to find loop holes and hire accounts and won't end up paying anyway." Not a direct quote, but really close. That amazed me. The argument being that it's impossible to enforce the tax code so why bother? I mean it would be stupid to try to close the loop holes so lets just keep shifting more of the burden to the middle class.

At some point all the money, massive amounts of money spent on the Bush Jr. tax cuts and the wars are going to have to be paid back. Cutting education, health care, Social Security or increasing taxes on the poor and middle class seem like really good ways to ensure the wealthy keep getting more wealthy and the middle class keeps sinking lower.
__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club
Tully Mars is offline  
Old 09-12-2010, 05:17 AM   #57 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla View Post
No more $50 billion giveaways to his construction buddies. No more $100 billion giveaways to his favorite corporations. His last exercise in giveaways to the tune of a $750 billion stimulus program flopped. He should not get to do it again.
Infrastructure funding is Obama's giveaway to construction buddies?
Political contributions of the construction industry are heavily towards Republicans.

So how would you pay for long overdue repair of the crumbling public infrastructure?

The stimulus program flopped? Not according to a broad consensus of economists.

The stimulus, along with the the bank bailout (TARP) and policies of the Fed kept the economy from tanking completely and turned it around to the tune to six quarters of positive GDP growth after five quarters of negative GDP growth...and significant job creation (certainly not enough to correct for the 8+ million lost in the prior eight years).

What would you have done with an economy that was sinking to the lowest levels since the Great Depression if you were in that position in 2009? Nothing and hope for the best and that the economy fixes itself w/o further significant decline?

Oh, btw...the notion that Obama is a socialist because of the temporary govt purchase of controlling interest in GM is just nonsense.

The government has begun the process of selling its GM stock as was planned.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Last edited by dc_dux; 09-12-2010 at 05:24 AM..
dc_dux is offline  
Old 09-12-2010, 05:33 AM   #58 (permalink)
Junkie
 
dogzilla's Avatar
 
Location: New York
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux View Post
Infrastructure funding is Obama's giveaway to construction buddies?
Political contributions of the construction industry are heavily towards Republicans.
Construction workers are heavily unionized, with unions as a major Democratic party backer

Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux View Post
So how would you pay for long overdue repair of the crumbling public infrastructure?
Let the states fund it. The federal government funds way too many things that should be at the state level, and with a one size fits all approach that isn't necessary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux View Post
The stimulus program flopped? Not according to a broad consensus of economists.
9%+ unemployment, housing and auto sales down after Obama borrowed against futirs sailes with his stupid programs, consumer spending down, foreclosures up. Some recovery.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux View Post
What would you have done with an economy that was sinking to the lowest levels since the Great Depression if you were in that position in 2009? Nothing and hope for the best and that the economy fixes itself w/o further significant decline?
Yes. Eventually it will recover.
dogzilla is offline  
Old 09-12-2010, 05:46 AM   #59 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla View Post
Construction workers are heavily unionized, with unions as a major Democratic party backer
In this election cycle:
General Contractors - 61% contributions to Republicans

Special Trade Contractors - 63% contributions to Republicans

Building Materials and Equipment - 72$ contributions to Republicans


Quote:
Let the states fund it. The federal government funds way too many things that should be at the state level, and with a one size fits all approach that isn't necessary.
So you prefer a piecemeal approach...where smaller, poorer states will just have to live with the crumbling infrastructure that affects not only the state's economy, but the national economy as well.


Quote:
9%+ unemployment, housing and auto sales down after Obama borrowed against futirs sailes with his stupid programs, consumer spending down, foreclosures up. Some recovery.
So you dont think five -six quarters of positive GDP growth (ave 3+%) is a good thing? or a positive result of the government's action? Or that unemployment would have likely been even higher (as much as 2-3%) than the current 9+%.

All sectors do not recovery at once and employment is always the last to recover.

Oh and consumer spending has been going up in the last 12-18 months...not down.

Quote:
Yes. Eventually it will recover.
Eventually?

Sure the economy would have recovered eventually?

At what cost? How many more unemployed would have been acceptable? How many more quarters of negative GDP growth would have been acceptable?
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Last edited by dc_dux; 09-12-2010 at 06:12 AM..
dc_dux is offline  
Old 09-12-2010, 06:14 AM   #60 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Subsidies (like tariffs) are America's way of exercising economic sovereignty in a globalized economy. Without them, America cannot compete on price due to labour, land, and other operational costs.

