Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
apogee
climber
|
|
Sep 10, 2011 - 12:37pm PT
|
Believe it or not, your Supe's opinion may not have been particularly objective (or accurate), either.
Don't get me wrong- personally, I think Obama should have gone reallly big two years ago with a WPA-style program. However, when examining the economic efficiency & jobs impact that such a program might have, basing your opinion primarily on your personal experience 20 years ago swinging a pulaski isn't particularly valuable.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
Sep 10, 2011 - 12:48pm PT
|
The problem is historically all governments have large inefficiencies, ancient Israel, ancient Rome, Imperial Russia, Germany, Ottoman Empire. That is why we Repubs prefer the easier to evaluate and efficient private enterprise.
I suppose you want to privatize our imperialistic military.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
Sep 10, 2011 - 01:01pm PT
|
Lois, good grief. Of course the military is useful. Just like the government is useful. But Fattie is touting private enterprise like it is the solution to every friggen problem. so if it is so great, then why not privatize the military?
Well, maybe because private enterprise isn't the end all and do all. We learned that from having private fire departments.
Plus look at Fatties solution to every world problem. Don't like the way a country works? Then invade it. At this point in time we have one of the largest imperialistic nation building militaries in history, and Fatty has supported them all the way. In fact, he wants us to invade even more countries.
So I just find it hilarious when he makes these broad sweeping statements.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
Sep 10, 2011 - 01:05pm PT
|
That is why we Repubs prefer the easier to evaluate and efficient private enterprise.
Me.. I prefer what works. Sometimes that is private enterprise, and sometimes it is government, and often it is a combination of the two. Such as private enterprise meeting supply, but government regulating and overseeing it so that monopolies aren't formed.
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 10, 2011 - 01:18pm PT
|
We don't want to privatize our Military. Look at the abuses of Blackwater and Xe.
(But I do think they should have to have bake sales to fund them just as all our other necessary public agencies like education, seem to have to do. OK, I'm angry about how the military, intelligence, spy agencies etc. get carte blanche and everyone else has to beg for crumbs. We should easily be able to pay for things, agencies, services that help everyone and that are far more important than blowing people up and creating enemies for perpetual war and profiteering.)
|
|
the kid
Trad climber
fayetteville, wv
|
|
Sep 10, 2011 - 01:30pm PT
|
klimmer, please keep in mind that the GOP has admittedly made it their mission to fail obama at every turn they get. every bit of legislation, judges up for a seat, other positions to be filled have been blocked and stone walled. They would rather let the whole country go down the drain than to support ANY measure that he proposes.
that is the game that they are playing with our future.
|
|
rockermike
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
Sep 10, 2011 - 01:37pm PT
|
Obama, "Yes we can (fool you again)!
The killer of the last strand of hope.
Why do I feel more pain when our "liberal" friends screw us, than when the neo-cons do?
“Every generation needs a new revolution.” (Thomas Jefferson)
|
|
rockermike
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
Sep 10, 2011 - 01:58pm PT
|
Riley, nice summary (all 5 times). thanks - I may send that on.
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 10, 2011 - 02:26pm PT
|
The YCC/YACC doesn't hold a candle to what many other non profits do for the Sierra. And, these other groups do it at a fraction of the cost.
By the way Klimmer,
You never addressed the real issue with your thread.
Give us the bill that Obama gave to Congress. Show us the link. The one to the bill you say Congress needs to sign. The Bill Obama demanded everyone to pass now. The bill you so much hope for.
[crickets]
It was a speech, dude. There is no there - there, with Obama. There is no bill. He is a fraud. And, like the ever present space aliens, you fall for it, over and over again. Hook, line and sinker.
Space aliens, truthers, and now a non-existent jobs plan. The Obama drones really need to get a life...
Skip
I have finally figured out your screen name: skipt
When it came time to pass out . . . well, you get it. They "skipt" you.
Yes, there are many wonderful non-profits out there doing what they can. But they are hurting and always begging for money too. And yes, there are many volunteers doing things for free and that is a very good thing. But that doesn't put food on the table now does it?
The programs I mentioned: CCC, YCC, and the YACC were fully funded. They did enormous amounts of completed projects and put a large amount of people to work. This was a great value for the money. No one really disputes that for those who really look into the matter and know.
