PDA

View Full Version : Republican Victory



ljb5
07-09-2009, 11:25 PM
I've noticed a trend in many threads started by Republicans: first they identify a problem that was created (or exacerbated) by their policies...

...then they declare that Obama will be unable to solve it....

...and then they crow about it as if this counts as a victory for them.

A few examples:


"Iraq is such a mess, Obama won't be able to keep his promise to withdraw in sixteen months."
"The economy is in such shambles that Obama's policies won't be able to dig us out."
"The legal status of the Gitmo detainees was managed so poorly that Obama has little choice but to continue Bush's policies."
"Global warmng has already progressed so far that Obama's policies won't be able to reverse it."


I'll concede that Obama is no superman, so it's entirely possible that he won't be able to solve the problems currently before us.....

....but does that really count as a victory for the Republicans or should we expect the Republicans to take responsibility for the problems they created?

BrianW
07-09-2009, 11:42 PM
The democratic mantra...

"It's okay if our guy doesn't keep his promises."

...this started back in Nov 2006.

Seems the newest version is...

"He's not Bush, so we don't care if he screws up."

Which equals...

"YWWAB"

:D

seanz
07-09-2009, 11:58 PM
Bush.....he's the new Clinton.

:)

ljb5
07-10-2009, 12:12 AM
"He's not Bush, so we don't care if he screws up."

Very clever, Brian... you subtly transposed "fails to fix Bush's mess" into "screws up."

There's a world of difference between the two.

As I already said, I concede it's possible that Obama won't be able to fix Bush's mess.... but that's not the same thing as saying Obama screwed up.

I'm not sure if you understand the difference.

Think of it this way: If you get hit by a drunk driver and are seriously injured, the drunk driver is at fault. If a passing good Samaritan tries valiantly to save you, but fails... the fault still lies with the drunk driver, not the guy who tried to help.

Above all, the drunk driver wins no points at all for loudly declaring the Good Samaritan a failure for trying to help undo the damage.

pipefitter
07-10-2009, 01:30 AM
ljb5, don't you realize that it wasn't all democrats that voted for Obama? Don't you realize that the republicans that didn't vote for McCain did so because Obama was more likely to end the US involvement in Iraq, amongst other things he said he will do. He might ought to have read the fine print on the teleprompters.

Obama sold a bill of goods. It's why he won by a landslide. Do you think that is because most of the republicans stayed home on voting day?

Contrary to popular belief here in the bilge and the media, most Americans are not for war.

What it really seems like is that the left is having Bush bash withdrawals. I hope the DT's subside sometime within the next couple years. I would tend to look at it as a public service. The republicans are just keeping you from having to give up the habit cold turkey. Until they come up with the Bush patch, this will have to do.

bobbys
07-10-2009, 02:44 AM
Theres Republicans here????.

And there starting threads?????.

Names and dates please ,My reports go up to Alaska next week!!!!!

oznabrag
07-10-2009, 02:48 AM
I detect an aroma of reconciliation. Perhaps spiced with the possibility of bipartisan dialogue. Could it be that reclaiming our Nation from the jaws of Money is within our grasp?

Somebody's ego will probably get in the way.

Paul Pless
07-10-2009, 06:43 AM
I've noticed a trend in many threads started by Republicans: first they identify a problem that was created (or exacerbated) by their policies...

...then they declare that Obama will be unable to solve it....


Cite please... I see almost no such threads on the first page of the Bilge.

C. Ross
07-10-2009, 06:52 AM
I've noticed a past practice in many threads started by Democrats: first they identifed a problem that was created (or exacerbated) by President Bush.

...then they declared that President Bush was a very bad man....

...and then they crowed about it as if this counts as a victory for them.

I'll concede that Bush was a poor president, so it's entirely possible that Democrats will cite his example for a long time.....

....but does that really count as a victory for the Democrats or should we expect the Democrats to show results in the future from the policies they've enacted on party-line votes?

brad9798
07-10-2009, 07:42 AM
ljb5, don't you realize that it wasn't all democrats that voted for Obama? Don't you realize that the republicans that didn't vote for McCain did so because Obama was more likely to end the US involvement in Iraq, amongst other things he said he will do.

EXCELLENT, pipefitter. My sentiments EXACTLY!

ljb5 cannot and will not accept that.

What lj proposes as 'claimed victories' are not victories WHATSOEVER!

Lj knows this, I know this, all smart folks know this.

That being said, lj, Obama f-d up big time with his BIG mouth about Gitmo ... regardless of how you spin it or try to deflect.

Again, this is not a victory ... in fact, on another thread I clearly say that these things sometimes happen ...

Now, if you were really caring and really involved, you'd focus on complete 180 contradictions of the current campaign and not on the past regime ... or a couple of bilgerats talking about Obama.

Again, you focus on the symptoms and the messengers and the past regime when you should focus on Obama.

You will never understand that, though ... :(

BrianW
07-10-2009, 08:06 AM
Very clever, Brian... you subtly transposed "fails to fix Bush's mess" into "screws up."

There's a world of difference between the two.



Of course there is, but that statement is not in my post. You had to make it up.

ljb5
07-10-2009, 08:10 AM
What lj proposes as 'claimed victories' are not victories WHATSOEVER!

(sigh). Yes, Brad, that is my point. These so-called "victories" are not victories at all.

But it's been so long since the Republicans have had a victory that they simply can't remember what a real victory is, so they go around trumpeting Obama's frustrations as if that were a victory for the Republicans.

I think I explained that pretty clearly in the first post, but somehow you got it backwards.

Paul Pless
07-10-2009, 08:11 AM
You had to make it up.You're not accusing ljb5 of being dishomest are you?

ljb5
07-10-2009, 08:19 AM
You're not accusing ljb5 of being dishomest are you?

He is, but the truth is he is the one being dishonest.

In post #2, he mischaracterized my position as: "He's not Bush, so we don't care if he screws up."

Since that is not a fair, valid or supportable characterization of my position, it is dishonest of him to suggest it.

To be clear --- I do care if Obama screws up, however, I don't think "falls short of fixing Bush's problems" counts as a screw up.

Iraq and Gitmo will always be Bush's fault. If Obama fails to resolve them, they will still be Bush's fault.

ljb5
07-10-2009, 08:20 AM
Cite please... I see almost no such threads on the first page of the Bilge.

You see "almost no" such threads?

So you do see some. :D

I see several.

How about you pay attention for a while and then we'll compare notes when I get back from vacation.

Here's a pretty good example (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=99448). Check out all the Bush-loving GWOT supporters who suddenly care about GITMO detainees. :rolleyes:

Robmill0605
07-10-2009, 08:23 AM
Very clever, Brian... you subtly transposed "fails to fix Bush's mess" into "screws up."

There's a world of difference between the two.

As I already said, I concede it's possible that Obama won't be able to fix Bush's mess.... but that's not the same thing as saying Obama screwed up.

I'm not sure if you understand the difference.

Think of it this way: If you get hit by a drunk driver and are seriously injured, the drunk driver is at fault. If a passing good Samaritan tries valiantly to save you, but fails... the fault still lies with the drunk driver, not the guy who tried to help.

Above all, the drunk driver wins no points at all for loudly declaring the Good Samaritan a failure for trying to help undo the damage.

Hogwash, and if the " good Samaritan" ( Obama) doesn't have a clue what he is doing in trying to " help" ( Obamas policies) and makes it worse with his treatment of the victim ( USA) and the victim dies because of that treatment and not the accident then whos fault is it?
Above all, the Good Samaritan( Obama) wins no points by loudly declaring it wasn't his failure ( Obama inherited it) for making the damage worse.

ljb5
07-10-2009, 08:28 AM
Hogwash, and if the " good Samaritan" ( Obama) doesn't have a clue what he is doing in trying to " help" ( Obamas policies) and makes it worse with his treatment of the victim.

If he makes it worse, obviously, that's a problem. Yet so far, we haven't seen that.

Earlier, tusti blamed Obama for the AIG bailout which happened last September.

Robmill0605
07-10-2009, 08:36 AM
If he makes it worse, obviously, that's a problem. Yet so far, we haven't seen that.

Earlier, tusti blamed Obama for the AIG bailout which happened last September.

YES WE HAVE seen that. He has made it worse.

Unemployment is 9.5 percent. Obama has been calling this the "worse recession since the great depression" and now that idiot Biden says " we under estimated"?

BrianW
07-10-2009, 08:36 AM
He is, but the truth is he is the one being dishonest.

In post #2, he mischaracterized my position as: "He's not Bush, so we don't care if he screws up."

Since that is not a fair, valid or supportable characterization of my position, it is dishonest of him to suggest it.

Your name is nowhere in my post. Therefore it's not about you (sorry, I know that hurts.)

You're the one who started a thread generalizing Republicans, why now are you going personal? Because you had to play the victim to make someone else look bad. Lame tactic.

So I'm not being dishonest, you're just being incompetent.

Robmill0605
07-10-2009, 08:40 AM
Your name is nowhere in my post. Therefore it's not about you (sorry, I know that hurts.)

You're the one who started a thread generalizing Republicans, why now are you going personal? Because you had to play the victim to make someone else look bad. Lame tactic.

So I'm not being dishonest, you're just being incompetent.


OUCH!!!

Direct hit. There is an old saying in the Air Force.

" If you are not taking flak, your're not over the target".

Paul Pless
07-10-2009, 08:42 AM
Here's a pretty good example (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=99448).Check out all the Bush-loving GWOT supporters who suddenly care about GITMO detainees. :rolleyes:Dude... Kaa's not right wing republican... He's a cynic... Figured someone as bright as you would know the difference.

brad9798
07-10-2009, 08:58 AM
Iraq and Gitmo will always be Bush's fault. If Obama fails to resolve them, they will still be Bush's fault.

Obama MADE it Obama's responsibility/fault if Obama fails to fix it by continually saying that he will close them ...

You must've missed that part.

Let me put it in more basic terms so you can understand:

Let's say the guy you replace in a position at work (whatever your 'work' happens to be) has screwed up the department.

In trying to get that position, you continually and constantly tell folks how you will immediately bring change and shut down that part of the department that should never have been 'started.'

Then, you GET that new position ...

THEN, you decide (for whatever reason) that you are NOT going to 'fix' the problem you sold to your boss so that you could GET that new position ...

Then, ljb5, would you simply tell your boss that it's still the previous employee's fault?

If you want to get fired, you would! ;)

Upon accepting that position, that problem became your problem and your fault! You don't fix it when you promised to do so, and you are suddenly more useless than the previous person in that position.

The boss would fire you.

Then again, politics are not real-world ...

Then again, either are you! ;)

brad9798
07-10-2009, 08:59 AM
I'm not a Bush-lover ... haven't been for years.

That being said, I haven't, didn't, and don't care about the detainees. :D

ljb5
07-10-2009, 09:07 AM
I'm not a Bush-lover ... haven't been for years.

Yes, I know.

It's amazing how hard it is to find someone who will admit supporting him.

Lots of Republicans say, "Bush wasn't really a Republican."

Lots of conservatives say, "Bush wasn't really a conservative."

It's almost like no one ever voted for him. :rolleyes:

ljb5
07-10-2009, 09:11 AM
Then, ljb5, would you simply tell your boss that it's still the previous employee's fault?

The boss needs to know the truth.


Upon accepting that position, that problem became your problem and your fault!

It becomes my problem, but doesn't become my fault. I explained that already.


You don't fix it when you promised to do so, and you are suddenly more useless than the previous person in that position.

I disagree.

ljb5
07-10-2009, 09:28 AM
Contrary to popular belief here in the bilge and the media, most Americans are not for war.

Golly, I've been saying that for much longer than the last seven years.

Makes me wonder why the Republicans ran "Shock and Awe" Cheney and "stay the course" McCain.

Maybe someday they'll figure it out.

ChaseKenyon
07-10-2009, 09:34 AM
Very clever, Brian... you subtly transposed "fails to fix Bush's mess" into "screws up."

There's a world of difference between the two.

As I already said, I concede it's possible that Obama won't be able to fix Bush's mess.... but that's not the same thing as saying Obama screwed up.

I'm not sure if you understand the difference.

Think of it this way: If you get hit by a drunk driver and are seriously injured, the drunk driver is at fault. If a passing good Samaritan tries valiantly to save you, but fails... the fault still lies with the drunk driver, not the guy who tried to help.

Above all, the drunk driver wins no points at all for loudly declaring the Good Samaritan a failure for trying to help undo the damage.


well put LJB5

I have been a lifelong conservative republican. I even founded my home towns TARs group.

In the last 8 years of bush the GOP has ;not just forgotten it's primary middle class foundation, It has made us the targets for financially abusive measures in a now publicly recognized attempt to create a two cast country of the ridiculously wealthy and every one else in poverty. McCain and Palin were the final straw.

It seems Obama and his policies are the only ones who even aknowledge the existence of a middle class in the USA.

So after 43 years I have switched to the party and persons who aknowledge my existence as a middle class person.

Chase

Tom Montgomery
07-10-2009, 09:53 AM
I did not vote for a list of promises. I voted for the man who I thought would be the more competent helmsman. I expect him to make course corrections. Do I always agree with him? No. Do I still think he was the best choice for the job? Absolutely.

ljb5
07-10-2009, 09:56 AM
It seems Obama and his policies are the only ones who even aknowledge the existence of a middle class in the USA.

So after 43 years I have switched to the party and persons who aknowledge my existence as a middle class person.

Chase

Glad to have you aboard, Chase!

Kaa
07-10-2009, 09:56 AM
It becomes my problem, but doesn't become my fault.

It doesn't become your fault, but it becomes your responsibility.

If you fail to fix it as you promised, you're not at fault for creating the problem, but you're at fault for failing your responsibility to fix it.

I don't think we elect presidents on a non-recourse basis: "If I succeed, I get all the credit, but if I fail, it's not my fault at all" :D

Besides, as I said, I don't see any complicated problems with Guantanamo detainees. Just follow the law. If you think that following the law may create political problems for you, well, HTFU then.

Kaa

ljb5
07-10-2009, 10:05 AM
It doesn't become your fault, but it becomes your responsibility.

If you fail to fix it as you promised, you're not at fault for creating the problem, but you're at fault for failing your responsibility to fix it.

I can agree with that..... but I still feel that "failure to fix" is a less grievous sin than "broke it in the first place."

Most significantly, the solution to "failure to fix" is not to revert back to the party that created the problem.

If Obama fails to fix Bush's problems, the logical solution is to find someone even less like Bush.... someone further to the left... someone more willing to tear up the landscape to uproot the problem.


I said, I don't see any complicated problems with Guantanamo detainees. Just follow the law. If you think that following the law may create political problems for you, well, HTFU then.

I tend to agree. Clearly Bush was too far to the right for either of us on that one. Perhaps Obama is also too far to the right. What's the solution? If Obama fails to resolve GITMO, I'll advocate for someone even farther to the left. Will you?

Kaa
07-10-2009, 10:17 AM
I can agree with that..... but I still feel that "failure to fix" is a less grievous sin than "broke it in the first place."

Ranking sins is a hard and thankless business :-)


Most significantly, the solution to "failure to fix" is not to revert back to the party that created the problem.

If Obama fails to fix Bush's problems, the logical solution is to find someone even less like Bush.... someone further to the left...

You see the world all arranged on a single left-right axis and the only movement you can imagine is either left or right.

I would suggest that the world is considerably more complicated than that.


I tend to agree. Clearly Bush was too far to the right for either of us on that one. Perhaps Obama is also too far to the right. What's the solution? If Obama fails to resolve GITMO, I'll advocate for someone even farther to the left. Will you?

See above. The world is multidimensional and if movement along one axis (from right-ish (Bush) to left-ish (Obama)) failed to bring any improvement, the solution is to pick another axis and not to continue in the unhelpful direction.

Kaa

Paul Pless
07-10-2009, 10:29 AM
Glad to have you aboard, Chase!I don't seem to recall you welcoming my vote for Obama.

Dan McCosh
07-10-2009, 10:32 AM
Republicans discovered fire?

John Smith
07-10-2009, 10:33 AM
The democratic mantra...

"It's okay if our guy doesn't keep his promises."

...this started back in Nov 2006.

Seems the newest version is...

"He's not Bush, so we don't care if he screws up."

Which equals...

"YWWAB"

:D
Has anyone considered, seriously, that the debt Bush left us in will sink us? That it's possible that nothing anyone does can prevent that? Much like the Titanic after she hit the berg?

The republicans had total control from January 2001 until January 2007. In January 2007, the dems won the house and senate, but by a margin so slim it only put them in control of committees. In 2007, the republicans filibustered a record number of times.

From my perspective, I would ask that we all be as honest as possible in our discussions. If you take Bush's projected deficits and debt based on his policies and project them out a few years, and remember he inherited a budget in pretty good shape, Obama's deficit and debt projections don't seem so bad.

