The Obama Administration wants what every first term administration wants ????????? a second term. He has already made comments to the fact about being in office for a ?????????long, long time????????? ????????? so yeah, that is how I can see that issue. Although the pundits are all over him, no one thought a year ago he had a shot getting near the Oval Office. It's kind of like Al Franken ever getting elected ?????????
I agree that the administration wants a second term, as every administration sans Nixon does, but I still revert back to my first post, the point of which was that he would not be making the claims that he would not have a second term if the deficit was not cut in half by the end of his first term. If we take this half figure relative to today, it would mean that the stimulus bill would have paid for itself over the four years, which means money is flowing in the general population again. True, it would be back to square one, however if that full 788 billion figure was paid down in a matter of four years, and banks are stable and lending again, something was done right. Now, back to the quote. If the stim bill and his budget are projected failures by his staff, I don't believe these claims would be made unless they're relying on America's bad long term memory.
Now, the reasons for these Townhall meetings with the public, even if they are preselected, is to be closer to the general population and to explain these budget ideas to us in a way we can understand. If that's considered campaigning, then so be it, but I don't think the end point is just to set himself up for a second term, but rather sell his budget plans which do come across as risky but with great reward if they work. This is why I believe he's doing what he's doing.
True, Reaganomics had some serious issues ????????? it was too fast and too soon. The Nation was still reeling from what Carter did to us in the 70s, and although it helped some, it hurt many. We all know that the dot com explosion is what brought in the far east as far as contract jobs, and sadly it continues today. Why? That one is simple. These other nations actually take time to educate their students and let?????????s just face it ????????? they are smarter (by populus) than the US is. And so, where there is intelligence, the jobs will follow. I am not sure where things went wrong, but right around the early 90s we just had some serious issues that like the Titanic, we had too big of a ship and too small of a rudder to turn back from.
My original point here wasn't to tie the dot com boom with outsourcing, but rather show how giving tax cuts to CEOs just for them to ship work off to Asian countries does not work. I don't think it's because of education but more so that sweat shops are far more profitable than union factory workers here in the states.
I'm not going to touch on Carter because I don't know enough about the economy of the 70s to feel confident in what I'd be posting, but I do agree with what you said in Reagan riding Carter's policies, but Reagan's were no better in the long run. Just as you said of Carter's policies, they helped a few, but hurt many. The ideals of Reaganomics helped line the pockets of the wealthy CEOs who, as I said, just shipped our jobs overseas. When "trickle-down" stops trickling down, we have our workers not able to afford the loans they have out, and we have the banks collapse as we've seen. What amazes me is that the CEO's greed is still there even as their companies are tanking from this, case in point being the AIG bonuses. To think that giving breaks to these people is the right thing to do is just beyond me. They need to realize that without the American workers, they will have nothing. This is ground up economics, Obama's budget supports.
In the wake of the "Titanic" as you called it (see what I did there!??), Bill Clinton was able to end up with a budgeted surplus. The common misconception here which republicans are quick to point out is that we didn't actually have a surplus, but we were budgeting in the positives. This is still a huge step up from the last eight years of Bush Budget, which was loaded with earmarks and perks for big business but nothing for the middle class. Not to mention he turned Clinton's positive numbers into negatives very quickly with the war that was
not even factored into the budget directly.
I don't really agree that tax cuts are the answer to everything ????????? but I will stand firmly on the fact that the middle class has been taking the shank for decades now. Consider this: We pass a law to repeal asbestos use and tag onto it a 15% pay raise for the members in Congress. What do the two have to do with one another? Nothing. Same thing happened with the body armor. Congress tried to ear-mark some crap in there and it got turned down by the President, and rightfully so.
Those radio/tv folks that you mentioned seem to be the only folks willing to admit and say it publicly that we continue to get a lube job from the personnel in Washington, DC ????????? and that is why I side with them. Regardless of their beliefs on this or that issue (PAY ATTENTION TO THIS CKMWM) ... their personal beliefs DO NOT matter to me because they are not running for office) ????????? they are calling it like it is in DC and for that I applaud them.