And you'd think Republicans (and conservatives and free-marketers in general) are okay with the high unemployment. It forces workers to accept lower-than-usual pay and removes a lot of the leverage that unions have when it comes to bargaining power. Maybe the recession will act as a long-term correction to the bloated average pay that Americans receive compared to the rest of the world. American workers, after all, are overvalued in many respects.

I guess they criticize Obama because he's "ruining it." He wants to preserve the quality of life for the average American, and that's just ruining it for the free-marketers who would have otherwise stood to benefit from a "correction" to the American labour force.

Let the market fix the economy. Let American workers earn less, and everything else will fall into place. America's wealth has been too spread out to be sustainable. Let wealth flow where it should: to the hands of the few.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 09-12-2010, 06:27 AM   #61 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
conservatives advocate class war but in the main lack the ethical and intellectual integrity required to own up to what they're advocating. so they pretend its something else. but it isn't.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 09-12-2010, 06:49 AM   #62 (permalink)
Living in a Warmer Insanity
 
Tully Mars's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Yucatan, Mexico
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy View Post
conservatives advocate class war but in the main lack the ethical and intellectual integrity required to own up to what they're advocating. so they pretend its something else. but it isn't.
You can simply look at the data and see every time the cons have controlled things spending has increased, the debt has increased, the wealthy have become more wealthy and the ranks of the poor have swelled.

I'll be interested to see what happens when guys like Miller from Alaska take their seat in the senate. I find the Alaska situation interesting because while a high % of Alaskans have historically complained about federal spending they've enjoyed massive federal pork barrel hand outs. I think they're the #1 state when it comes to federal funds coming in as compared to federal taxes being paid. If Miller does as he's promised and cut the federal spending how will the pop. of his state react? Could be interesting.
__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club
Tully Mars is offline  
Old 09-12-2010, 12:56 PM   #63 (permalink)
Junkie
 
dogzilla's Avatar
 
Location: New York
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux View Post
In this election cycle:
General Contractors - 61% contributions to Republicans

Special Trade Contractors - 63% contributions to Republicans

Building Materials and Equipment - 72$ contributions to Republicans

So you prefer a piecemeal approach...where smaller, poorer states will just have to live with the crumbling infrastructure that affects not only the state's economy, but the national economy as well.
I'll go along with that. Let the states pay for what they can justify and afford rather than Washington giving them money. Maybe that will help put an end to federal boondoggles and incentives for Congressmen to 'bring home the bacon'. Let's make the federal government a lean operation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux View Post
So you dont think five -six quarters of positive GDP growth (ave 3+%) is a good thing? or a positive result of the government's action? Or that unemployment would have likely been even higher (as much as 2-3%) than the current 9+%.
Not if Obama is artificially inflating the economy with $750 billion of borrowed money, and where he wants to do it again with at least $150 billion this year. Not when the GDP annual growth estimate for the 2nd quarter of 2010 was revised downward to 1.6% GDP Growth Revised Lower to 1.6% - TheStreet where the explanation is that the federal money supply ran out.

Quote:
Economic growth in the second quarter was even more tepid than originally reported, the government said Friday, which more or less validates other recent economic indicators pointing to a slowdown in the recovery.


---------- Post added at 04:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:52 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru View Post
Subsidies (like tariffs) are America's way of exercising economic sovereignty in a globalized economy. Without them, America cannot compete on price due to labour, land, and other operational costs.
So then, if the US can't compete in say the market for steel, then we the taxpayers get to subsidize the steel industry to make up the difference. Similarly with other subsidized products and services. That seems like a pretty dumb idea, especially when I'm being forced to pay for something I wouldn't use in the first place. If the people running the business can't make a profit, they should be doing something else.
dogzilla is offline  
Old 09-12-2010, 02:27 PM   #64 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla View Post
If the people running the business can't make a profit, they should be doing something else.
They generally do if they can't get enough funding. They move operations or outsource overseas or they get cash infusions from foreign interests---China, for example.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 09-12-2010 at 02:31 PM..
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 09-12-2010, 05:58 PM   #65 (permalink)
Who You Crappin?
 