For the record, I fully expect that had Obama been in the senate at the time, he, too, would have voted for that resolution in 2002, although, admittedly, that's just my unsubstantiated opinion. However, Iraq invasion and occupation was begun by Bush under false pretenses and on borrowed money. It was a lot easier to go in than it will be to get out, so it seems unfair to put any part of Iraq on Obama's shoulders.

As Obama has chosen to send more troops into Afghanistan, it is fair to, at some point, say it is now his war.

It was the Bush administration that paid out $360 billion in TARP funds with no way of tracking them. The auto company bail out came while Bush was president. The Omnibus bill with those thousands of earmarks needed to be signed to keep the government open, but it was left over from the previous congress and administration.

Obama made some promises during the campaign. If we are to be honest with ourselves and each other, we can expect him to make a sincere effort to deliver on those promises. If Congress fails to deliver, I'm not sure it's fair to blame the president if he made a valiant effort.

He's ordered Gitmo closed, troops out of Iraq, and is taking a shot at reforming health care.

He has not addressed any of his promises made to the gay community. I'm hoping he will get to those once he's past the present slew of crisis situations.

Let us hold against Obama promises he made and makes no effort to keep. Let us give him credit for success. Let's not make stuff up.

Fair enough?

John Smith
07-10-2009, 10:43 AM
I've noticed a past practice in many threads started by Democrats: first they identifed a problem that was created (or exacerbated) by President Bush.

...then they declared that President Bush was a very bad man....

...and then they crowed about it as if this counts as a victory for them.

I'll concede that Bush was a poor president, so it's entirely possible that Democrats will cite his example for a long time.....

....but does that really count as a victory for the Democrats or should we expect the Democrats to show results in the future from the policies they've enacted on party-line votes?
How's this:

We should hope anything that passes Congress via party line vote or not produces positive results.

Presidents are human. They make a lot of decisions. We hope they make more good decisions than bad decisions.

We don't know on some decisions whether they were good or bad until we allow time for the results to come in.

Some of us here remember the republicans on tv in '93 - Gingrich, Dole, Grahm, etc. - telling us about all the bad **** that would come if Clinton got his budget. They were all wrong.

As to Bush, I am hard pressed to think a good decision made during his entire two terms. Let us look at just some of his history:

Katrina response was beyond defense.

After having been warned of Al Qaeda hijacking planes, when, while in his motorcade, he was informed of the first plane hitting the trade center, he continued to the elementary school, rather than staying in the motorcade until more information was had.

When in the school, and informed of the second plane, he sat, like a deer in the headlights, for 7 minutes.

Maybe it would be easier if someone would list the good decisions he made.

John Smith
07-10-2009, 10:51 AM
Hogwash, and if the " good Samaritan" ( Obama) doesn't have a clue what he is doing in trying to " help" ( Obamas policies) and makes it worse with his treatment of the victim ( USA) and the victim dies because of that treatment and not the accident then whos fault is it?
Above all, the Good Samaritan( Obama) wins no points by loudly declaring it wasn't his failure ( Obama inherited it) for making the damage worse.
HORSEFEATERS!

If the boy who put his finger in the dyke didn't have enough fingers to plug all the holes, it's hardly his fault that the dyke was leaking.

The dishonest part of your analogy is that you don't look at the projections of Bush's policies. If you include the cost of the wars, the TARP, the auto bailouts, the money borrowed from social security, the loss of jobs, etc., do you believe his projected debt would be less than Obama's?

For the record, and to keep this discussion honest, it's not all about Bush. Our trade deficit has been growing at a disturbing pace of quite some time. Long before NAFTA was even thought of.

Jimmy Carter got laughed at for trying to get us to conserve energy, because he realized back then that we were too dependent upon foreign sources.

All this **** hit the fan as Obama became president. He's got an enormous amont on his plate. He's got a congress with more dems than republs, but most of both are owned by corporate lobbyists.

Assuming we can dig out of the hole we're in, which is an assumption, it's not going to be either quick or easy.

John Smith
07-10-2009, 10:54 AM
YES WE HAVE seen that. He has made it worse.

Unemployment is 9.5 percent. Obama has been calling this the "worse recession since the great depression" and now that idiot Biden says " we under estimated"?

He (Obama) also said that unemployment will go further up before it comes down, that unemployment will be the LAST place we see improved numbers.

My question is: why the impatience? The need for "instant" repair? Let's see what things look like next 4th of July, when we'll have a much better idea of how he's doing.

John Smith
07-10-2009, 10:58 AM
Obama MADE it Obama's responsibility/fault if Obama fails to fix it by continually saying that he will close them ...

You must've missed that part.

Let me put it in more basic terms so you can understand:

Let's say the guy you replace in a position at work (whatever your 'work' happens to be) has screwed up the department.

In trying to get that position, you continually and constantly tell folks how you will immediately bring change and shut down that part of the department that should never have been 'started.'

Then, you GET that new position ...

THEN, you decide (for whatever reason) that you are NOT going to 'fix' the problem you sold to your boss so that you could GET that new position ...

Then, ljb5, would you simply tell your boss that it's still the previous employee's fault?

If you want to get fired, you would! ;)

Upon accepting that position, that problem became your problem and your fault! You don't fix it when you promised to do so, and you are suddenly more useless than the previous person in that position.

The boss would fire you.

Then again, politics are not real-world ...

Then again, either are you! ;)

No offense, but your analogy is a bit screwed up. Let's say I'm your boss and the guy who just retired screwed things up badly. I hired you to replace him, because you convinced me you could repair what he broke. You also told me it was going to take some time to get the plant up and running at full productivity; maybe a year or two.

I decide, after 6 months, that the plant's not up and running properly, so I blame you.

John Smith
07-10-2009, 11:11 AM
I did not vote for a list of promises. I voted for the man who I thought would be the more competent helmsman. I expect him to make course corrections. Do I always agree with him? No. Do I still think he was the best choice for the job? Absolutely.
That pretty well voices the way I feel.

SamSam
07-10-2009, 11:49 AM
Ranking sins is a hard and thankless business :-)



You see the world all arranged on a single left-right axis and the only movement you can imagine is either left or right.

I would suggest that the world is considerably more complicated than that.



See above. The world is multidimensional and if movement along one axis (from right-ish (Bush) to left-ish (Obama)) failed to bring any improvement, the solution is to pick another axis and not to continue in the unhelpful direction.

KaaThe world is more complicated than a left-right axis, but I'm not sure the combination of the US people, the media and the political system are capable of dealing with anything more complicated than left-right, black or white.

The problem might be there is not an actual binary choice that has any actual power. There is right and center-right. There seems to be no center party with a reasonable span of the left and right that has any power and certainly none on the left.

oznabrag
07-10-2009, 12:35 PM
If the boy who put his finger in the dyke...

I musta missed that part!

JimD
07-10-2009, 12:36 PM
I declare this victory a draw!

Osborne Russell
07-10-2009, 12:39 PM
I did not vote for a list of promises. I voted for the man who I thought would be the more competent helmsman. I expect him to make course corrections. Do I always agree with him? No. Do I still think he was the best choice for the job? Absolutely.

It's called representative democracy. You choose a representative.

pipefitter
07-10-2009, 12:40 PM
Bush broke the country? This is where I have a problem with these notions, whether it be that any president can create this economic condition or that yet another can fail to fix it.

If there is crappy products made, and they continue to be made at a profit, who's fault is it? I tend to blame those who keep buying it.

So keep those wallets open and switching blame back and forth and see how much things change.

Kaa
07-10-2009, 12:41 PM
If the boy who put his finger in the dyke didn't have enough fingers to plug all the holes, it's hardly his fault that the dyke was leaking.

ROTFLMAO! :D

Kaa

L.W. Baxter
07-10-2009, 05:54 PM
Republicans discovered fire?

I wondered about that, too. I always thought it was a union job.:D

SamSam
07-10-2009, 06:21 PM
Republicans discovered fire?
No, they just tend to falsely shout it.

Milo Christensen
07-10-2009, 09:16 PM
. . . Most significantly, the solution to "failure to fix" is not to revert back to the party that created the problem. . .


The little liberals lip is quivering with fear. And with good reason. Overheard while I was waiting a few minutes to pick up my large deluxe pizza tonight:

Hey man how you doin?

Bad, man, bad, nothin happenin.

I hear ya man, when you think things gonna pick up again?

2012 man, 2012.

Amen to that bro.

Interesting that the two conversants were young and minority. Very interesting in light of little liberals fear of a Republican resurgence. You've got less than 16 months left to fix it.

It won't make sense, the decisions to dump the democrats won't be "competent", but those decisions are being made by the tens of thousands every day, day after day. You've got to fix it or they're gonna flush it and you'll be floundering in the sewers again.

oznabrag
07-10-2009, 09:22 PM
Milo, maybe you oughtta google '2012'. It ain' no election!

Lew Barrett
07-11-2009, 12:22 AM
Did anyone seriously think the problems that have beset us for the last 20 years or more would be on their way to visible resolution in six months when they voted last November? I know I didn't. This is one liberal has had his lip quivering for years. Our problems will not be so easily fixed, I fear. There are too many of them.

By the way, congratulations on your voting decision Paul! This is the first I knew what it was, but I'm proud of you, and you're always welcome here, whoever you voted for. ;)

Glen Longino
07-11-2009, 12:52 AM
The little liberals lip is quivering with fear. And with good reason. Overheard while I was waiting a few minutes to pick up my large deluxe pizza tonight:

Hey man how you doin?

Bad, man, bad, nothin happenin.

I hear ya man, when you think things gonna pick up again?

2012 man, 2012.

Amen to that bro.

Interesting that the two conversants were young and minority. Very interesting in light of little liberals fear of a Republican resurgence. You've got less than 16 months left to fix it.

It won't make sense, the decisions to dump the democrats won't be "competent", but those decisions are being made by the tens of thousands every day, day after day. You've got to fix it or they're gonna flush it and you'll be floundering in the sewers again.

Why the hell are you worried about us floundering in the sewers sixteen moths from now when you yourselves are floundering in the sewers right Now?
Excuse me while I doubt your sincerity!

CK 17
07-11-2009, 07:25 AM
Interesting that the two conversants were young and minority. Very interesting in light of little liberals fear of a Republican resurgence. You've got less than 16 months left to fix it.



Conservatives are going to go from where they are now, at this moment, to victory in 16 months:confused:

Tom Galyen
07-11-2009, 07:55 AM
Oznabrag,

I don't know your math, if there was a presidential election in 2008 then the next one is in 20012 right? At least according to my math.

Oh, you're referring to the fact that the leftists are going to attempt to ensure that there is no election. Doing some form of Chavez thing, you know president for life.

elf
07-11-2009, 08:07 AM
Liberals aren't a cohesive group, nor are Progressives, nor leftists. Neither is particularly "little" either.

If Mr Cheney didn't have the balls to overthrow the electoral process in the United States, then noone will. Imagining that sort of power seems to me to be a sign of either unreasonable paranoia or a lack of exposure to the big wide world out there.

Milo Christensen
07-11-2009, 08:22 AM
Conservatives are going to go from where they are now, at this moment, to victory in 16 months:confused:

Republican comebacks after wildly irresponsible Democratic majorities in Congress is a well established trend. 2010 is going to be one vulnerable Congresscrook after another having to defend his/her record. With the economy in the heartland in the tanks and getting worse, despite all the useless spending, enough of those records are going to be indefensible to at least restore gridlock.

elf
07-11-2009, 08:24 AM
restore gridlock? What do you think we have now? Surely you can see that the "60 vote majority" ain't.

Phillip Allen
07-11-2009, 08:57 AM
Saturday, July 11, 2009

Okay, this is the very first time I have opened this thread...

It looks like a good one and that annoys me somewhat considering its authur...oh well

John Smith
07-11-2009, 09:13 AM
The republicans' strongest "weapon" is the public's impatience.

Too many people expect too much, too soon.

There's still debate, for example on getting out of Iraq. They said "19 months". How can we possibly judge the success of that until the 19 months is passed. Then, do we judge success by them meeting that deadline exactly. If it takes 24 months, to get to the promised point, is that a failure?

We are, in many respects, no offense, a nation of idiots. This big deal about the first hundred days is a good example.

Many things are different now. As the 2010 elections come, if the republicans are still just the party of "no" and are seen as blocking legislation most of the people want, dems may pick up more seats. If the dems fail to vote in unison with there 60 vote majority, they may all be blamed for failure to deliver on things the public wants.

The "spin" game will be more important than ever.

oznabrag
07-11-2009, 10:06 AM
Oznabrag,

I don't know your math, if there was a presidential election in 2008 then the next one is in 20012 right? At least according to my math.

Oh, you're referring to the fact that the leftists are going to attempt to ensure that there is no election. Doing some form of Chavez thing, you know president for life.


Come in, Tom Seaweed, come in from right field! Try to remain aware of your surroundings! 2012 is a pop culture phenomenon:http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=2012+prophecy&aq=5&oq=2012&aqi=g10&fp=Xmf0jJ9P_V0

Further, according to your math, the period until our next presidential election is another 18,003 years.

CK 17
07-11-2009, 11:35 AM
I've noticed a trend in many threads started by Republicans: first they identify a problem that was created (or exacerbated) by their policies...

...then they declare that Obama will be unable to solve it....

...and then they crow about it as if this counts as a victory for them.




2010 is going to be one vulnerable Congresscrook after another having to defend his/her record. With the economy in the heartland in the tanks and getting worse, despite all the useless spending, enough of those records are going to be indefensible to at least restore gridlock.


Hum, I think you just reenforced LJ's point. . . .

Tom Galyen
07-11-2009, 11:47 AM
Oznabrag,

Maybe you should do some math, presidential elections are held every four years . Since one was held in 2008 there will be another in 20012, unless you are thinking one of two things:

1. The world comes to an end because some obscure indian calendar says it will, incorrect because all it really says is there will be a new beggining.

2. The leftists will have by then figured out a way to not have elections so there will be no problem with those wrong thinking anti-leftist conservatives. They will have passed a Hugo Chavez like law leaving O-Mama in for life, with Nancy (the lip) Pelosi as under-dictator, and "Thought Correction Camps" run by the likes of ljb5 et al to properly train those who point out the errors of left.

Milo Christensen
07-11-2009, 11:57 AM
Hum, I think you just reenforced LJ's point. . . .

9.5% unemployed and rising, 16.5% underemployed, average workweek 33 hours. Nothing here for either party to crow about.

But:

I didn't start this thread;
The last 5 Congresses made this mess, this Congress will be unable to solve it;
Obama can't fix it - he can only make it worse;
I'm more than willing to accept a Pyrrhic victory in 2010, but sure as flying pigs fart fluffy pink clouds, I won't be crowing about it.
But, anyway, have you noticed how the liberal euphoria has become increasingly restrained since the first Wednesday in November? Restrained to the point that lil lj is already worrying about a Republican resurgence in 2010 a la 1994?

CK 17
07-11-2009, 12:01 PM
Obama can't fix it - he can only make it worse;


And with declining rates of unemployment increase since Obama took office, it doesn't look like he's making it worse. The the money is just starting to hit the streets now and will continue through 2010. If I were a conservative, I'd start working on plan B. Maybe more familiy values stuff:D

Milo Christensen
07-11-2009, 12:25 PM
. . . declining rates of unemployment increase since Obama took office . . .

Well, let's see, since Obama took office, we've got more, rather than less, turmoil and uncertainty in:

the financial sector
the automotive sector
the energy sector
the health care sector
Pretend you're an investor. Where you going to put your money? Until you do, we've got a jobless recovery all over again. One more major initiative (read more turmoil and uncertainty) and your guys have done too much, too fast.

Oh, and about that money hitting the streets, when the myriad of tax increases start taking it away from home, then you'll really be in the deep doodoo.

isla
07-11-2009, 01:08 PM
Well, let's see, since Obama took office, we've got more, rather than less, turmoil and uncertainty in:

the financial sector
the automotive sector
the energy sector
the health care sector



I think you can safely go back a year on those statements. It would be more honest to say they started to happen in the last year of the Bush presidency.

Milo Christensen
07-11-2009, 01:33 PM
Or, you could say that it got worse in the 2nd year of the Democrats congressional majority, could you not?

I rather think, if my statement is parsed more carefully, that I indicated turmoil and uncertainty existed, although to a much lesser extent in health and energy then than now, and that this Congress is just making things worse. America is conservatively progressive and when you change this much, this fast, nobody knows what to do. So nobody who can create jobs by investing does so. With 26% of the work force currently un/underemployed, you can't shed too many more jobs, especially if the economy has only "contracted" 12% since the Dems came into their congressional majority. But the new energy and health care legislation, when passed, could add a serious shock to the economy.

oznabrag
07-11-2009, 01:33 PM
Oznabrag,

Maybe you should do some math, presidential elections are held every four years . Since one was held in 2008 there will be another in 20012, unless you are thinking one of two things:

1. The world comes to an end because some obscure indian calendar says it will, incorrect because all it really says is there will be a new beggining.