I do agree that Congressional pay raises are in bad taste right now. While I'd think they deserve a raise should the stim bill show significant signs of improvement (I believe that its showing signs of signs of improvement at the moment, but it's not enough just yet), I think that should be held off for the time being. However, I'm not sure where you're getting the 15% figure, as I'm seeing 2.7%
here. This also says that President Bush authorized these raises, not Obama. I'm also seeing that the House passed a bill to freeze the raise in 2010
here, indicating that they are responding to the yearly raise being seeing as wasteful.
Now, my biggest problem with Republicans using the word earmark is when they list something as wasteful, it's really not wasteful, just not in their favor. It can be seen all over the stimulus bill, but the example I like to use is high speed rail. This one was shot down quite a bit starting with Bobby Jindle's response speech after President Obama's address to Congress. I see high speed rail as a poster child of what this bill represents. It puts engineers to work, it puts suppliers to work, it puts construction workers to work, it puts operators to work, it increases travel between highly populated areas thus opening up the opportunity for new jobs, and it moves the country forward technologically as a whole. So, the way I view the word earmark when coming from a Repub mostly translates to "not in our interest so we don't want it".
The pundits I mentioned be the only ones willing to talk about what isn't in their best interest thus they do not accept it. As I said, I admit I watch Keith Olbermann & co on liberal MSNBC, but I do watch Bill O and Hannity once in a while to try to understand where they come from. None of what they say makes any sense to me because all they say is what's in their best interest, not what's in the best interest of the majority of the US. When they have people on who try to challenge their views, they're talked over, or their interview is cut short. While I admit Keith is biased and rarely has people on that challenge his views, I can't see him cutting someone off just because he's losing a debate with them. It's no wonder to me why Bill and Sean are constantly featured on "Worst Persons in the World". These people's personal views do mean something to me not because they aren't running for office, but because they represent the views of their party. Rush Limbaugh was the head speaker at CPAC, I'd say that's pretty clear representation of the party.
Hmmmm, you are right ????????? but you are missing something my friend. I am not deciding what others should do. I am flattered that you think I have that much influence ????????? what I am doing is merely stating how I feel. As I mentioned to Matt (CKMWM) I don't know how to answer the rape issue because I cannot propose to answer something that I have not experienced. It really is that simple for me.
This is true that you have your own views and you're certainly entitled to them, but this still does not clear up the hypocrisy here in my opinion. I don't see how one could be all for government intervention when it's in regards to abortion, but suddenly government is too big when they're raising taxes on the wealthy 3 points. To me, this again speaks to what is in the best interest of a few, not the majority. While I don't know enough about the specifics of abortion to feel confident to have a long post about it, I do believe that when a baby can not sustain life on it's own outside the womb, it is not yet a human being. At the point where the baby can be born and be healthy with no direct complications from being born prematurely, I think this is when it goes from abortion to murder.
But the issue at hand is stemcell research, not abortion. Again, I do not know much about the subject, but I do know when aborted fetuses are just being discarded even though there is potential for research that could possibly save lives of humans, I think the research should take place. Think of it this way - if a couple who actually wanted to have a baby and it was born with a serious illness that could be cured by something found with stemcell research, you don't think this is something that should be explored?
This wasn't directed at me, but I'd like to address it:
I am not rallying for government control, I am saying that what is now law ought to be left alone ... most especially since it has apparently worked for how many decades now??? Once we start changing things that drive us to the basic level of moral fiber, we run the risk of really giving up independence on a national level and falling for whatever the "next big thing" is. There ought to be standards in this Nation that people can depend on; and continuing to flake on laws because some group waves a flag or gripes enough is irresponsible and highly pedantic.
In the words of Jon Stewart, who might just be a comedian but is a genuinely smart man, we are a nation of progression. The people trying to uphold "tradition" are upholding the wrong traditions; the tradition of the US is to progress and evolve with culture. Laws that may have worked even just 10 years ago may not be in the best interest of our people now, clearly seen by the Wall St fiasco. If we really want to uphold tradition, we will continue to move forward with the rest of the world, not stay behind.
I appreciate the conversation my friend, thank you for taking the time.
Likewise, I really enjoy talking Politics.
Home
Contact Us
Login
Register
Store
Exchange
Browse The Scrapyard
Forum
Donate