Derwood's Avatar
 
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
so the state governments (that are all millions in debt) are expected to fund the infrastructure now too? Fine, raise state income taxes to Federal levels and maybe they can manage that
__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel
Derwood is offline  
Old 09-13-2010, 01:50 AM   #66 (permalink)
Junkie
 
dogzilla's Avatar
 
Location: New York
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood View Post
so the state governments (that are all millions in debt) are expected to fund the infrastructure now too? Fine, raise state income taxes to Federal levels and maybe they can manage that
If the states are funding it, then they can make the decision whether the work is really needed and how to prioritize it to stay within their budgets. It means fewer projects that get created just to prove that some Senator is capable of getting money from Washington. It means the state gets done what it thinks really needs to be done rather than what somebody in Washington thinks makes a perfect one size fits all solution. Finally, it shrink's Washington's budget and their ability to meddle in things they shouldn't be be meddling in.
dogzilla is offline  
Old 09-13-2010, 03:36 AM   #67 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
according to an associated press article from yesterday, the poverty rate in the united states is soaring:

Quote:
US poverty on track to post record gain in 2009

By HOPE YEN and LIZ SIDOTI (AP) – 1 day ago

WASHINGTON — The number of people in the U.S. who are in poverty is on track for a record increase on President Barack Obama's watch, with the ranks of working-age poor approaching 1960s levels that led to the national war on poverty.

Census figures for 2009 — the recession-ravaged first year of the Democrat's presidency — are to be released in the coming week, and demographers expect grim findings.

It's unfortunate timing for Obama and his party just seven weeks before important elections when control of Congress is at stake. The anticipated poverty rate increase — from 13.2 percent to about 15 percent — would be another blow to Democrats struggling to persuade voters to keep them in power.

"The most important anti-poverty effort is growing the economy and making sure there are enough jobs out there," Obama said Friday at a White House news conference. He stressed his commitment to helping the poor achieve middle-class status and said, "If we can grow the economy faster and create more jobs, then everybody is swept up into that virtuous cycle."

Interviews with six demographers who closely track poverty trends found wide consensus that 2009 figures are likely to show a significant rate increase to the range of 14.7 percent to 15 percent.

Should those estimates hold true, some 45 million people in this country, or more than 1 in 7, were poor last year. It would be the highest single-year increase since the government began calculating poverty figures in 1959. The previous high was in 1980 when the rate jumped 1.3 percentage points to 13 percent during the energy crisis.

Among the 18-64 working-age population, the demographers expect a rise beyond 12.4 percent, up from 11.7 percent. That would make it the highest since at least 1965, when another Democratic president, Lyndon B. Johnson, launched the war on poverty that expanded the federal government's role in social welfare programs from education to health care.

Demographers also are confident the report will show:

_Child poverty increased from 19 percent to more than 20 percent.

_Blacks and Latinos were disproportionately hit, based on their higher rates of unemployment.

_Metropolitan areas that posted the largest gains in poverty included Modesto, Calif.; Detroit; Cape Coral-Fort Myers, Fla.; Los Angeles and Las Vegas.

"My guess is that politically these figures will be greeted with alarm and dismay but they won't constitute a clarion call to action," said William Galston, a domestic policy aide for President Bill Clinton. "I hope the parties don't blame each other for the desperate circumstances of desperate people. That would be wrong in my opinion. But that's not to say it won't happen."

Lawrence M. Mead, a New York University political science professor who is a conservative and wrote "The New Politics of Poverty: The Nonworking Poor in America," argued that the figures will have a minimal impact in November.

"Poverty is not as big an issue right now as middle-class unemployment. That's a lot more salient politically right now," he said.

But if Thursday's report is as troubling as expected, Republicans in the midst of an increasingly strong drive to win control of the House, if not the Senate, would get one more argument to make against Democrats in the campaign homestretch.

The GOP says voters should fire Democrats because Obama's economic fixes are hindering the sluggish economic recovery. Rightly or wrongly, Republicans could cite a higher poverty rate as evidence.

Democrats almost certainly will argue that they shouldn't be blamed. They're likely to counter that the economic woes — and the poverty increase — began under President George W. Bush with the near-collapse of the financial industry in late 2008.

Although that's true, it's far from certain that the Democratic explanation will sway voters who already are trending heavily toward the GOP in polls as worrisome economic news piles up.

Hispanics and blacks — traditionally solid Democratic constituencies — could be inclined to stay home in November if, as expected, the Census Bureau reports that many more of them were poor last year.

Beyond this fall, the findings could put pressure on Obama to expand government safety net programs ahead of his likely 2012 re-election bid even as Republicans criticize him about federal spending and annual deficits. Those are areas of concern for independent voters whose support is critical in elections.