2. The leftists will have by then figured out a way to not have elections so there will be no problem with those wrong thinking anti-leftist conservatives. They will have passed a Hugo Chavez like law leaving O-Mama in for life, with Nancy (the lip) Pelosi as under-dictator, and "Thought Correction Camps" run by the likes of ljb5 et al to properly train those who point out the errors of left.


1) Here's your math. 20012 minus 2008 equals 18,004. You may claim '20012' as a typo (as it almost certainly was) but you have made the error TWICE now, so it seems appropriate to run with the joke.

2) If I overheard two dudes saying that things will change in 2012, I would think they were talking about the pop-culture phenomenon, not a Presidential election.

3) Your conflation of Obama and Stalin is laughable.

4) Further, I believe that it has been a couple hundred years since any Apocalyptic rumor has gained as much traction as the 12/12/2012 thing, and when people believe such things, the situation can get very strange very quickly. Ugly too.

2MeterTroll
07-11-2009, 01:43 PM
Or, you could say that it got worse in the 2nd year of the Democrats congressional majority, could you not?

I rather think, if my statement is parsed more carefully, that I indicated turmoil and uncertainty existed, although to a much lesser extent in health and energy then than now, and that this Congress is just making things worse. America is conservatively progressive and when you change this much, this fast, nobody knows what to do. So nobody who can create jobs by investing does so. With 26% of the work force currently un/underemployed, you can't shed too many more jobs, especially if the economy has only "contracted" 12% since the Dems came into their congressional majority. But the new energy and health care legislation, when passed, could add a serious shock to the economy.


oooohhh wait wait Obama has been moving to slow and now he's moving to fast, uh wait he's moving to fast but now he's moving to slowly, he's doing it all wrong, its his fault that these other things are coming into law its his fault these other things are not coming into law, make up you minds.

oznabrag
07-11-2009, 01:49 PM
Well Mr. Troll, I think a large part of the problem is that these people have made up their minds.

They think Barack Obama = Josef Stalin.

2MeterTroll
07-11-2009, 01:56 PM
oh i am sure they have Rational for it.

Phillip Allen
07-11-2009, 02:34 PM
well...it WAS a good thread...

2MeterTroll
07-11-2009, 03:08 PM
its OK Phillip i'll not post again on this thread you folks can have it all to your selves.

John Smith
07-11-2009, 03:17 PM
9.5% unemployed and rising, 16.5% underemployed, average workweek 33 hours. Nothing here for either party to crow about.


But:
I didn't start this thread;
The last 5 Congresses made this mess, this Congress will be unable to solve it;
Obama can't fix it - he can only make it worse;
I'm more than willing to accept a Pyrrhic victory in 2010, but sure as flying pigs fart fluffy pink clouds, I won't be crowing about it.
But, anyway, have you noticed how the liberal euphoria has become increasingly restrained since the first Wednesday in November? Restrained to the point that lil lj is already worrying about a Republican resurgence in 2010 a la 1994?
This will be dependent upon what these numbers look like this time next year. It there is sufficient reason then to believe the economy is recovering, the dems will take credit, the repubs will say the dems had nothing to do with it, and the public will decide based upon what talk shows they listen to.

While it may be hard to the dems to argue, if the ecomy is not better, the republicans were still the ones in charge when it tanked so badly.

My view is the dems, with the highly touted (by the media) super majority, will have to produce some results on the positive side.

CK 17
07-11-2009, 04:09 PM
Well, let's see, since Obama took office, we've got more, rather than less, turmoil and uncertainty in:
the financial sector
the automotive sector
the energy sector
the health care sector


The banks are threatening to pay back the bailout money.

Didn't GM exit bankrupcy today?

Gas a $1.40 less than this time last year.

If we don't overhaul healthcare it will be because of the G-no-P not because of the democrats. And before you spew that line that the blue dogs are holding up healthcare reform, remember there's only a few of them. Everyone of the G-no-P are stalling on healthcare reform.

Tom Galyen
07-11-2009, 04:31 PM
Oznabrag,
Actually it was a typo both times. I don't care if you believe that or not.

I made no mention of a conflation, conflagration, or comparison between Obama and Stalin, I never mentioned Stalin's name at all. Only Obama's homeboy Hugo Chavez. (Obama did greet him with a kiss didn't he?)

Lastly this statement of yours that "I believe that it has been a couple hundred years since any Apocalyptic rumor has gained as much traction as the 12/12/2012 thing" is pretty wild. The Internet wasn't invented by Al Gore until whenever it was that he said he invented it, so there was no opportunity for people to get in on the outer edges of human religious beliefs. Therefore no chance for them to get their ditties in a twit over it. Are you saying because it is written up on an internet site that that proves it is right? By the way I did watch a good program about that calendar on the History Channel a couple of years ago. Sandwiched in between a couple of programs on the existence of UFO's.

oznabrag
07-11-2009, 06:43 PM
Oznabrag,
Actually it was a typo both times. I don't care if you believe that or not.

I made no mention of a conflation, conflagration, or comparison between Obama and Stalin, I never mentioned Stalin's name at all. Only Obama's homeboy Hugo Chavez. (Obama did greet him with a kiss didn't he?)

Lastly this statement of yours that "I believe that it has been a couple hundred years since any Apocalyptic rumor has gained as much traction as the 12/12/2012 thing" is pretty wild. The Internet wasn't invented by Al Gore until whenever it was that he said he invented it, so there was no opportunity for people to get in on the outer edges of human religious beliefs. Therefore no chance for them to get their ditties in a twit over it. Are you saying because it is written up on an internet site that that proves it is right? By the way I did watch a good program about that calendar on the History Channel a couple of years ago. Sandwiched in between a couple of programs on the existence of UFO's.


I understand it was a typo, and I indicated as such. however, an 18,004-year election cycle was too good to pass up.:D

Whether you 'indicated' or no, your insistence that Obama will put anyone who disagrees with his position in some sort of re-education camp, is nothing short of 'conflation with Josef Stalin'.

You are underestimating the power of myth. The myth that the world will end 12/12/2012.

Further, your insistence that 'Al Gore invented the internet' reveals you to be some sort of ideological parrot.

Please reconsider, Sir. In my opinion, we need the Right Eye, to balance our binocular vision. Our future may well depend upon your willingness to admit that the Neocon vision goes too far.


If you (and those of your stripe) insist upon polarization, we will almost certainly veer too far to the left (or to the right), and all will be lost. STFU, Seaweed! And THINK, DAMN YOU! WE NEED YOU!


We need you to stop being so %^$$@#$%^*(^&%^$ partisan, and start making a meaningful contribution to the solutions of problems STARTED BY THOSE YOU SUPPORTED!!!!!!!!!!!

I offer my apologies for your slighted feelings, Sir, as you and those like you have contributed immensely to the furthering of this great Nation, but we need you now more than ever!

We cannot pull out of this problem if we are blind in one eye. Your myopia and bitterness will almost certainly be a major contributor to our downfall as the most prosperous Nation in History.

In my opinion, the only true path to greatness, is the path of the Centrist. A Centrist government that honors the fringe on BOTH left AND right, is the only sane position for the furtherance of our great Nation.

I implore you, Sir, to heed my words. Without sane, logical, practicable solutions, this Nation will go down in flames. These solutions can ONLY be Centrist. Think about the definition of that word as compared with the definition of 'Democracy'.

Too far left or too far right leave an awful lot of people without recourse. People without recourse are 'The Most Dangerous Game' (with thanks to Richard Connell). Sir, I implore you. We must pull together, if we are to avoid the shoal water. Pulling too far to the Right was, quite obviously, a mistake. Pulling too far to the Left is no less egregious a mistake.

brad9798
07-11-2009, 09:17 PM
Did anyone seriously think the problems that have beset us for the last 20 years or more would be on their way to visible resolution in six months when they voted last November?

NO, Lew! I, for one, did not.

We have a long way to go ...
______________________________

Lj- you continue to employ child-like semantics to dance around getting penned down to actually fight for you beliefs.

No matter what anyone says, you simply change tense, a couple of words, or add an ever-so-slight spin to tell us how it is NEVER you, NEVER your problem, or NEVER your doing or YOUR beliefs ... it was ALWAYS the guy before!

Kind of like my kids when they have to take responsibility to clean up their rooms ... inevitably, the first phrase from their mouth is "(insert name here) messed it up ... it's their fault."

I really do get some decent parenting tips from your dancing here in the bilge ... for that, I do thank you!

Let's make one thing clear:

If I hired you (although I never would because of your inability to step up and take that responsibility) and you told me it was 'someone else's fault' when you were hired because you stated you could fix it ... well, you'de be fired rather quickly.

Again, that's just real world ... wouldn't expect you to understand that! :D

oznabrag
07-11-2009, 09:21 PM
This has got to be the most senseless feud ever!

Botha you dudes is ridiculous.

Kiss and make up, already.

Tom Galyen
07-11-2009, 09:25 PM
Ozzie, ole boy,

I'm not slighted at all. I have you on this forum calling me a "%^$$@#$%^* (^&%^$ partisan", while at work I'm called a liberal Republican. I figure I must be near the middle of the road to catch c**p from both sides. You say that I'm a "ideological parrot" because I said that Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet, well thats his words not mine, I simply call them as I see them. You call me a "Neocon" which means in the leftist lexicon "a new conservative" which in their book of foul insults means anyone espousing the views of the Republican party since at least President Ronald Reagan. Well I'll have you know I am almost 65 years old and have been a conservative in all phases of my life since Ronald Reagan was an actor. I was a conservative Democrat in the 50's and would have voted for Kennedy if I was old enough, and did vote for Johnson. I have since been a conservative Independent voting for whom I think will get the job done in whatever office they are running for. However because I don't march to your drummer and become a nice little leftist lemming and follow your messiah into the sea you claim I support polarization. You claim I need to think? I believe it is you who needs to think. You claim that the problems were "STARTED BY THOSE YOU SUPPORTED!!!!!!!!!!!", nice bit of screaming always a good way to make a point, but you don't have a clue as to who I supported except that I didn't vote for Obama.

You claim I'm causing polarization when you fail to look at the statement that started this thread in the first place. Do so and try to convince me that it was not a nice bit of leftist polarization, a troll if you will to tick off the conservatives on the forum, and all the usual suspects of leftist lemmings jumped right on board in support including you screaming about how the right is not making a meaningful contribution to problem.

And lastly screaming profanities even couched in abbreviations does not do anything to gain my support. The only picture I have of you is what I read you post here.

pila
07-11-2009, 09:36 PM
It's a good thing to have two political parties. This place would sure be dull without them. The the entertainment here is why I show up. :D

John Smith
07-12-2009, 12:22 PM
I understand it was a typo, and I indicated as such. however, an 18,004-year election cycle was too good to pass up.:D

Whether you 'indicated' or no, your insistence that Obama will put anyone who disagrees with his position in some sort of re-education camp, is nothing short of 'conflation with Josef Stalin'.

You are underestimating the power of myth. The myth that the world will end 12/12/2012.

Further, your insistence that 'Al Gore invented the internet' reveals you to be some sort of ideological parrot.

Please reconsider, Sir. In my opinion, we need the Right Eye, to balance our binocular vision. Our future may well depend upon your willingness to admit that the Neocon vision goes too far.


If you (and those of your stripe) insist upon polarization, we will almost certainly veer too far to the left (or to the right), and all will be lost. STFU, Seaweed! And THINK, DAMN YOU! WE NEED YOU!


We need you to stop being so %^$$@#$%^*(^&%^$ partisan, and start making a meaningful contribution to the solutions of problems STARTED BY THOSE YOU SUPPORTED!!!!!!!!!!!

I offer my apologies for your slighted feelings, Sir, as you and those like you have contributed immensely to the furthering of this great Nation, but we need you now more than ever!

We cannot pull out of this problem if we are blind in one eye. Your myopia and bitterness will almost certainly be a major contributor to our downfall as the most prosperous Nation in History.

In my opinion, the only true path to greatness, is the path of the Centrist. A Centrist government that honors the fringe on BOTH left AND right, is the only sane position for the furtherance of our great Nation.

I implore you, Sir, to heed my words. Without sane, logical, practicable solutions, this Nation will go down in flames. These solutions can ONLY be Centrist. Think about the definition of that word as compared with the definition of 'Democracy'.

Too far left or too far right leave an awful lot of people without recourse. People without recourse are 'The Most Dangerous Game' (with thanks to Richard Connell). Sir, I implore you. We must pull together, if we are to avoid the shoal water. Pulling too far to the Right was, quite obviously, a mistake. Pulling too far to the Left is no less egregious a mistake.
Al Gore and the internet things is yet another myth that the media has allowed to develop and grow. I'd love to see one of the shows do a segment on the actual relationship between hm and the beginning of the internet.

oznabrag
07-12-2009, 12:49 PM
Mr. Gaylen you miss my point, and I am sure that is my fault.

My point is that WE NEED YOU.

Your references to 'leftist lemmings', etc., etc., ad infinitum, are ideological. There is no room for that anymore. The conservative ideology has failed, as it should. What could be more disastrous? Why, for the liberal ideology to fail for the same reasons: Too far left too fast.

People don't want Rightist, and people don't want Leftist. They want Centrist. Why is it called Centrist? Because that is what the great, central mass of the body politic wants. The Rightists come in and tell people to live in a way they don't want to live, so we kick them to the curb. Now here come the Leftists and, pretty soon, they'll be telling people to live in a way they don't want to live. The constant struggle between extremes is bankrupting this Nation. In my opinion, we need to settle down in the nice, comfy Center, and get on with it. Any Nation governed by extremists, Right or Left, is governed by the few for the benefit of the few.

It is my opinion that, at this stage of our voyage, we need the tattered remnants of the conservatives, and we need them badly. Your power has been squandered on frivolous wars and making the rich even richer, but your vision of what's going on off the Starboard bow is still highly valuable. We have plenty of eyes on the Port. Once again, I ask you to set aside your rejection and your hurt feelings, and help steer the boat.

Tom Galyen
07-12-2009, 03:23 PM
Oznabrag,

You claim that my referrals to "leftist Lemmings" is ideological, well I think that your constant referrals to conservatives as neocons is leftist ideological. As I stated above the only picture I have of you is what you post here. When I see you post insulting names of a political movement, then I must assume that regardless of your claim to be in the center of the spectrum you are not. I admit I freely use the term Leftist Lemmings to refer to those who like the animals blindly follow their leaders to their doom. I think it is an apt portrait.

I find it humorous that Democratic party leaders and certain posters on this forum write about how the Republicans vote in a block and therefore are against all progress. I mention the name Joe Lieberman and what the Democrats did to him for just one vote against party lines and you'll hear the howls of unfair to support a party traitor from them. I've not heard of one Republican receiving the same treatment from his party.

So I walk down the center of the political road being careful to note the "horse hocky" being thrown at me from both sides and it seems that a greater amount and of a more pungent variety seems to come from my left. So if at times I seem to hug the right side of the road that is why.

Lastly, please note my name is Galyen not Gaylen. There is nothing gay about me. If you have trouble with this I do commonly answer to Tom.

oznabrag
07-12-2009, 03:29 PM
Oznabrag,

You claim that my referrals to "leftist Lemmings" is ideological, well I think that your constant referrals to conservatives as neocons is leftist ideological. As I stated above the only picture I have of you is what you post here. When I see you post insulting names of a political movement, then I must assume that regardless of your claim to be in the center of the spectrum you are not. I admit I freely use the term Leftist Lemmings to refer to those who like the animals blindly follow their leaders to their doom. I think it is an apt portrait.

I find it humorous that Democratic party leaders and certain posters on this forum write about how the Republicans vote in a block and therefore are against all progress. I mention the name Joe Lieberman and what the Democrats did to him for just one vote against party lines and you'll hear the howls of unfair to support a party traitor from them. I've not heard of one Republican receiving the same treatment from his party.

So I walk down the center of the political road being careful to note the "horse hocky" being thrown at me from both sides and it seems that a greater amount and of a more pungent variety seems to come from my left. So if at times I seem to hug the right side of the road that is why.

Lastly, please note my name is Galyen not Gaylen. There is nothing gay about me. If you have trouble with this I do commonly answer to Tom.

Have it your own way, Mr. Galyen.

John Smith
07-12-2009, 04:59 PM
Have it your own way, Mr. Galyen.
I disagree with both of you. Speaking for myself, I want solutions that WORK, if that's possible.

All this "right" "left" "center" stuff is a bunch of horsefeathers, far as I'm concerned.

If we try to appease the "center", it may prevent us from solving the problems.

If we try to solve the problems of healthcare, economy, etc., be are called "socialists".

I say, "To hell to the labels and to hell with compromise. If we think it will work, let's just do it."

oznabrag
07-12-2009, 10:34 PM
I disagree with both of you. Speaking for myself, I want solutions that WORK, if that's possible.

All this "right" "left" "center" stuff is a bunch of horsefeathers, far as I'm concerned.

If we try to appease the "center", it may prevent us from solving the problems.

If we try to solve the problems of healthcare, economy, etc., be are called "socialists".

I say, "To hell to the labels and to hell with compromise. If we think it will work, let's just do it."


Weren't you the guy who wanted every car to have a magnetic card reader in the dash so it wouldn't start without a valid driver's license?

Robert L E
07-13-2009, 12:06 AM
It becomes my problem, but doesn't become my fault. I explained that already.

There was no problem with GITMO until Obama opened his mouth. There is a significant number of people who think that the worse thing that could happen is for Obama to actually close GITMO as he said he would.

If closed GITMO WILL be Obama's problem that he created. If left open it is still Obama's problem created by his own big mouth; if he had said nothing about closing it then it would just be Bush's fault in the eyes of a few beeding hearts.

Bob

John Smith
07-13-2009, 08:00 AM
Weren't you the guy who wanted every car to have a magnetic card reader in the dash so it wouldn't start without a valid driver's license?

Yes. I still am, in fact. I'm not sure, however, what that has to do with left, right, center, etc. It has to do with safety and lower insurance rates.

It has to do with getting people who don't have licenses, be it because they are undocumented, under age, or have lost their license, to not drive cars.

If I've missed the connection, my apologies. If cars were designed so you physically needed a valid license to start them, we'd eliminate all the accidents involving unlicensed drivers, that would reduce the number of insurance claims, hopefully, bringing down premiums.

Is this a left, right position?

oznabrag
07-13-2009, 10:12 AM
Is this a left, right position?

It's a Statist position. The rights and privileges of the State are paramount.

John Smith
07-13-2009, 11:46 AM
It's a Statist position. The rights and privileges of the State are paramount.
On the contrary, the safety of the people is paramount.

We have driving laws designed to protect us. It does little good to suspend one's license, he drives anyway, and kills someone.

I've simply suggested that we use technology to enforce existing laws. Under my concept, if you don't have a license, you won't drive.

I'm assuming you believe people without licenses ought not be driving.

Kaa
07-13-2009, 12:10 PM
On the contrary, the safety of the people is paramount.

Really?

That's an interesting approach.

Kaa

High C
07-13-2009, 12:46 PM
On the contrary, the safety of the people is paramount...

Wow. That attitude really opens the floodgates of paternalism. The safety of the people has to be, primarily, the responsibility of the people. If we make it, primarily, the responsibility of government, then we surrender control of our own lives.

TomF
07-13-2009, 01:00 PM
High C,

So Hobbes got it wrong then? And Rousseau, whose ideas inspired the French Revolution ... and undergirded America's?

The whole premise of the "social contract" is that citizens collectively submit to the rule of law. States wouldn't exist, except that citizens created and empowered them to provide for their safety and security. All other (legitimate) State roles flow from that ...

High C
07-13-2009, 01:22 PM
High C,

So Hobbes got it wrong then? And Rousseau, whose ideas inspired the French Revolution ... and undergirded America's? ...

Tom, consider that I used the word "primarily", twice, in fact. And that we're not talking about the kinds of security nations were charged with in those days. We're now talking about something far more activist, an increasing involvement and control over the minutia of our daily lives. Much of it is justified by the drive for safety. There are no limits to how far we can go in that direction. :(

oznabrag
07-13-2009, 01:31 PM
Tom, consider that I used the word "primarily", twice, in fact. And that we're not talking about the kinds of security nations were charged with in those days. We're now talking about something far more activist, an increasing involvement and control over the minutia of our daily lives. Much of it is justified by the drive for safety. There are no limits to how far we can go in that direction. :(

Well said, Sir! Well said!

TomF
07-13-2009, 01:48 PM
Tom, consider that I used the word "primarily", twice, in fact. And that we're not talking about the kinds of security nations were charged with in those days. We're now talking about something far more activist, an increasing involvement and control over the minutia of our daily lives. Much of it is justified by the drive for safety. There are no limits to how far we can go in that direction. :(Yup, you used the word "primarily."

The whole premise of the French and American revolutions, though, was that in a democratic republic ... government is the people. "We the people" and all that. The distinction you're making between the elected representatives and the people is, er, primarily false. And to the degree that it is false, it's up to We the People to correct it, though actual engagement in the democratic process we empower.

Kaa
07-13-2009, 02:10 PM
...that in a democratic republic ... government is the people.

:eek: Not in a representative democracry, it ain't.

The government is a large and complex beast. Some parts of it are chosen by the people.

"Government is the people" is a catchy slogan, but it doesn't have to do much with reality.

What you probably want to say is that ultimately the will of the people gets reflected in/by the government. That can be a very long, convoluted, and painful process, though.

Kaa

oznabrag
07-13-2009, 02:13 PM
Mr. F, with all due respect, it is my opinion that the 'government is the people' ideal got murdered in it's sleep sometime between the Korean and the Viet Nam wars.

This is not to say that it is neither our fault nor our responsibility, but the insidious creeping of government into every corner of our lives and the unholy progress of the doctrine of 'everything not compulsory is forbidden' leaves me...angry. Yes, angry.

I, Rowboat
07-13-2009, 03:13 PM
Blah blah blah.
Same people, same arguments.
I think I'll get back to work now.

John Smith
07-13-2009, 03:21 PM
Really?

That's an interesting approach.

Kaa
"promote the general welfare"

We already have laws that make it illegal to drive without a license. Only enforcable is someone gets caught doing so, which is frequently because that someone is in an accident.

I simply propose using technology to make it impossible to drive without a valid license.

I view that as a more affective means of enforcing current laws, and making our roads safer by keeping unlicensed drivers off of them.

Do you have a problem with the concept of keeping unsafe drivers and/or unsafe cars off the road?

Isn't the public safety the reason we have food inspected, cars inspected, and just about everything else inspected? Isn't safety the reason we created OSHA?

TomF
07-13-2009, 03:26 PM
Sure Kaa ... there's a maxim in Political Science that "government rules only with the consent of the governed." That's as true of dictatorships and monarchies as of representative democracies. What happened to the Soviet Union? Ultimately, the citizens changed their minds, and the government went "poof."

You're suggesting that Government is someone else? Who?

Who do your representatives represent, if not you? Why bother with voting them in or out, or the unconscionable expense of holding elections? Why are all those policies "creeping" into all the many corners of your lives, if not because the majority wants them to? Because the representatives you put there set them going, so that they can be re-elected by the majority of their constituents.

If you don't think Government is You, frankly that's your own fault. If your representatives don't reflect you, toss the bums out. If they over-reach their power, whack them with the safeguards of your Constitution. It's why the damned thing is there after all, and the cunning invested in it and its various amendments is why your sainted Founding Fathers are thought to be so Inspired and Worthy.

Sure, "legitimacy" in all states depends on the acquiescence of the people governed, who are the seat of real authority. But in a representative democracy - whether Republic (like you've got) or Constitutional Monarchy (like we've got) - that relationship is a helluva lot closer than you're pretending. But use it or lose it ... in a democracy, your vote only counts when you cast it; your voice is only heard when you raise it.

It's fashionable to argue the opposite - that government is the Enemy. A Juggernaut squashing freedom. That's dishonest, and quite frankly, a cop-out.

And truly you can't have it both ways - arguing that Government is the problem esp. in a representative democracy ... and then taking a breath before saying how the US constitution is a virtually perfect document. Either it does provide continuing rights/responsibilities and checks/balances, safeguarding your Liberty, or it doesn't.

Kaa
07-13-2009, 03:52 PM
You're suggesting that Government is someone else? Who?

Um... the government?

I am suggesting that there are large, significant, and important differences between the government and the public, and that to pretend they are one and the same is cute but disingenuous.


Who do your representatives represent, if not you?

My representatives (which are but a small part of the government) balance a variety of different interests and forces pulling them in different directions. One of these forces is what they think their constituents want. Another is self-interest. Yet another is lobbying by organizations with varying amounts of cash and power. And yet another is the representatives' own ideas of what should be done. Etc. etc.


If you don't think Government is You, frankly that's your own fault.

Oh, please, can we dispense with the statist bull****? The government is not me and can never be me. The government is an institution set up to manage a society, and democracy so far seems to be the least unappealing way to run things. There is no need for me to identify with the government, all I want is for it to do a half-decent job. Or am I required to love the Big Brother, too?

Besides, I am not a voter aggregate. I am myself and the government does not represent me. In many important matters the government will never represent me, because my views are in the minority and I expect them to remain that way.


But use it or lose it ... in a democracy, your vote only counts when you cast it; your voice is only heard when you raise it.

You're on a roll, Tom, a platitude after another.

In a large democracy your vote doesn't matter. What matters is your ability to convince other people to vote in a particular way -- the more people, the more it matters.

I am not an aggregate. I have only one vote and it's insignificant. Social groups have millions of votes and they are significant, but I am not one.


It's fashionable to argue the opposite - that government is the Enemy. A Juggernaut squashing freedom. That's dishonest, and quite frankly, a cop-out.

Why is that dishonest and it's a cop-out from what?


.. and then taking a breath before saying how the US constitution is a virtually perfect document. Either it does provide continuing rights/responsibilities and checks/balances, safeguarding your Liberty, or it doesn't.

Huh? Are you talking to me or did you have some extra straw you didn't know what to do with?

Kaa

TomF
07-13-2009, 04:29 PM
Kaa,

Representative government represents the aggregate of interests; hence the name. But it's not some goopy, monstrous, inchoate entity out there that has a will of its own.

It's an organization; organizations get their direction from the activity of their participants. No other way. To argue that government isn't you, particularly in a representative government, is simply untrue. It just isn't only you.

You want your interests represented - speak up. I can give you chapter and verse on citizen groups from 2 different Canadian provinces that have got what they want, more or less, exactly because they did speak up.

Defining Government as the Enemy, as the Juggernaut is a cop-out precisely because it is an abdication of your responsibility as a citizen. You can change things, even if you don't work the political process - I work daily with ordinary people who do, on a raft of issues. Nurses, doctors, parents of kids with disabilities, researchers, pharmacists, etc.

You don't want to be engaged, fine and well ... disengage. But don't pretend that your non-involvement is because faceless Government shut you out, or diabolically self-serving Government has crept into places all on its own, undirected by citizens' representatives.

Frankly, it's that abandonment of citizens' responsibilities that allowed Abu Ghraib to happen, that allowed the abhorrent rise of surveillance against ordinary citizens, at the same time that appropriate surveillance of the financial sector was lapsing.

High C
07-13-2009, 04:59 PM
Kaa,

Representative government represents the aggregate of interests; hence the name. But it's not some goopy, monstrous, inchoate entity out there that has a will of its own....

Tom, maybe it's different in Canada, maybe your size has spared you this, but our government has sadly come to be composed of four branches, Executive, Judicial, Legislative, and the real power, the bureaucracy.

As members of the first three branches come and go, the behind the scenes bureaucracy grows quietly like a mold spore in damp wood, its primary purpose to perpetuate itself. The other branches have little control over it because the size and scope of the US government has grown beyond all possibility of reasonable management, control, or even comprehension. To the bureaucrat, Congressmen, Presidents, Judges, are but temporary tokens whom they can easily outlast.

The lifers reside in the bureaucracy. They are the only ones who know the mechanisms of government. They are the only ones who read, interpret, and enact the thousands of pages of unread law that Congress routinely passes. They are the power. When Congress or the President du jour protests that the bureaucracy has misinterpreted their intent, the bureaucracy shrugs its collective shoulders and suggests that a new law be written to replace the misinterpreted one. Maybe the next Congress will get around to it.

The bureaucracy has a will of its own, and its prime directive is growth and self preservation. We don't get to vote its members in or out; don't even know who most of them are. It is out of control.

Keith Wilson
07-13-2009, 05:14 PM
The bureaucracy has a will of its own, and its prime directive is growth and self preservation. We don't get to vote its members in or out; don't even know who most of them are. It is out of control. That's a lovely story, HighC, but it has the severe disadvantage that it's not true. At best it's true partially in some limited cases, but otherwise it's a myth - a pleasing myth that fits your preconceptions, but a myth nonetheless. The Federal government comprises roughly the same fraction of the economy that it did fifty years ago. Now, you may think it should be smaller, but that fact is simply not consistent with a bureaucracy "out of control".


http://www.urban.org/PublicationImages/1000556/chart1.gif

C. Ross
07-13-2009, 06:01 PM
The last time Keith posted that graph I said:


Beware the black part of the graph, that's where the monsters live.

A very important quibble with that graph is that if you divided the Social Insurance payroll taxes in equal halves, employer and employee, and added it to Federal Corporate and Federal Individual -- exactly where it comes from -- that graph would show corporate taxes almost dead flat and individual taxes increasing significantly as a % of GDP.

Then you'd see a multi-decade increase in taxes as a percentage of GDP since WW2 -- 22% to about 28% or about 0.4% per year -- virtually all of which is attributable directly to government funding of pensions and healthcare.

You'd also see significant increase in taxes on individuals as a share of the whole.

Those two together show a massive intergenerational shift of spending from young people to old.

This might be beneficent and nice, until the demographics break. At which point the first generation with a significant young to old decline gets royally screwed. If you're a US citizen under 20, look out. (And it will be even worse for countries with bigger demographic inflection points, like China.)

And Keith responded


I went back and checked the source, and as far as I can tell, the black part includes both employer and employee contributions. As such, total federal taxes as a percent of GDP are accurately reflected by the chart, and have been roughly constant since 1950, bouncing around 17-18%. If you divided Social Security, it looks like corporate taxes would still have declined a bit, while individual ones would have increased some. The "other" category includes customs duties, excise taxes, and inheritance taxes, which are both corporate and individual; I'm not sure how to divide them.

Almost all of the increase since WWII was from 1950 to 1970; about equally divided between increased state/local taxes and Social Security. Since then, the total seems about flat with random noise.

The monster is indeed in the demographics. Short of a massive increase in immigration, we're probably stuck with it. China's problem will be much worse, but they may partially cover it by a high rate of savings.

The fact is that the federal share of personal income is increasing as a percentage of GDP and on a per-household and per-capita income basis. High C's point is rooted in significant fact.

(And I'm not quite geeky enough to go back to the last time Norman and I discussed this issue, and the effect on decisions today on our daughter's future standard of living....)

http://woodenboat.com/forum/images/misc/progress.gif

bobbys
07-13-2009, 06:31 PM
I've noticed a trend in many threads started by Republicans: first they identify a problem that was created (or exacerbated) by their policies...

...then they declare that Obama will be unable to solve it....

...and then they crow about it as if this counts as a victory for them.

A few examples:


"Iraq is such a mess, Obama won't be able to keep his promise to withdraw in sixteen months."
"The economy is in such shambles that Obama's policies won't be able to dig us out."
"The legal status of the Gitmo detainees was managed so poorly that Obama has little choice but to continue Bush's policies."
"Global warmng has already progressed so far that Obama's policies won't be able to reverse it."


I'll concede that Obama is no superman, so it's entirely possible that he won't be able to solve the problems currently before us.....

....but does that really count as a victory for the Republicans or should we expect the Republicans to take responsibility for the problems they created?.

I have noticed a trend in most if not all posts by libs to keep blaming Bush and to keep stabbing SP with a dagger even though shes out of the Pic now. Strange how Obama had it all figured out when he was running , Now he keeps blaming bush, Well to be fair its pretty normal but there should be a 6 month limit on this

Glen Longino
07-13-2009, 07:19 PM
.

I have noticed a trend in most if not all posts by libs to keep blaming Bush and to keep stabbing SP with a dagger even though shes out of the Pic now. Strange how Obama had it all figured out when he was running , Now he keeps blaming bush, Well to be fair its pretty normal but there should be a 6 month limit on this

No limit on this, bobbys.
Historians will still be blaming this fiasco on GW a hundred years from now.
Why? Because his 8 years of gangsterism is responsible for it, that's why.
Now, join us in supporting Obama's efforts to clean up the mess over the next 8 years, or STFU, whichever suits your temperament best.

oznabrag
07-13-2009, 08:27 PM
No limit on this, bobbys.
Historians will still be blaming this fiasco on GW a hundred years from now.
Why? Because his 8 years of gangsterism is responsible for it, that's why.
Now, join us in supporting Obama's efforts to clean up the mess over the next 8 years, or STFU, whichever suits your temperament best.