Experts say a jump in the poverty rate could mean that the liberal viewpoint — social constraints prevent the poor from working — will gain steam over the conservative position that the poor have opportunities to work but choose not to because they get too much help.

"The Great Recession will surely push the poverty rate for working-age people to a nearly 50-year peak," said Elise Gould, an economist with the Economic Policy Institute. She said that means "it's time for a renewed attack on poverty."

To Douglas Besharov, a University of Maryland public policy professor, the big question is whether there's anything more to do to help these families.

The 2009 forecasts are largely based on historical data and the unemployment rate, which climbed to 10.1 percent last October to post a record one-year gain.

The projections partly rely on a methodology by Rebecca Blank, a former poverty expert who now oversees the census. She estimated last year that poverty would hit about 14.8 percent if unemployment reached 10 percent. "As long as unemployment is higher, poverty will be higher," she said in an interview then.

A formula by Richard Bavier, a former analyst with the White House Office of Management and Budget who has had high rates of accuracy over the last decade, predicts poverty will reach 15 percent.

That would put the rate at the highest level since 1993. The all-time high was 22.4 percent in 1959, the first year the government began tracking poverty. It dropped to a low of 11.1 percent in 1973 after Johnson's war on poverty but has since fluctuated in the 12-14 percent range.

In 2008, the poverty level stood at $22,025 for a family of four, based on an official government calculation that includes only cash income before tax deductions. It excludes capital gains or accumulated wealth. It does not factor in noncash government aid such as tax credits or food stamps, which have surged to record levels in recent years under the federal stimulus program.

Beginning next year, the government plans to publish new, supplemental poverty figures that are expected to show even higher numbers of people in poverty than previously known. The figures will take into account rising costs of medical care, transportation and child care, a change analysts believe will add to the ranks of both seniors and working-age people in poverty.
The Associated Press: US poverty on track to post record gain in 2009

i expect that its required for the right to act as though these numbers follow from problems with the stimulus package, which they opposed in any event, rather than from the implementation of their core economic ideology. but that's transparently false. conservative economic ideology, implemented, is class warfare. here's the latest data that demonstrates it.

what's remarkable is that anyone takes that economic ideology seriously now given that we all know its consequences are disaster.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 09-13-2010, 03:42 AM   #68 (permalink)
Who You Crappin?
 
Derwood's Avatar
 
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla View Post
If the states are funding it, then they can make the decision whether the work is really needed and how to prioritize it to stay within their budgets. It means fewer projects that get created just to prove that some Senator is capable of getting money from Washington. It means the state gets done what it thinks really needs to be done rather than what somebody in Washington thinks makes a perfect one size fits all solution. Finally, it shrink's Washington's budget and their ability to meddle in things they shouldn't be be meddling in.
When you shift power from the Federal government to the State government, you end up with a State government that is just as corrupt as the Federal
__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel
Derwood is offline  
Old 09-13-2010, 04:02 AM   #69 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla View Post
If the states are funding it, then they can make the decision whether the work is really needed and how to prioritize it to stay within their budgets. It means fewer projects that get created just to prove that some Senator is capable of getting money from Washington. It means the state gets done what it thinks really needs to be done rather than what somebody in Washington thinks makes a perfect one size fits all solution. Finally, it shrink's Washington's budget and their ability to meddle in things they shouldn't be be meddling in.
You know what's funny? The guy Minnesota elected to carry the title of Governor while he runs for president has real conservative fiscal bona fides. He'd sooner cut healthcare programs for thousands of sick kids and handicapped folk than raise taxes. A few years ago, his budget policies lead to a brilliant plan whereby the state department of transportation, which was unable to secure money elsewhere, tried to front a multiyear, multihundred million dollar highway construction plan. They seemed a bit shocked when there were no takers.

It was also on his watch that a large highway bridge collapsed after a "we'll do whatever the cheapest option is" maintenance plan had been in effect for several years. Sure, the bridge construction wasn't as specified, but it stood for 40 years. Perhaps a more rigorous (and expensive!) inspection scheme would have caught the problem before it got out of hand. In a way, it was kind of a good thing that the bridge collapsed, because its collapse caused widespread bridge inspections throughout the state and now there have several instances where tenuous bridges that likely would have been ignored have been replaced.

The point being: local people already make infrastructure decisions. Sometimes they make really bad ones. Local decisions aren't always better, they're just more influenced by local politics.

Last edited by filtherton; 09-13-2010 at 04:05 AM..
filtherton is offline  
Old 09-13-2010, 05:01 AM   #70 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel View Post
You know President Obama isn't a Kenyan, right? And not a Muslim? And not a socialist? And not a terrorist? And not a racist? And not a Nazi?
Can you tell us what he is, in terms of what he stands for?

As for your list, I'll play along for a bit:

A portion of his heritage is Kenyan, why not claim it, with pride?
How does a tradition or fundamentalist Muslim view what Obama is?
What is wrong with a socialist agenda, if you believe in wealth rdistribution?
Don't some people see the use of drones an act of terrorism? Our military presence in foreign countries?
As President has Obama done anything to address the chronic problems born of institutional racism that has afflicted the African American community in this country?
Has Obama attempted to segregate, isolate and blame 1% to 2% of our nation's population, the "rich" in his case, through a campaign of propaganda?

---------- Post added at 01:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:59 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by robot_parade View Post
When was the last time Obama denied being a Muslim?

I know that part of the (more 'mainstream') right-wing narrative is how thin-skinned Obama is, but I don't see it.

Instead of your narrative, I hear:

** Crazy right-wingers: OBAMA IS A MUSLIM

** Obama: Uh, no, actually I'm a Christian, and I pray every day.

** Crazy right-wingers: OBAMA IS A MUSLIM, AND WAS BORN IN KENYA

** Obama: So, uh, about this economy...

** Crazy right-wingers: OBAMA IS A MUSLIM, AND WAS BORN IN KENYA. SHOW US YOUR BIRTH CERTIFICATE, BOY!

** Rest of the country: Uh...I think he said he was a Christian.

** Obama: We, uh, passed this healthcare bill. I know it isn't perfect, but it's kinda ok...

** Media: 'Obama a Muslim' claims on the rise.

** Obama: So, uh, the economy is getting a little better...

** Fox News: 'Obama a Muslim? What do you think?'

** Obama: Well, I think we're going to start getting out of Iraq now...

** Slightly less-crazy right-wingers: Obama is soooo thin-skinned!


In other words, we have the crazy right-wing spouting nonsense, the slightly less crazy right-wing repeating the nonsense and then adding their own level of irrelevancy, innuendo, and projection, the mainstream media treating it as a circus, and virtually no legitimate debate.
Do you ever watch MSNBC?
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 09-13-2010, 07:56 AM   #71 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 View Post
Can you tell us what he is, in terms of what he stands for?
A democrat. The best way to describe President Obama is as a democrat. He's slightly left of center, but he's afraid of looking too liberal so he moved right on certain issues (especially war/rendition/assassinations). He likes to compromise and doesn't understand how to beat Republicans at their own game.
Willravel is offline  
Old 09-13-2010, 08:05 AM   #72 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel View Post
A democrat. The best way to describe President Obama is as a democrat.
But, Willravel, it's substantially more difficult to freak out about Obama for being a Democrat.

Point out one single Democrat thing he's done since being in office....just one single thing....I dare you!
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 09-13-2010, 09:07 AM   #73 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
The first Democrat thing he did was not immediately do anything upon taking office.
Willravel is offline  
Old 09-13-2010, 11:54 AM   #74 (permalink)
Junkie
 
dogzilla's Avatar
 
Location: New York
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood View Post
When you shift power from the Federal government to the State government, you end up with a State government that is just as corrupt as the Federal
I really doubt that there is150,000 miles of road in the US that are in such desperate need of rebuilding that the feds have to fund it over and above state highway maintenance budgets. That's an average of 3000 miles of road in each state that is in bad shape.

If the railroads want 4,000 miles of railroad, let them fund it. The government has spent quite a bit of money tearing up old railroads and turning them into rail trails so people can 'hike' and 'bike'. Now Obama wants to spend taxpayer money to build new ones. Neat way to waste taxpayer money.