You are a very kind individual, Mr. Glen.

Glen Longino
07-13-2009, 08:49 PM
You are a very kind individual, Mr. Glen.

Well thanks!
You do realize it's a constant inner battle! :)
Sometimes it's the kindness, sometimes it's the demons.
Hell, you ain't so demonic yourself sometimes!:eek:
How's that for a compliment!:D

oznabrag
07-13-2009, 08:53 PM
I accept!

John Smith
07-13-2009, 09:24 PM
.

I have noticed a trend in most if not all posts by libs to keep blaming Bush and to keep stabbing SP with a dagger even though shes out of the Pic now. Strange how Obama had it all figured out when he was running , Now he keeps blaming bush, Well to be fair its pretty normal but there should be a 6 month limit on this
This is an extremely dishonest post.

Obama ran on changing health care, on changing our energy policy, on getting combat troops out of Iraq, etc.....

He inherited a huge deficit from a president who had inherited a surplus. He inherited two wars from a president that started them. He inherited an economic crisis that came after 8 years of Bush.

When did Obama EVER say any of this would be fixed quickly?

Glen Longino
07-13-2009, 09:34 PM
"When did Obama EVER say any of this would be fixed quickly?"

He NEVER said it, John!
But the Reps are impatient NOW!
It gives them fodder for WHINE!!!:) Which is all they have left, WHINE!!!

bobbys
07-13-2009, 09:37 PM
No limit on this, bobbys.
Historians will still be blaming this fiasco on GW a hundred years from now.
Why? Because his 8 years of gangsterism is responsible for it, that's why.
Now, join us in supporting Obama's efforts to clean up the mess over the next 8 years, or STFU, whichever suits your temperament best..

Heres what the OP said.

>>>I'll concede that Obama is no superman, so it's entirely possible that he won't be able to solve the problems currently before us...<<<. So would my correct response have been to tell him to STFU

Glen Longino
07-13-2009, 09:47 PM
.

Heres what the OP said.

>>>I'll concede that Obama is no superman, so it's entirely possible that he won't be able to solve the problems currently before us...<<<. So would my correct response have been to tell him to STFU

Of course not!
You have to wait until he's had a chance to clean up the mess, say 8 years, then tell him STFU if he has failed.
PS... I thought you went Aloha?
PSS...When you get stranded on that island out there, remember they have computers in those hotels.
Write down your password and take it with you so you can stay in touch.

bobbys
07-13-2009, 09:51 PM
Of course not!
You have to wait until he's had a chance to clean up the mess, say 8 years, then tell him STFU if he has failed.
PS... I thought you went Aloha?
PSS...When you get stranded on that island out there, remember they have computers in those hotels.
Write down your password and take it with you so you can stay in touch..

Ok gotta pack your right theres computers there, Thanks

donald branscom
07-13-2009, 09:54 PM
The USA voted Obama president of the United States.

Enough said.

Keith Wilson
07-13-2009, 10:17 PM
The fact is that the federal share of personal income is increasing as a percentage of GDP and on a per-household and per-capita income basis. Actually, Chris, this is only a result of a change in the source of taxes, a switch from corporate taxes to taxes on individuals. From around 1953 to the present, federal tax receipts as a percent of GDP have been roughly constant around 17-18%, with some random noise. And here's a table showing total federal employment since 1960. (http://www.opm.gov/feddata/HistoricalTables/TotalGovernmentSince1962.asp) The total number of federal civilian workers has stayed rougly constant for the past forty years, and has actually decreased significantly as a percent of the workforce over that time period. Whether this is a good or bad, it is NOT a "bureaucracy out of control." The conservatives' claim of an ever-increasing federal bureaucracy is, to be blunt, a flat-out lie.

Things may change in the future, because of the demographic changes which will necessitate a tax increase if we are to maintain the current levels of spending on Social Security, but it hasn't happened yet.

C. Ross
07-13-2009, 10:57 PM
I disagree. Take Social Security and Medicare and divide it in half -- employer and employee. Corporate tax + employer share of SS and M is flat, and individual taxes increase. It is not true that corporate taxes have declined, and it is only surficially true that individual taxes have increased.

The real story is that social insurance spending has been on a major tilt upwards over the last 35 years, and that individuals taxpayers are paying for increase. As a conservative I am less concerned about federal employment and bureaucracy and "waste" than I am about the fact that we cannot sustain our current Social Security or Medicare spending on a trust fund OR a pay-as-you-go basis. Seniors are eating the seed corn of anyone under 30.

As my liberal friends used to like to say, if you aren't outraged you aren't paying attention.

2MeterTroll
07-13-2009, 11:10 PM
I disagree. Take Social Security and Medicare and divide it in half -- employer and employee. Corporate tax + employer share of SS and M is flat, and individual taxes increase. It is not true that corporate taxes have declined, and it is only surficially true that individual taxes have increased.

The real story is that social insurance spending has been on a major tilt upwards over the last 35 years, and that individuals taxpayers are paying for increase. As a conservative I am less concerned about federal employment and bureaucracy and "waste" than I am about the fact that we cannot sustain our current Social Security or Medicare spending on a trust fund OR a pay-as-you-go basis. Seniors are eating the seed corn of anyone under 30.

As my liberal friends used to like to say, if you aren't outraged you aren't paying attention.

then cut the military spending by half it is by far the largest expense we have sucking more money out of the coffers than any other thing. as a side effect we will probably get in fewer wars cause the dinks in power wont be able to think we can go blindly out into the world and beat every on into line.

C. Ross
07-13-2009, 11:39 PM
Federal spending on defense is about 4.0% of GDP, 13% goes to human resources, 1.7% on interest, and 1.5% on everything else.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/sheets/hist03z1.xls

2MeterTroll
07-13-2009, 11:57 PM
health and human sevices:


2010 budget: $78.4 billion
Enacted 2009: $78.5 billion (includes $2.8 billion in emergency funds for Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program)

DOD


2010 Budget: $533.8 billion
Enacted 2009: $513.3 billion


where does the VA fit in here?:



2010 Budget: $112.8 billion (total including collections) – $55.9 billion in discretionary funding (including collections) and $56.9 billion in mandatory funding
Enacted 2009: $97.7 billion (total including collections) -- $50.4 billion in discretionary funding (including collections, not including ARRA funds) and $47.3 billion in mandatory funding


http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fy2010_factsheets_departments/

this page has a few broken down for folks to see.

so your contention is that all social programs including the govment itself cost more than the military. good gosh i hope so.

C. Ross
07-14-2009, 06:26 AM
My point was that defense is not "by far the largest expense we have sucking more money out of the coffers than any other thing" and that to "cut it in half" would take it to levels unseen since 1940.

As for "we will probably get in fewer wars cause the dinks in power wont be able to think we can go blindly out into the world and beat every on into line" well, your mileage may vary.

President Obama and OMB Director Orzag understand the facts clearly: they are not saying that we are going to pay for their spending on education, energy, and intervention in autos and finance only by cutting defense. Mandatory spending in the form of human services is going to bankrupt us if not reformed. (And Obama is about the fifth President now to understand that. Let's see if he does better than Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush.)

John Smith
07-14-2009, 08:03 AM
If I may, the measure of success will be somewhat subjective.

This means the anti Obama people will have stuff to point to as examples of failing, and others will have something to point to as examples of succeeding.

So, I ask now as to what we would deem a success.

How far into the Clinton term did we actually get a handle on our debt? Obama inherited a larger debt and deficit. If he has significantly slowed the growth of the debt, will that be deemed a success?

I got to go, but you get my drift.

I got a quick "never mind" so I can finish.

What are some of the realistic signs we can expect in a year or so, that we can say is a sign of success?

skuthorp
07-14-2009, 08:55 AM
"..........and the real power, the bureaucracy."

It seems to me that the real power in the US is the military industrial grouping and their lobbyists. One only has to look at US history, especially since WW2. When they ran out of 'legitimate' wars they did their best to manufacture them. Succeeded all too well. All those young men and women, murdered for company profits and political office. And now all that money has been pi**ed up the wall they'll have to start all over. What next will there be a 'war' on?

Keith Wilson
07-14-2009, 09:05 AM
Take Social Security and Medicare and divide it in half -- employer and employee. Corporate tax + employer share of SS and M is flat, and individual taxes increase.But Chris, that's not possible. Federal tax receipts as a percent of GDP have been constant for 50 years; that fact is very clear. If one kind of tax increases, another decreases. Yes, the distribution has changed - Social Security taxes, both individual and employer, have increased, while corporate income taxes have decreased - but the total has stayed around 17-18% with some fluctuations.
It is not true that corporate taxes have declined, and it is only superficially true that individual taxes have increased. Sorry, I should have said corporate income taxes (the white band on the chart).
The real story is that social insurance spending has been on a major tilt upwards over the last 35 years, and that individuals taxpayers are paying for increase. As a conservative I am less concerned about federal employment and bureaucracy and "waste" than I am about the fact that we cannot sustain our current Social Security or Medicare spending . . . True enough, alas - at least at the current rate of taxation. We will either have to cut benefits or raise taxes. The problems with Medicare are partly a result of high health care costs in the US, but that's another topic altogether. The problem is a result of an aging population, and every other wealthy country has the same problem.

However, while we can certainly have a discussion about the problems with Social Security, that wasn't my point. The problems there, while quite real, are promises we will have trouble keeping in the future, not today. HighC painted an eloquent picture of an "out-of-control bureaucracy", an ever-growing federal government responsive only to its own interests, getting larger and larger at the expense of the rest of us. Very frightening - and completely false. The reality is that the federal government, measured either as a percent of the economy or by number of employees, has been the same size size for the last fifty years. Measured as a percentage of the workforce, it has shrunk considerably over that period. The conservatives' tale of the ever-growing federal bureaucracy is a lie.

TomF
07-14-2009, 09:45 AM
Tom, maybe it's different in Canada, maybe your size has spared you this, but our government has sadly come to be composed of four branches, Executive, Judicial, Legislative, and the real power, the bureaucracy.

As members of the first three branches come and go, the behind the scenes bureaucracy grows quietly like a mold spore in damp wood, its primary purpose to perpetuate itself. The other branches have little control over it because the size and scope of the US government has grown beyond all possibility of reasonable management, control, or even comprehension. To the bureaucrat, Congressmen, Presidents, Judges, are but temporary tokens whom they can easily outlast.

The lifers reside in the bureaucracy. They are the only ones who know the mechanisms of government. They are the only ones who read, interpret, and enact the thousands of pages of unread law that Congress routinely passes. They are the power. When Congress or the President du jour protests that the bureaucracy has misinterpreted their intent, the bureaucracy shrugs its collective shoulders and suggests that a new law be written to replace the misinterpreted one. Maybe the next Congress will get around to it.

The bureaucracy has a will of its own, and its prime directive is growth and self preservation. We don't get to vote its members in or out; don't even know who most of them are. It is out of control.I wrote recently on one of Ian's threads about the power of the bureaucracy - and I agree that it's significant. I think, frankly, that you've underplayed where the real power of the bureaucracy lies. The "spreading like mold spores on damp wood" argument is not just insulting - it misses the truth, suggesting you can never get rid of it. I've lived through 3 separate R-wing led purges of the unionized civil service, where people were fired to meet an arbitrary 10% or 15% across-the-board staff cutback. Where their offices stayed empty 'till the same political masters decided to initiate some new programs ... and found they needed to hire people to design and operate them.

The real power of the bureaucracy isn't in inertia, but in professionalism. In having developed deep, specific expertise and knowledge about the issues government's been told to look after. Knowledge is power.

Knowledge is power, whoever holds the knowledge. Engineers, doctors, musicians, boatbuilders, web-designers ... all have specific professional expertise. We pay them to do work which in their considered professional opinions, will best meet our needs. My engineer needs to know the relative properties of wide or narrow flange steel I-beams, wood glue-lam, regular structural framing, etc. But what I pay him for is a 1/2 page engineer's report with his seal on it, giving approved specs for my job. Then I, as the "decider," tell the workers whether or not to go ahead with the project.

That's the equivalent of the briefing note and 3-4 bullet point recommendations that the senior civil service gives to a Minister, for his decision. The Minister doesn't have time for the intricacies, and usually hasn't the professional background to fully understand them ... any more than I have the professional background to fully understand my Engineer's judgment. And that's where bureaucratic power lies - any professional will have their opinions reflect, well, their opinions. The conclusions they've reached as they've wrestled with the arcane bits of their discipline. So just like one engineer will tend towards using steel beams ... one policy wonk will tend towards specific regulatory or IT options. The power to frame the options given to the "decider" is very real, and somewhat paternalistic in any professional/client relationship.

Do bureacracies self-perpetuate? Sure. People get attached to being able to pay their mortgages, and want to stay employed. Voters scream murder when 4 local offices are consolidated into one regional office ... so infrastructure models are often inefficient, compared with private industry.

And governments always value the tactical and operational over the strategic. Focusing on delivering the mandate in the way they now know it, instead of identifying and addressing what's coming. That represents a huge opportunity cost. But government doesn't have the luxury of making mistakes 20% of the time, the way an private sector IT professional says his company has to, to be competitive.

High C
07-14-2009, 11:59 AM
....The "spreading like mold spores on damp wood" argument is not just insulting - it misses the truth, suggesting you can never get rid of it....

Dave Carnell figured out how to get rid of it...anti-freeze!

I think things must be very different in Canada. The remainder of your post rings unfamiliar in my experience. Our bureaucracy is less flexible, less service oriented than you describe. Our bureaucracy has, for example, handcuffed New Orleans from recovery, caring more about the worth of its own red tape than about real, suffering people. Much of the recovery money generously given to the region by taxpayers still sits unspent while bureaucrats pore over their mountains of paperwork and application forms.

I've served on government boards and commissions, founded a charter school, worked on political campaigns, gotten to know Congressmen and a Senator. I've heard many complaints about their powerless over the bureaucracy. It's astounding to hear a US Senator say, "they won't let us do it that way"!

Keith, you have focused entirely on growth of bureaucracy, arguing that there has been no such growth (how much of the stimulus money has Obama spent on new government employees?), but that's the less important part of my comment. It's the power of the bureaucracy that is the real problem, the way it has taken too much of the decision making process away from those we elect to make the choices.

2MeterTroll
07-14-2009, 12:04 PM
would take it to levels unseen since 1940.

well, your mileage may vary.

President Obama and OMB Director Orzag understand the facts clearly: they are not saying that we are going to pay for their spending on education, energy, and intervention in autos and finance only by cutting defense. Mandatory spending in the form of human services is going to bankrupt us if not reformed. (And Obama is about the fifth President now to understand that. Let's see if he does better than Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush.)

C.Ross you are one of the few on this board that can make my blood pressure run high.
military spending is a single item and its not that big in comparison to the combined social spending?

what parts of social spending in aggregate; should be cut?
health care or the money to other countries? subsidies to corporations or social security? Oooh heres a big one how about collage tuition assistance or the GI bill?

John Smith
07-14-2009, 01:11 PM
C.Ross you are one of the few on this board that can make my blood pressure run high.
military spending is a single item and its not that big in comparison to the combined social spending?

what parts of social spending in aggregate; should be cut?
health care or the money to other countries? subsidies to corporations or social security? Oooh heres a big one how about collage tuition assistance or the GI bill?

As they say, the devil is always in the details. Everyone is always in favor of getting rid of "waste", but few can agree on what that "waste" consists of.

pefjr
07-14-2009, 02:17 PM
As they say, the devil is always in the details. Everyone is always in favor of getting rid of "waste", but few can agree on what that "waste" consists of. I had 15 yrs with Fed. Gov't. Five years of that was with the Nat'l Park Service, 10 yrs with The Air Force. I can tell the tax-payer: You get your money's worth and then some with the Nat'l Park Service. NPS is on the bottom of the totem pole when budgets are alloted, and must use what little they get in a wise way.
On the other hand, the tax-payer gets about 25 cents worth on the dollar for the Air Force. The waste is incredible, huge and so out of control I can not explain. The budget is unlimited and unashamedly wasted. I assume the DOD is much the same.

John Smith
07-14-2009, 05:00 PM
I had 15 yrs with Fed. Gov't. Five years of that was with the Nat'l Park Service, 10 yrs with The Air Force. I can tell the tax-payer: You get your money's worth and then some with the Nat'l Park Service. NPS is on the bottom of the totem pole when budgets are alloted, and must use what little they get in a wise way.
On the other hand, the tax-payer gets about 25 cents worth on the dollar for the Air Force. The waste is incredible, huge and so out of control I can not explain. The budget is unlimited and unashamedly wasted. I assume the DOD is much the same.
Remember the $400 hammers? I read somewhere an interesting article that we were throwing more money at the defense department than it could spend, so it had the computers bury the extram money among all expenditures. You wouldn't notice $400 on a tank or such, but it sure stuck out on toilet seats, screwdrivers, and other small items.