Despite some pretty graphs from some website that asks questions about astrology and other silliness to determine political orientation, Obama is not 'right of center' except in some bizarro liberal universe. If anything, he lands solidly in the the liberal camp on issues like this, and even in the socialist camp on some issues.
dogzilla is offline  
Old 09-13-2010, 12:03 PM   #75 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel View Post
He likes to compromise and doesn't understand how to beat Republicans at their own game.
If true, perhaps this capsulizes the problem. For Bush, the things he did were not about beating Democrats, he acted according to his convictions. And for me, I have little respect for people who compromise their convictions or those who don't have any. For example, I read your various positions and you are consistent, we disagree on almost everything, but you have my respect.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 09-13-2010, 12:07 PM   #76 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla View Post
Despite some pretty graphs from some website that asks questions about astrology and other silliness to determine political orientation, Obama is not 'right of center' except in some bizarro liberal universe. If anything, he lands solidly in the the liberal camp on issues like this, and even in the socialist camp on some issues.
What this thread is likely getting at is that many people who are causing problems view Obama as further left than centre-left, which he hardly is. Any claims to socialism placed on Obama are a bit silly because similar claims could be placed on Republican presidents as well.

It would seem that perhaps America should own up to its own socialism rather than pretend it's against it.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 09-13-2010, 12:12 PM   #77 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru View Post
But, Willravel, it's substantially more difficult to freak out about Obama for being a Democrat.

Point out one single Democrat thing he's done since being in office....just one single thing....I dare you!
Do you need a list of things I freak out about regarding Obama. To start:

For example if I developed a 20 year relationship with you, the way Obama did with Rev. Wright, you would have a defender until death. I would never toss you to the side for political reasons. I would talk about how we may disagree, but you would be my friend, my comrade, etc. I would defend you, your rights, you eccentricities, how I understand the evolution of your views. You would always have open door to me. And it would not matter how much we disagreed. Certainly, you can bet I would never stop trying to influence you, but I could never do what Obama did with Rev. Wright. Obama's handling of Rev. Wright freaked me out. I did not understand it, never did and never will. We are wired different. the respect I had for Obama after that went close to zero.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 09-13-2010, 12:26 PM   #78 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 View Post
If true, perhaps this capsulizes the problem. For Bush, the things he did were not about beating Democrats, he acted according to his convictions. And for me, I have little respect for people who compromise their convictions or those who don't have any. For example, I read your various positions and you are consistent, we disagree on almost everything, but you have my respect.
I appreciate that.

I don't get how President Obama being a moderate capsulizes the insane accusations being lobbed against him, though. He should have pushed for single-payer and settled on a public option, but didn't, and yet "Obamacare" (the healthcare reform bill) was being characterized as a communist plot. Those accusations were so loud and so stupid they drowned out the concerns of honest people that are in trouble because of our messed up healthcare industry. Like it or not, there are substantial problems in the healthcare industry and the healthcare bill probably would have addressed them better if the administration didn't have to deal with the "death panel" or "socialism" bullshit.

What I think is going on are these are fucked-up, disingenuous political tactics. Calling President Obama a socialist or a Nazi or a Kenyan are less about abject racism or unbelievable stupidity but more about the right being willing to get down in the dirt and do some of the most despicable things I've ever seen just so they can get a majority back and get to deregulating and giving tax breaks to the rich.
Willravel is offline  
Old 09-13-2010, 01:02 PM   #79 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel View Post
What I think is going on are these are fucked-up, disingenuous political tactics. Calling President Obama a socialist or a Nazi or a Kenyan are less about abject racism or unbelievable stupidity but more about the right being willing to get down in the dirt and do some of the most despicable things I've ever seen just so they can get a majority back and get to deregulating and giving tax breaks to the rich.
Again, this is funny stuff. You could call me whatever you want, and actually if you go back and read some of the stuff I have been called, I could: I can give it back (my first choice) - ignore it (my maturity level doesn't usually allow this) - make jokes about it (my second choice) - leave (I am a fighter, death before surrender - yea, it lacks wisdom, luckily I surround myself with people wiser than me) - or get all whiny about it (the choice made by Obama and many of his supporters).

Try it, call me something. Call me a greedy capitalist pig? Call me a gun loving, mindless twit. call me irrational. Call me a war monger. Call me Pol Pot. Call me whatever you want, but as the joke goes, just don't call me late for dinner. I know what I am and what I am not.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 09-13-2010, 01:10 PM   #80 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about the people who spread the birther lies and the death panel nonsense and the Nazi bs. These aren't being spread by Ace, but by Rush and Beck and Orly and Hannity and Palin. Those are the people I'm talking about, unless I've missed something and you're a birther or someone that thinks the president is a communist Nazi.
Willravel is offline  
 

Tags
criticisms, illegitimate, legitimate, obama, president, preventing

Thread Tools

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 On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:15 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360