One area of waste we might get a consensus on is cost overruns in the military, but, then again, we may not.

pefjr
07-14-2009, 06:00 PM
Remember the $400 hammers? I read somewhere an interesting article that we were throwing more money at the defense department than it could spend, so it had the computers bury the extram money among all expenditures. You wouldn't notice $400 on a tank or such, but it sure stuck out on toilet seats, screwdrivers, and other small items.

One area of waste we might get a consensus on is cost overruns in the military, but, then again, we may not.

No auditors, no inventory controls or accountability. Unbelievable internal theft. In the deep south there used to be a church on every corner, now its a Pawn Shop full of Army surplus equipment stolen from the local base.

C. Ross
07-14-2009, 06:42 PM
C.Ross you are one of the few on this board that can make my blood pressure run high.
military spending is a single item and its not that big in comparison to the combined social spending?

what parts of social spending in aggregate; should be cut?
health care or the money to other countries? subsidies to corporations or social security? Oooh heres a big one how about collage tuition assistance or the GI bill?

I'm not worth the aggravation <grin>

So OK, yes, I think we spend too much on defense, and in particular I thought the invasion of Iraq was a stupid idea from the get-go.

Better?

There are lots of budget balancing ideas that are ideologically or emotionally satisfying, but only a few are actually practical.

20% of the budget is defense, 64% is human services, 8% is interest, and 7% is everything else. The only thing that matters is managing defense and human services spending. Most human services spending is mandatory -- almost contracts between the government and individual people in the form of social security and Medicare and VA benefits and so on. Even if we eliminate ALL defense spending, Social Security and Medicare cost is going to eat us alive within ten years. So cut defense spending if you want, but the real tsunami is entitlement spending. And Obama understands this.

TomF
07-15-2009, 07:24 AM
I hear you on the argument that the only budgets that it really matters to manage well are defence and human services.

Minor variation, same theme up here. One of my province's former Ministers of Health up here used to say that he spent the annual budget of the Department of Agriculture every week. The annual budget of the province's Office of Human Resources amounts to a rounding error in Health's budget.

High C
07-15-2009, 10:40 AM
....The only thing that matters is managing defense and human services spending. Most human services spending is mandatory....


Sorry to pick on you, Chris, but it's demonstrative of how far we've strayed from Constitutional reality when even a fiscal Conservative such as yourself could mention defense and human services, and observe that (only) the human services spending is mandatory.

The Constitution says just the opposite. Our "social contracts" are unsustainable. This nation has become a large scale version of General Motors, and like GM, those contracts are going to have to be renegotiated.

Keith Wilson
07-15-2009, 10:43 AM
Our "social contracts" are unsustainable. Nonsense. They're unsustainable without raising taxes. Getting health care inflation and spending to the levels of other developed countries is also important.

High C
07-15-2009, 10:47 AM
Nonsense. They're unsustainable without raising taxes.

:D Blood out of the old turnip, ehh? Raise taxes again...and again...and again. Have you noticed the negative GDP lately? Classic Democrat unthinking knee jerk nonsense. :rolleyes: I'm already getting dinged for HALF with my small business. I'm seriously thinking about giving it up...hardly worth the time for half. How much more do you want? :mad:

GM shoulda just raised the price of their cars, right?

John Smith
07-15-2009, 10:52 AM
:D Blood out of the old turnip, ehh? Raise taxes again...and again...and again. Have you noticed the negative GDP lately? Classic Democrat unthinking knee jerk nonsense. :rolleyes: I'm already getting dinged for HALF with my small business. I'm seriously thinking about giving it up...hardly worth the time for half. How much more do you want? :mad:

GM shoulda just raised the price of their cars, right?

Let's see. You own a small business. Are you in the over $250k a year bracket? Have your taxes gone up under Obama? My understanding was that above $250k the rate will go from 36% to 39%

History, according to some conservatives, tells us Bill Gates couldn't make any money during the Clinton years.;)

High C
07-15-2009, 10:54 AM
Let's see. You own a small business. Are you in the over $250k a year bracket? Have your taxes gone up under Obama? My understanding was that above $250k the rate will go from 36% to 39%...


What does that question have to do with what I said to Keith? Nothing. :rolleyes:

Keith Wilson
07-15-2009, 10:56 AM
I presume you mean negative change in GDP? That's bad enough, but a negative GDP would be a truly nasty problem. :D

I didn't say that taxes should necessarily be raised. I was taking issue with your "unsustainable" comment. Social Security and Medicare are perfectly sustainable; you just don't like what we'd have to do to sustain them.

FWIW, US tax rates are significantly below most other developed countries.

John Smith
07-15-2009, 10:57 AM
What does that question have to do with what I said to Keith? Nothing. :rolleyes:
I think it's got everything to do with it. Are your taxes going up?

You say taxes are half, but 39% is the cap for income taxes, so you tend to lose me.

How much are your health care costs, assuming you have them?

As a small business owner, you point would be far better made if it included specific numbers.

High C
07-15-2009, 10:59 AM
I presume you mean negative change in GDP? That's bad enough, but a negative GDP would be a truly nasty problem. :D

Oh youse guys are sooooo clever! :D You know dang well what I meant. :D

2MeterTroll
07-15-2009, 11:02 AM
i think you might pay attention to sections 8 and 9 on this page.

or maybe read the whole of the document:
http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm#a1

Peter Malcolm Jardine
07-15-2009, 11:03 AM
:D Blood out of the old turnip, ehh? Raise taxes again...and again...and again. Have you noticed the negative GDP lately? Classic Democrat unthinking knee jerk nonsense. :rolleyes: I'm already getting dinged for HALF with my small business. I'm seriously thinking about giving it up...hardly worth the time for half. How much more do you want? :mad:

GM shoulda just raised the price of their cars, right?


Yet if you look at the nations that consistently have as high, or a higher standard of living as the US you would seen a consistently higher tax rate. As a result, there are a number of smaller less prosperous nations with better education and health care systems. The US tax system generally rewards the wealthy and ignores the poor. If that is the way the american public wants it, then so be it, but don't claim it works well. There are numerous examples of how it doesn't, and how that is related to your current economic crisis.

High C
07-15-2009, 11:08 AM
I think it's got everything to do with it. Are your taxes going up?

Dude, I was responding to a broad assertion that it would be necessary to increase taxes to sustain our social contracts. Whether or not my taxes have recently gone up or may in the near future is irrelevant to a problem the size of the impending SS and Medicare disasters. This is a long term problem we're talking about.

But to answer your question anyway, there are immense tax increases being pushed that will be paid by everyone in this nation.

2MeterTroll
07-15-2009, 11:19 AM
looks to me like both general welfare and military are in the constitution.

High C
07-15-2009, 11:27 AM
looks to me like both general welfare and military are in the constitution.

Ahh yes, the dreamer's catchall phrase that justifies unlimited government power. :rolleyes:

If your interpretation of this phrase were correct, the remainder of the Constitution (you know, those pesky enumerations of government's role) need not have been written.

C. Ross
07-15-2009, 11:30 AM
Social Security and Medicare are perfectly sustainable; you just don't like what we'd have to do to sustain them.

This is a tautology/circular argument. Of course we could tax at World War II taxation levels to keep Social Security and Medicare afloat. I'm sure you've seen the projections about the burden per worker for these programs, and they are NOT sustainable.


FWIW, US tax rates are significantly below most other developed countries.

Yes, and this actually offers an interesting comparison.

Look here for OECD statistics (http://www.oecd.org/document/60/0,3343,en_2649_34533_1942460_1_1_1_1,00.html#trs). The US is 28% of GDP compared to an OECD average of 36%, so you're right in aggregate. But look at the components.

Sales taxes in US: 4.8% compared to 11.1% OECD average
Property taxes in US: 3.1% compared to 2.0% OECD average
Social security contributions in US: 6.7% compared to 9.1% OECD average
Taxes on income, profits, and capital gains in US: 13.5% compared to 13.1% OECD average

If you adjust for the fact that about half of US healthcare is paid for by private industry instead of government, our net social security cost is probably the same, or maybe higher.

All other taxes are a wash, except taxes on consumption.

Bottom line: If we were to align ourselves with the rest of the world, we would tax consumption at twice the current rates. A huge cultural and public finance change, and a difficult one to make except in boom times. (On the other hand, most Americans could do just fine with less Stuff.)

Keith Wilson
07-15-2009, 11:41 AM
If you adjust for the fact that about half of US healthcare is paid for by private industry instead of government, our net social security cost is probably the same, or maybe higher.Very likely, but one also has to take into account that our health care costs are about 1.8X the OECD average. That's at least as serious a problem for Medicare as demographic changes.

Again, I'm not saying we should introduce a VAT, or structure taxes like they do in Europe. I'll have to look at the figures, but my understanding is that it would not require ridiculous rates of taxation to keep Social Security solvent over the long term - something like 0.5% of GDP additional.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
07-15-2009, 12:28 PM
Ahh yes, the dreamer's catchall phrase that justifies unlimited government power. :rolleyes:

If your interpretation of this phrase were correct, the remainder of the Constitution (you know, those pesky enumerations of government's role) need not have been written.


Another big big problem for the USA. Most countries look upon their 'constitution' as living documents.. yet the USA has cast most of it in stone. The "bearing arms" is a wonderful example.... In revolutionary times, when a civilian militia defeated the English, that clause was important. Today, it means you kill each other a lot as a result.

The tired old espousal by the capitalist right wing that big government is big brother is not only incorrect, but broadly proven false by nations around the world. The real facts of this type of opinion is that a lot of the wealthy in America don't care about the poor. So it goes. Another reason for your economic troubles....

pefjr
07-15-2009, 12:43 PM
Another big big problem for the USA. Most countries look upon their 'constitution' as living documents.. yet the USA has cast most of it in stone. The "bearing arms" is a wonderful example.... In revolutionary times, when a civilian militia defeated the English, that clause was important. Today, it means you kill each other a lot as a result.

Oh, its living here also, whenever the supreme court want to let it breathe(Declaration of War). But not on such critical political, economic questions as the right to "I want my .44 on my hip and that's all there is to it" mentality. Its pick and choose here as it is elsewhere.

2MeterTroll
07-15-2009, 12:43 PM
ya know something High C i think you better read the document again.

they already have unlimited power its called the military; and that was done before i could vote. but you could. wonder what you where thinking in the 70's and 80's?

as to SS i have never had an expectation it would survive the boomer's; i dont know any one my age who does.

High C
07-15-2009, 01:25 PM
.....hey already have unlimited power its called the military; and that was done before i could vote. but you could. wonder what you where thinking in the 70's and 80's?

In the 70s and in 1980 I was voting for Jimmy Carter.

I think I'm going to create a text snippet to save time when I reply to your pointless posts that says. "WTF does that have to do with the discussion?"

Nah, too much trouble. I'll just ignore that stuff. So if you don't hear from me for a while, you'll know why.

High C
07-15-2009, 01:30 PM
Oh, its living here also....

In addition to the sort of living that some radical judges have seen fit to engage in, we also have a quaint Constitutional option known as "amendment" that has been used 27 times so far. A fair amount of living has taken place under that process. ;)

It's a great process, spelled out in law with rules and everything! Maybe those who want to make major changes in our Constitution should try it!

Keith Wilson
07-15-2009, 01:34 PM
Ahh yes, the dreamer's catchall phrase that justifies unlimited government power. While you are perfectly free to disagree with 100-odd years of Supreme Court decisions about what the federal government can and cannot do, the authority to decide what is and what isn't constitutional fortunately does not rest with you.

Keith Wilson
07-15-2009, 01:52 PM
. . . the real cure for the current economic malaise is to simply let the GDP collapse to supportable levels.

Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate. It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people.

Andrew W. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury, 1931
I'm sorry, but the idea of "letting the GDP collapse to supportable levels" seems not terribly coherent, and a recipe for serious unpleasantness. What does "supportable" mean in this context? If a certain level of consumption was "supportable" in 2005. why isn't it "supportable" now? Have the factories burned down? Have the workers forgotten their skills? Are the raw materials exhausted? The laws of economics are not the laws of physics; human beings create economic systems, and can change them if we want.

2MeterTroll
07-15-2009, 01:53 PM
In the 70s and in 1980 I was voting for Jimmy Carter.

I think I'm going to create a text snippet to save time when I reply to your pointless posts that says. "WTF does that have to do with the discussion?"

Nah, too much trouble. I'll just ignore that stuff. So if you don't hear from me for a while, you'll know why.

aww did i step on your toes?

funny that. have fun retire early. its not like we wont be paying for you.

John Smith
07-15-2009, 03:09 PM
Dude, I was responding to a broad assertion that it would be necessary to increase taxes to sustain our social contracts. Whether or not my taxes have recently gone up or may in the near future is irrelevant to a problem the size of the impending SS and Medicare disasters. This is a long term problem we're talking about.

But to answer your question anyway, there are immense tax increases being pushed that will be paid by everyone in this nation.
This is the problem: vague generalities. If you own a small business, you are either in the below or above the $250k income line, and your income taxes aren't going up or they're going from 36 - 39% under Obama's, so far, passed budget.

Anything past this is speculation. If you actually own a business, you should be able to supply some actual numbers as to how much this is actually going to cost YOU.

If you were responding to what you claim you were responding to, why did you respond to me? I brought none of those things up.

John Smith
07-15-2009, 03:12 PM
Ahh yes, the dreamer's catchall phrase that justifies unlimited government power. :rolleyes:

If your interpretation of this phrase were correct, the remainder of the Constitution (you know, those pesky enumerations of government's role) need not have been written.

How do YOU interpret "promoting the general welfare?" I believe it concerns insuring to the fullest extent practical that our food is safe to eat, our water safe to drink, our air safe to breath, an infrastructure that helps all, business and citizen, thrive, etc.

I would include health care as part of promoting the general welfare.

Where do you draw the line?

High C
07-15-2009, 03:15 PM
This is the problem: vague generalities....If you were responding to what you claim you were responding to, why did you respond to me? I brought none of those things up.

Because you challenged something I said to Keith. Keith used the generalization, not me. You butted in with an irrelevant challenge about my personal tax situation.

You often seem to post in ways that don't address what's being discussed. Try to slow down and understand what's going on, ehh? Or are you just deliberately trying to stir up crap? :rolleyes:

John Smith
07-15-2009, 03:23 PM
Because you challenged something I said to Keith. Keith used the generalization, not me. You butted in with an irrelevant challenge about my personal tax situation.

You often seem to post in ways that don't address what's being discussed. Try to slow down and understand what's going on, ehh? Or are you just deliberately trying to stir up crap? :rolleyes:
Not at all, I'm just providing you an opportunity to verify your position with some actual numbers pertaining to the points you made.

I find them all based on speculation. You claim to have actual, first hand knowledge, but you don't share anything specific.

In fact, this was your post and my response:


Quote:
Originally Posted by High C http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2257398#post2257398)
:D Blood out of the old turnip, ehh? Raise taxes again...and again...and again. Have you noticed the negative GDP lately? Classic Democrat unthinking knee jerk nonsense. :rolleyes: I'm already getting dinged for HALF with my small business. I'm seriously thinking about giving it up...hardly worth the time for half. How much more do you want? :mad:

GM shoulda just raised the price of their cars, right?

Let's see. You own a small business. Are you in the over $250k a year bracket? Have your taxes gone up under Obama? My understanding was that above $250k the rate will go from 36% to 39%

History, according to some conservatives, tells us Bill Gates couldn't make any money during the Clinton years.;)

I'm actually asking how you get the 50%.

High C
07-15-2009, 03:28 PM
How do YOU interpret "promoting the general welfare?"

I think there's a great deal of distance between promoting the general welfare, and providing individuals with their personal needs.

At the time the phrase was written, it was meant to create an environment such that the newly united states could peacefully coexist, trade freely, and be secure.

The proof is obvious. How did this nation operate for the century and a half after those words were written? Did it provide individuals with their daily needs? No, of course not. This is an invention of very recent times.

CK 17
07-15-2009, 03:32 PM
Tom, maybe it's different in Canada, maybe your size has spared you this, but our government has sadly come to be composed of four branches, Executive, Judicial, Legislative, and the real power, the bureaucracy.



If that were true we'd have a government medical insurance option by now. I think it would be more acuarate to say: but our government has sadly come to be composed of four branches, Executive, Judicial, Legislative, and the real power, corporate.

High C
07-15-2009, 03:38 PM
...I'm actually asking how you get the 50%.[/color]

Ahh, a substantive question!

My small business is not my only income. When added to my other income and taxed accordingly, that small business pays a 28% Federal income tax, a 15.3% SS and FICA tax, and a 6% Louisiana tax on all profits.

49.3%

I get to keep only 50.7% of my business's profit to spend on my family. If that figure declines any further, I may well decide it's not worth the effort. I'm not the only one.

Surprised? People who don't own small businesses often are.

High C
07-15-2009, 03:45 PM
....If idealogical purity was the answer (and ideaologically pure Republicans were in complete control), then we'd end all corporate subsidies, along with welfare, food stamps, Social Security and Medicare, and every consumer protection act ever passed....

You're describing something other than Republicanism, anarchism perhaps?

Even Libertarians don't go as far as your imaginary foe.

High C
07-15-2009, 03:52 PM
The entirety of my post describes the context. I'm simply arguing that the interpretation of 'promoting the general welfare' permits pretty wide lattitude... and we can agree on where to place the line. I don't think ANYONE has any firm constitutional basis to decide where that line should be placed.

No, but there is a great deal of precedent. For a century and a half, US Presidents and Congresses, those charged with the duty of providing for the general welfare, did NOT provide for individual needs in the discharge of said duty.

This is a modern notion.

Keith Wilson
07-15-2009, 03:56 PM
There are many excellent modern notions.

High C
07-15-2009, 04:07 PM
try fairly describing the situation, instead of 'pre-loading' it with deception....

....you're not paying 15.3% on payroll taxes... because unless you've got a very bad accountant, you're not paying the entire profit as a salary... you're declaring SOME of it as salary, and some of it as an owner's draw...

Try not accusing me of deception when you have no idea what you're talking about.

All profit of my individually owned LLC is taxed as "pass through" personal income whether it's drawn, taken as salary, or left sitting in the bank. ALL of it is subject to SS and Medicare taxes, up to the SS cap, and ALL of it is taxed by the Feds and the state.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
07-15-2009, 04:08 PM
I think there's a great deal of distance between promoting the general welfare, and providing individuals with their personal needs.

At the time the phrase was written, it was meant to create an environment such that the newly united states could peacefully coexist, trade freely, and be secure.

The proof is obvious. How did this nation operate for the century and a half after those words were written? Did it provide individuals with their daily needs? No, of course not. This is an invention of very recent times.

An invention? Wow, the entire evolution of social policy in progressive countries boiled down to a single word that, in this context, reeks of condescension.

After you say ridiculous trite little snippets like this, you should know why people don't have "intellectual" debates with you.:rolleyes:

Social policy for the first 150 years in America wasn't terribly progressive...remember slavery? America didn't even address the race issue until the 1960's... hmm I guess social evolution in America is quite slow.

High C
07-15-2009, 04:10 PM
...If your business is profitable, you'll continue it... if it isn't, you'll close it. you're in the same boat as the rest of us.

Not at all true. I weigh the amount of money my business puts into the family pot against the number of hours it takes to earn that money. If my take home after tax amount drops too low, I'll quit, even though it's still profitable. I'll not work a thousand hours a year to put a thousand bucks into my pocket.

High C
07-15-2009, 04:13 PM
You very clearly need a new accountant.

I'm trying very hard to be polite to you, something you rarely extend to those with whom you disagree, but am finding you unworthy of that respect.

2MeterTroll
07-15-2009, 04:22 PM
No, but there is a great deal of precedent. For a century and a half, US Presidents and Congresses, those charged with the duty of providing for the general welfare, did NOT provide for individual needs in the discharge of said duty.

This is a modern notion.

blah the number of things that apparently didn't happen is astounding.
home stead, land rush, &c. the list of imaginary things just goes on.

High C
07-15-2009, 04:29 PM
...After you say ridiculous trite little snippets like this, you should know why people don't have "intellectual" debates with you...


:D This from the guy who made a fool of himself (most recently) claiming that Richard Nixon was impeached, and Bill Clinton wasn't! :eek:

You're such an amusing little stalker. :D

Peter Malcolm Jardine
07-15-2009, 04:57 PM
I think that was about two years ago wasn't it... Yes, that was a mistake, although Nixon was going to be impeached if he didn't resign, and Clinton had impeachment proceeding started (?) but they didn't conclude....

I suppose that is the details of american process that I am not very familiar with...oh well.

My point about your particular quote was your tendency to reduce very complex social issues, and history in government to simple one liners... which of course, cannot be done. You are like many americans, relatively uneducated about the history of social policy progression around the world, and convinced of american progression by belief in the the many myths and lies that surround the ego of american self absorption. It's not terribly entertaining to point out how wrong you are about so many things, because a) you don't believe it b)you aren't going to get it, and finally d) don't see any reason to find out the facts, rather than your southern american cultural delusions.

This is just a small sample of why I don't tend to engage in debate about subjects like this on this forum. My experience here finally made me post little cynical nothing remarks, because intelligent debate would mean that the person I am debating would have a broad knowledge base on a wide range of social political issues. You don't.

High C
07-15-2009, 05:02 PM
I'm sorry if my response to your previous statement was brusque... but if you're paying payroll taxes on every penny of pass-thru profit, then you really DO need a new accountant... and I'm being serious, and not trying to be offensive. I genuinely suggest you do a little research into this. The law says you must pay yourself a fair salary for your efforts.... but the law does NOT specify what a fair salary is, and income from your business which is NOT salary is NOT taxed for payroll taxes. If you're paying payroll taxes on every penny of profit, you're throwing money away.

I have a friend in a similar business to my own. He earns a fairly hefty rate as a consultant, but the portion he takes as salary is commensurate to what a permanent employee of his clients would make... a vastly lower number. It is perfectly legal.

Norman, I appreciate your concern, but there is more to this than you realize. There quite a few possible business structures that are not the same as yours or your friends.

An LLC can be taxed in a variety of ways, either as a sole proprietorship, a partnership, a C corporation, or an S corporation.

The sole proprietor LLC owner (that's me) pays NO corporate tax. All profit is passed through and taxed as personal. Good old schedule C doesn't even ask about owner draws or salaries. There's no such thing as far as the IRS is concerned with regard to this particular business type. Schedule C is very simple. Income minus expenses equals taxable profit. Add SS and Medicare and put that figure onto the 1040 as taxable personal income. Cha ching.

I considered forming as one of the other corp types but found they were not practical for a variety of reasons. This service business has a very high profit margin and is not the sort of thing one would keep earnings in to grow the company, so little opportunity to avoid taxation by "reinvesting". The point of making the money was to draw it out for personal use, not to grow a physical business. With my high profit margin, there would've been corporate tax to pay on nearly every dollar of income, in addition to the personal tax I'd have had to pay on any salary or draws.

My accountant can whip your accountant's ass. :p :D

Peter Malcolm Jardine
07-15-2009, 05:05 PM
Lets go a little further: Here is a person that claims great intellectual capacity and a wide range of interests, AND woodenboat experience.

Only 10 posts of the last 1000 are out of the bilge.

Despite this astronomical range of interests and high IQ... how many threads started... Hmm 5 or 6?

Yet, apparently I am the divider and the 'stalker'.... whatever that means:rolleyes::rolleyes:

You're a common southern garden troll. Nothing more.

oznabrag
07-15-2009, 05:36 PM
Mr. Jardine, I find you to be as you describe yourself: educated, broad-minded, erudite and well-spoken.

Let's leave the regional prejudice out of this. Whaddaya say?:)

High C
07-15-2009, 08:26 PM
....An LLC is an LLC... it is NOT a sole proprietorship, partnership, C corp, or S corp...

...I know you're wrong...VERY wrong... and paying unnecessary taxes.

I wish you were right, but you're not even in the ballpark.

"The Limited Liability Company (LLC) is a terrific tax entity. The number one reason is its flexibility. Specifically, an LLC can be taxed as:
* a sole proprietorship
* a partnership
* a C corporation
* an S corporation
http://smallbusinessonlinecommunity..../message/20132


"How is an LLC taxed?
Solution A single-member LLC is taxed like a sole-proprietorship. This means that they pay a "self-employment" tax and simply add any income onto their 1040 personal tax return."
http://www.mynewcompany.com/support/...kbarticleid=31


"An LLC with only one member is disregarded for tax purposes as an entity apart from its member. If the member is an individual, then the LLC is taxed either as sole proprietor, Schedule C in the case of an operating business, Schedule E in the case of rental property or Schedule F in the case of a farm."


"A limited liability company (LLC) is not a separate tax entity like a corporation; instead, it is what the IRS calls a "pass-through entity," like a partnership or sole proprietorship. All of the profits and losses of the LLC "pass through" the business to the LLC owners (called members), who report this information on their personal tax returns. The LLC itself does not pay federal income taxes"
http://nolopress.com/article.cfm/Obj...1/182/245/ART/


"If it has one member, it is "disregarded" for Federal income tax purposes, (Treas. Reg. Sec 301.7701-3(b)(1)). As a disregarded entity, the LLC income would be reported on the sole member's tax return. Thus, if it were active income, it would be reported on schedule C"
http://www.legalwiz.com/llc-taxed-as-corporation


"LLC Tax Classifications
There are four main ways that an LLC can be taxed in the United States:
* As a sole proprietorship
* As a partnership
* As a C corporation
* As an S corporation
http://www.companiesinc.com/llc/tax-classifications.asp


"So, practically, you would take all your revenue, expenses, gains and losses for your business is and determine what the taxable income, if any, or the taxable loss of the business is at the end of the year."
http://thellcexpert.com/llcanswers/h...llc-pay-taxes/


"the LLC could elect to be taxed as a corporation by completing IRS Form 8832. If this election is made, the LLC would pay a separate entity level tax. This choice may be advantageous if the LLC owners want to retain profits in the business and would prefer to have these retained earnings taxed at the corporate income tax rate as opposed to the personal rate."
http://www.totaltaxsolutions.com/limited-liability.htm

John Smith
07-15-2009, 09:39 PM
I think there's a great deal of distance between promoting the general welfare, and providing individuals with their personal needs.

At the time the phrase was written, it was meant to create an environment such that the newly united states could peacefully coexist, trade freely, and be secure.

The proof is obvious. How did this nation operate for the century and a half after those words were written? Did it provide individuals with their daily needs? No, of course not. This is an invention of very recent times.

Many things didn't exist when the constitution was written.

"Secure" covers a lot of ground, no?

John Smith
07-15-2009, 09:46 PM
Ahh, a substantive question!

My small business is not my only income. When added to my other income and taxed accordingly, that small business pays a 28% Federal income tax, a 15.3% SS and FICA tax, and a 6% Louisiana tax on all profits.

49.3%

I get to keep only 50.7% of my business's profit to spend on my family. If that figure declines any further, I may well decide it's not worth the effort. I'm not the only one.

Surprised? People who don't own small businesses often are.
Thanks. I'm not surprised, but I see there are several types of taxes that dip into your profits. Are the FICA, SS, and Louisiana tax deductable from the federal tax?

What most of us likely don't realize is what it costs you to employee someone. That would make a great thing, I think, to break down. Hourly wage plus SS, FICA, and whatever benefits.

If all these taxes were eliminated from your costs, would you "eat" the new profits, or would you share them with employees as higher wages?

How much of those taxes go to the various infrastructures (highways, electricity, satelites, etc.) that help you actually do business?

John Smith
07-15-2009, 09:52 PM
No, but there is a great deal of precedent. For a century and a half, US Presidents and Congresses, those charged with the duty of providing for the general welfare, did NOT provide for individual needs in the discharge of said duty.

This is a modern notion.

Being modern doesn't make it bad. Lots of things change over time: women voting, ending slavery, to name a couple.

When I was a boy, I received several vaccines, polio stands out, via taxpayer money through my school. Wiping out Polio seems to be within promoting the general welfare.

When the automobile came along, laying down roads and highways promotes the general welfare.

When the constitution was written, the family farm was the source of the family food. With the industrial revolution, that changed. People worked in factories and bought food from those who farmed.

I think much of the "safety net" concept is to keep people from getting so desparate that they take by force from others what they need.

oznabrag
07-15-2009, 09:55 PM
Thanks. I'm not surprised, but I see there are several types of taxes that dip into your profits. Are the FICA, SS, and Louisiana tax deductable from the federal tax?

What most of us likely don't realize is what it costs you to employee someone. That would make a great thing, I think, to break down. Hourly wage plus SS, FICA, and whatever benefits.

If all these taxes were eliminated from your costs, would you "eat" the new profits, or would you share them with employees as higher wages?

How much of those taxes go to the various infrastructures (highways, electricity, satelites, etc.) that help you actually do business?

I don't know about High-C, but the typical, successful woodworking business (that's soup to nuts, folks. From specialty, limited-run furniture through boat building, cabinet-making and right on through to pallet manufacturing. Charcoal manufacturing seems to be an anomaly), but typical margin is 10% profit. Employees cost about double their wages.

High C
07-15-2009, 10:08 PM
...Are the FICA, SS, and Louisiana tax deductable from the federal tax?

What most of us likely don't realize is what it costs you to employee someone....

No, those taxes are not deductible from the fed tax.

I have no employees. Mine is a very small business, about half time, really. From what I know of the administrative burden, if you have just one employee, you need to add a second one just to handle the paperwork of the first. :eek: It's like potato chips, no one can eat just one. :D You need quite a few to justify the administrative burden.

Some folks say this puts a damper on small business in the US. Sounds right to me.

oznabrag
07-15-2009, 10:39 PM
No, those taxes are not deductible from the fed tax.

I have no employees. Mine is a very small business, about half time, really. From what I know of the administrative burden, if you have just one employee, you need to add a second one just to handle the paperwork of the first. :eek: It's like potato chips, no one can eat just one. :D You need quite a few to justify the administrative burden.

Some folks say this puts a damper on small business in the US. Sounds right to me.

I'm not sure what it is you do, but in the woodworking biz, there seems to be a 'no man's land' in number of employees. If it's just one carpenter/woodsmith/whatever and his helper (or not), he can go along pretty well and keep himself busy and keep his act together with a little help from his accountant. Growing from that point to the point where he has about a dozen employees is the hell of it.

He'll work double hours and take home the same money. If he's lucky, he's so stupid that he won't even realize this until he's about three years in.

Two salesmen, a secretary/receptionist and a part-time book-keeper don't produce cabinets, but their families gotta eat too! A whole lot of real fine fellas that try it don't make it.

As to your comment that 'this puts a damper on small business in the US', it seems obvious that the small business, the 'carpenteer', is much harder for the IRS to keep track of, necessitating more effort and less profit. He is, however, pursuing happiness. I think it's true that the trades, and the small-time entrepreneur are being taxed out of existence. We're just too much trouble.

oznabrag
07-15-2009, 10:56 PM
Nothing in your C&P's and references contradicts what I said about the distinction between salary and the owner's profit. Salary is subject to payroll tax... owner's profit (after salaries are paid) is not. Both end up being taxed at ordinary income tax rates, but only the salary portion pays the payroll tax.

Never mind. Keep on paying... the gov't needs the money.

Man, I think he may need a better accountant, myself. Back when I was Incorporated, my attorney and my accountant arranged that my tools and my shop were leased to the corporation, paying me so much a month. This was income, but not wages, so FICA/SS tax did not apply.

Robert L E
07-15-2009, 11:13 PM
I'm simply arguing that the interpretation of 'promoting the general welfare' permits pretty wide lattitude... and we can agree on where to place the line.

Some of us would say that 'promoting the general welfare' does not mean the same thing as 'promoting the INDIVIDUAL welfare'.

Bob

John Smith
07-15-2009, 11:29 PM
No, those taxes are not deductible from the fed tax.

I have no employees. Mine is a very small business, about half time, really. From what I know of the administrative burden, if you have just one employee, you need to add a second one just to handle the paperwork of the first. :eek: It's like potato chips, no one can eat just one. :D You need quite a few to justify the administrative burden.

Some folks say this puts a damper on small business in the US. Sounds right to me.
I know the doctors in my area all have extra staff just to deal with insurance companies.

What kind of wages would you have to make if you were employed by someone else in order to make what you make through your business?

None of us feel like we're making enough money, but, truth be told, as long as I feel like I'm getting something for my tax dollar, I'm not opposed to paying it.

I would much rather my taxes pay for a lot of things other than invading and rebuilding Iraq.

Robert L E
07-15-2009, 11:29 PM
That's a fair point... but since the Constitution doesn't define the terms, they are subject to interpretation, right?

Right.

I do think that if the meaning of words changes over time then we should continue to use the archaic meaning. Looking at what the Founders meant and what they did at the time of the writing of the Constitution is also appropriate.

If such an examination shows that individual welfare was unthinkable to the Founders that would give meaning to what they meant when they wrote "general welfare".

Bob

John Smith
07-15-2009, 11:35 PM
Right.

I do think that if the meaning of words changes over time then we should continue to use the archaic meaning. Looking at what the Founders meant and what they did at the time of the writing of the Constitution is also appropriate.

If such an examination shows that individual welfare was unthinkable to the Founders that would give meaning to what they meant when they wrote "general welfare".

BobI disagree. "General welfare" meant something that was of benefit to the people as a whole, which, of course, is made up of individuals. This could have meant improved roads, a mail service, or a bunch of other things that made improved the quality of life for the community as a whole and for the people as individuals, which, after all made up the community.

High C
07-16-2009, 09:29 AM
Mythological bull****. If you're paying a payroll tax, then you're already doing the paperwork: filing 940 and 941 federal forms....If, as you say, you're paying a payroll tax on your ENTIRE income from your business....

Norman, what you don't know about this subject is endless. I don't have the time or inclination to correct your countless misperceptions and hard errors, but I will correct the two above.

1) I don't file 940 and 941 forms.
2) I don't, nor have I said that I do, pay a payroll tax on the ENTIRE income from my business.

There are other errors in what you've said, but again, I haven't the inclination to bother correcting them for a third time. I've posted numerous articles that explain how the owner of a one member LLC pays personal taxes, income and SS/Medicare on ALL profit, but you continue to ignore those obvious facts in your prideful way. Based on your errors, it would appear that you don't understand the meaning of the word "profit".

High C
07-16-2009, 09:51 AM
One more article that makes it crystal clear. I include the link as a copy because the forum software sometimes truncates very long URLS.

A snippet:
"Single-Owner LLCs

The IRS treats one-member LLCs as sole proprietorships for tax purposes. This means that the LLC itself does not pay taxes and does not have to file a return with the IRS.

As the sole owner of your LLC, you must report all profits (or losses) of the LLC on Schedule C and submit it with your 1040 tax return. Even if you leave profits in the company's bank account at the end of the year -- for instance, to cover future expenses or expand the business -- you must pay income tax on that money."

http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/objectId/3A3BFF8B-DB8D-4CF1-8C45EAB209521299/catID/BAAE1B67-F54A-41B4-91943A51F56C3F79/111/182/245/ART/

L.W. Baxter
07-16-2009, 06:25 PM
...I've posted numerous articles that explain how the owner of a one member LLC pays personal taxes, income and SS/Medicare on ALL profit...

My biz is a one member LLC and this is what I do. I have employees, but not much use for heavy equipment, office space, or much of anything beyond basic transportation and portable tools.

oznabrag
07-16-2009, 07:13 PM
Any businessman, no matter how small, needs accounting advice.

I have NEVER paid an accountant any more than 25% of the money he saved me.

High C
07-16-2009, 07:39 PM
...The point of contention is whether all of the profit needs to be declared as salary or not.

I'm still waiting to hear how in hell he pays payroll taxes (SS, Medicare) without filing a 941 form... as well as the 940 form (FUTA).....

There is no point of contention about salary, because there is no salary. As the numerous articles I posted explain, a single member LLC is treated EXACTLY as a self employed sole proprietor. Same forms, same taxes, same everything. The IRS doesn't even recognize the concept of salary with this business structure. There is only profit or loss.

Have you ever filled out a Schedule C? That's the REQUIRED form for a single owner LLC. If you show a profit at the end of C, then you have to fill out Schedule SE. That's where the self employment, or SS/Medicare tax (not "payroll") is figured. That's 15.3% of the profit shown on schedule C. Additionally, that profit is added to taxable income on the 1040.

Again, there is no salary, only profit/loss. It's made very clear in those articles.

It is also not necessary to file 940 or 941 in every case. There are other ways to pay these taxes that are clearly outside of your experience. It's really quite simple, and the clues lie in my original post, but I'm not gonna tell ya. :p

High C
07-17-2009, 08:35 AM
....I did a little bit of investigation, and it indeed appears that you made a poor choise of form of incorporation. By chosing to be treated as a sole proprietor, you're indeed getting taxed on your entire profit, including SS and Medicare....

....but you didn't have to. As one of your C&P's points out, you could have chosen to be taxed as an S corp... which DOES include the concept of salary... and, as a consequence, means that you DON'T have to pay payroll taxes on your entire profit.

About the only reason I could see for filing as a sole proprietorship is if you earn so little money, that it doesn't make much difference... or, it makes so little money, it can't afford to hire an accountant to prepare the corporate return.....Don't bother. Feel free to pay as much tax as you like.

Those are indeed the reasons, and they negate your uninformed assertion that I made the wrong choice for my company.

I'm pleased that you've learned something about taxation with this ridiculous series of posts, but given your ongoing haughtiness and total lack of apology, it seems you've not learned something you desperately need to learn...a little humility. Feel free to be as big an ass as you like.

Robert L E
07-19-2009, 10:43 AM
I disagree. "General welfare" meant something that was of benefit to the people as a whole, which, of course, is made up of individuals. This could have meant improved roads, a mail service, or a bunch of other things that made improved the quality of life for the community as a whole and for the people as individuals, which, after all made up the community.

I've read this a few times now and fail to see where the disagreement is.

If the government paves the street in front of my house, a street that passes many other houses, that would be, as you also seem to agree, for the "general welfare".

"Individual welfare" would be if the government paved the private property driveway from the street to the garage behind my home.

Bob

John Smith
07-19-2009, 10:50 AM
I've read this a few times now and fail to see where the disagreement is.

If the government paves the street in front of my house, a street that passes many other houses, that would be, as you also seem to agree, for the "general welfare".

"Individual welfare" would be if the government paved the private property driveway from the street to the garage behind my home.

Bob
True, and the government won't pave that road.

Not all of life is that simple. One can make a very strong case that universal health care serves the general welfare, as many diseases are contagious. Also the cost of emergency room care is passed on to others.

The government does many things we don't often think of, including keeping records of births, deaths, property ownership, etc.

"Promoting the general welfare" covers an awfully wide variety.

jbelow
07-20-2009, 05:14 PM
Very clever, Brian... you subtly transposed "fails to fix Bush's mess" into "screws up."

There's a world of difference between the two.

As I already said, I concede it's possible that Obama won't be able to fix Bush's mess.... but that's not the same thing as saying Obama screwed up.

I'm not sure if you understand the difference.

Think of it this way: If you get hit by a drunk driver and are seriously injured, the drunk driver is at fault. If a passing good Samaritan tries valiantly to save you, but fails... the fault still lies with the drunk driver, not the guy who tried to help.

Above all, the drunk driver wins no points at all for loudly declaring the Good Samaritan a failure for trying to help undo the damage.

Reguardless of whos fault it is , if Obama fails to fix the screw ups he is doomed. BO will be a 1 term president.
Do you understand that! Check the polls for his popularity and policies.

Glen Longino
07-20-2009, 05:19 PM
Reguardless of whos fault it is , if Obama fails to fix the screw ups he is doomed. BO will be a 1 term president.
Do you understand that! Check the polls for his popularity and policies.

Nope, we're giving Obama two terms to fix the mess since it took Bush and his band of outlaw marauders two terms to make the mess.;)

ljb5
07-20-2009, 05:33 PM
Reguardless of whos fault it is , if Obama fails to fix the screw ups he is doomed.

If Obama fails to fix the screw ups, we're all doomed. Some of us are smart enough to remember whose fault it actually is.

Others will be content to blame Obama for no reason other than that's what they were planning on doing all along.


BO be a 1 term president.
Do you understand that! Check the polls for his popularity and policies.

His polls and popularity still have him considerably above Bush or any hypothetical Republican challenger.

I'm certain that many will be disappointed if Obama fails to fix the problems, but that does not count as a victory for the Republicans.

John Smith
07-20-2009, 06:38 PM
If Obama fails to fix the screw ups, we're all doomed. Some of us are smart enough to remember whose fault it actually is.

Others will be content to blame Obama for no reason other than that's what they were planning on doing all along.



His polls and popularity still have him considerably above Bush or any hypothetical Republican challenger.

I'm certain that many will be disappointed if Obama fails to fix the problems, but that does not count as a victory for the Republicans.
Many variables. If he can't get the "super majority" to pass health care reform, it's hard to say who the voters will blame. It could result in dems losing seats, or gaining an even larger majority to not need the blue dogs.

Suppose he fixes some problems, but not all problems. Let's say, for example, Gitmo is a thing of the past, our economy is doing well, but health care remains unchanged. Or switch those around.

Glen Longino
07-20-2009, 07:04 PM
Many variables. If he can't get the "super majority" to pass health care reform, it's hard to say who the voters will blame. It could result in dems losing seats, or gaining an even larger majority to not need the blue dogs.

Suppose he fixes some problems, but not all problems. Let's say, for example, Gitmo is a thing of the past, our economy is doing well, but health care remains unchanged. Or switch those around.

Unless Obama personally comes to my place and kills my dogs and all my goats with his bare hands and jumps my old woman and leaves me for dead, I will vote for him in 2012.
Why would I not? Why would anybody not?
Because some now unknown Republican candidate magically appeared? Not likely!
How many conservatives around here think the US would be better off today if McCain/Palin had won the last election? None? I figgered!:rolleyes:

Milo Christensen
07-20-2009, 08:28 PM
. . . I will vote for him in 2012.
Why would I not? Why would anybody not?
Because some now unknown Republican candidate magically appeared? Not likely! . . .

You were an Obama disciple in 2004? Really? I freakin' seriously doubt you'd ever heard of Obama in 2004. And now, six months into his failed Presidency, you'll vote for him against all comers.

Please refrain from all further attacks on dittoheads until you've stopped being a liberal one and start thinking, as much as you're able, for yourself again.

jbelow
07-20-2009, 08:45 PM
If Obama fails to fix the screw ups, we're all doomed. Some of us are smart enough to remember whose fault it actually is.

Others will be content to blame Obama for no reason other than that's what they were planning on doing all along.



His polls and popularity still have him considerably above Bush or any hypothetical Republican challenger.

I'm certain that many will be disappointed if Obama fails to fix the problems, but that does not count as a victory for the Republicans.

BO is failing . His polls and popularity are dropping. The Republicans can win by default or a better Democrat can replace him. BO is in over his head.
BO is a novelty and will become a footnote in history. I hope I am wrong for the sake of my country.

Glen Longino
07-20-2009, 08:57 PM
You were an Obama disciple in 2004? Really? I freakin' seriously doubt you'd ever heard of Obama in 2004. And now, six months into his failed Presidency, you'll vote for him against all comers.

Please refrain from all further attacks on dittoheads until you've stopped being a liberal one and start thinking, as much as you're able, for yourself again.

You and jbelow need to get a grip on your own emotions before you start telling me how to think!
Remember! We Won! You Lost.
GET OVER IT!:rolleyes::D

Milo Christensen
07-20-2009, 09:11 PM
You and jbelow need to get a grip on your own emotions before you start telling me how to think!
Remember! We Won! You Lost.
GET OVER IT!:rolleyes::D

And you're emotionally telling me how to think, but voting for Obama in '12 no matter what? Fine.

You won, learn how to handle victory and come back and talk to me some more.

pefjr
07-20-2009, 09:28 PM
Give em time, they haven't won in so long they forgot grace. And we crossovers had to help em win, otherwise they would have lost.

Glen Longino
07-20-2009, 09:41 PM
And you're emotionally telling me how to think, but voting for Obama in '12 no matter what? Fine.

You won, learn how to handle victory and come back and talk to me some more.

I'm learning, I'm learning!
It's only been 180 days...give us time will ya ? We never rushed GW along his destructive path, so let's not rush Obama, okay?;)

oznabrag
07-21-2009, 08:21 AM
BO is failing . His polls and popularity are dropping. The Republicans can win by default or a better Democrat can replace him. BO is in over his head.
BO is a novelty and will become a footnote in history. I hope I am wrong for the sake of my country.

I don't think that's true. I think that is a lie you tell yourself so you can sleep at night. It may even be a conscious lie. A lie told to others in order to mislead them. If you're so GD concerned about your country, where the hell were you for the past eight years? Following along in the Party of the Rape Room?

There is a world of difference between bashing some one and offering constructive criticism, and you can bet that I am unabashedly bashing YOU. All you Obama bashers remind me of some idiot 5-year old coming down from a sugar-fueled rampage involving breaking every, single thing in the living room, and pouting, whining, bawling, holding your breath 'till you turn blue because you are being held accountable.

Get a grip.

John of Phoenix
07-21-2009, 09:01 AM
And now, six months into his failed Presidency...

A failure at six months? Really? By what measure?

At what point did you conclude dubya was a failure?

TomF
07-21-2009, 09:14 AM
A failure at six months? Really? By what measure?

At what point did you conclude dubya was a failure?GWB wasn't a failure, John. You know that in all the time he was President after 9/11, there wasn't a single terrorist attack on American soil. GWB might have had some failings in other policy areas, but you've gotta admit he kept the Homeland safe.

Now with Obama on the other hand, just think of all the terrorist atta ..... uhm.

John Smith
07-21-2009, 09:28 AM
Unless Obama personally comes to my place and kills my dogs and all my goats with his bare hands and jumps my old woman and leaves me for dead, I will vote for him in 2012.
Why would I not? Why would anybody not?
Because some now unknown Republican candidate magically appeared? Not likely!
How many conservatives around here think the US would be better off today if McCain/Palin had won the last election? None? I figgered!:rolleyes:
I stood up toward the end of Bush Sr.'s term and voiced the opinion he would not get re-elected. Even sent $20 with a coworker to make that bet in Vegas. (Sadly, at that time, they didn't take bets on politics)

No democrat had put his hat in the ring, and I was scoffed.

A lot can happen in three years.

The voting pulic doesn't always respond with logic or vote rationally.

A second term for Obama is not guaranteed. Probable, but not guaranteed.

Notice, the republicans are more interested in "breaking Obama" than doing good for the country.

One actually said so yesterday. If that gets enough coverage, it may well doom the republican party, who is doing it's best to not let a good health care reform pass.

John Smith
07-21-2009, 09:34 AM
BO is failing . His polls and popularity are dropping. The Republicans can win by default or a better Democrat can replace him. BO is in over his head.
BO is a novelty and will become a footnote in history. I hope I am wrong for the sake of my country.
Polls are more reflective of impatient people than failing policies.

Obama, himself, has been very clear that it's going to take a couple of years for us to see the fruits of today's efforts.

Anyone who claims, at this point in time, he's failing, is simply not being honest.

The stimulus money only recently began flowing.

Bank bail outs haven't worked as well as we would have liked, but I believe TARP was under Bush. To my knowledge, Obama has not spent any of that money.

John Smith
07-21-2009, 09:36 AM
And you're emotionally telling me how to think, but voting for Obama in '12 no matter what? Fine.

You won, learn how to handle victory and come back and talk to me some more.

Obama won by a fairly significant margin. He is perfectly willing to take responsibility for the success or failure of his proposals. If Congress fails to pass his proposals, then it's hardly his responsibility.

I think we should give him exactly what he asks for, as the people spoke in November. Then, judge HIS success or failure when the results are clear in two years.

John Smith
07-21-2009, 09:39 AM
GWB wasn't a failure, John. You know that in all the time he was President after 9/11, there wasn't a single terrorist attack on American soil. GWB might have had some failings in other policy areas, but you've gotta admit he kept the Homeland safe.

Now with Obama on the other hand, just think of all the terrorist atta ..... uhm.
How does he get a pass for 9/11? That was on his watch, no?

oznabrag
07-21-2009, 09:57 AM
How does he get a pass for 9/11? That was on his watch, no?

That does sort of make Bill Clinton a better President, doesn't it?

Or Jimmy Carter.

I mean, if the number of terrorist attacks on US soil is to be the deciding factor, George Junior is still the worst President, EVER!

jbelow
07-21-2009, 10:05 AM
I don't think that's true. I think that is a lie you tell yourself so you can sleep at night. It may even be a conscious lie. A lie told to others in order to mislead them. If you're so GD concerned about your country, where the hell were you for the past eight years? Following along in the Party of the Rape Room?

There is a world of difference between bashing some one and offering constructive criticism, and you can bet that I am unabashedly bashing YOU. All you Obama bashers remind me of some idiot 5-year old coming down from a sugar-fueled rampage involving breaking every, single thing in the living room, and pouting, whining, bawling, holding your breath 'till you turn blue because you are being held accountable.

Get a grip.

Get a grip . You won . We Lost . It is your turn to walk through the fire.

How do you like it now! You backed a one term looooooser !

oznabrag
07-21-2009, 10:07 AM
Get a grip . You won . We Lost . It is your turn to walk through the fire.

How do you like it now! You backed a one term looooooser !

That's it.

Go to your room!

And you can forget about supper, young man!

Glen Longino
07-21-2009, 10:45 AM
That's it.

Go to your room!

And you can forget about supper, young man!
:D:D