You just throw out stuff without backing constantly.
I don't know the Bill either. We would all like to know the specifics. Yes, I know it is a speech. I would like to see something happen for real though. A lot of people would. Maybe this time . . .
You have to admit and you know, that the GOPers want nothing more than to see President Obama fail. They constantly dig in their heals no matter what. They really do hate our Country.
Can you ever address anyone without personal attacks? Does Space Aliens always have to be brought in to your arguement all the time? C'mon really?
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
Sep 10, 2011 - 02:34pm PT
|
So now that leaves Iraq. Was that imperialistic or was that initiative defensive? It depends on who you believe. DID GW have valid reason to believe there were weapons of mass destruction (WMD) there while reality proved otherwise i.e. was it a legitimate belief which later proved wrong. OR......as you and others suggest, did he have good reason to understand that WMDs were not present and simply used it (knowingly) as an excuse to invade. I simply don't know, for sure, and neither does anyone else.
That is a fairly serious accusation which you and many others make absent hard core proof. We tend to favor the premise - in this "imperialistic" country of ours - that one is innocent until proven guilty. We all but speculate and put forth our best theories on that count. The "absolute truth" is yet to be uncovered, however. It is easy to call shots on life or death matters from the comfort of our homes, in our arm chairs, at our computers and after the fact. Hindsight is always 20:20.
I have not come to a final conclusion on that issue. If I am on that "jury" I need more evidence to convict. I have come to the conclusion that the job was VERY badly botched, once initiated, and much life/limb was squandered via incompetence at the top. On that level, I am not a Bush apologist. I often find myself wondering what other US leaders - past presidents or potential i.e. failed candidates - would have done
Yes Lois. I understand. In your mind everything a republican does is potentially okay, and everything a liberal does is potentially bad. It doesn't matter how much proof there is that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, or any ability to affect the world anymore, in your mind, if a republican thought it was a good idea to go, then maybe it was a good idea. For you, if it involves a republican, then the jury will always be out for 99.9 percent of the time.
And it doesn't seem to matter how many times I tell you I think that we need a military, or that I don't hate wealth, If anyone you label as a liberal says anything about the wealthy, or the military, then it is filtered through your obvious bias which leads you to interpret it to mean that we hate the military and the wealthy, when nothing could be further from the truth.
Let me try to make it as clear as possible.
When I say that we are misusing our military, this does not mean I think that we shouldn't have one, or that we shouldn't value it. Okay? Could we finally put this to rest so that you wont say such incredibly insulting things as this..
Ahem..... uh, your slip is showing. They might just come in handy, at times, preserving your freedoms and way of life. Some of them even died toward that end.
Do you really think I don't understand the need for a military in todays world?
And when I say that I think we need to raise the taxes on the wealthiest people, a small amount like about 3 percent, this doesn't meant that I hate wealth. I don't, and neither does nutjob. Does this make sense to you? Could you accept this? Could you try to overcome this bias you hold? Liberals don't hate wealth. Many liberals are wealthy.
What I do hate is that this wealth has allowed them to control our media and control our political process, and this has driven us to the verge of destruction. And its not about liberalism or conservatism. Its about power. You have one group of people using and controlling the liberal base through its talking points, and you have another group of powerful people using the talking points of the conservatives to keep itself in power, and they don't mind the continued war between the two, because that is how they think they can keep power. The more power hungry they become, the more aggressive their stance. And they use the media to feed the frenzy.
I also hate simplistic approaches to complex problems.
Smaller government isn't the solution. Wise government is.
Deregulation is not the solution. Wise balanced regulations are.
So Lois, do you think that you could ever get over this notion that I hate wealth, or that I hate the military, or that I think government is the solution to everything? Do you think that is possible? I ask this sincerely, because I fear for our country if we keep on with these absolutes.
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 10, 2011 - 02:37pm PT
|
1980: Ronald Reagan runs for president, promising a balanced budget
1981 - 1989: With support from congressional Republicans, Reagan runs enormous deficits, adds $2 trillion to the debt.
Riley,
That is a great summary.
I would add Ray-gun cut many wonderful programs that helped the environment, put people to work, and then he put the mentally ill out on the street. So much for "Christian Values." Christian Values actually flew out the window when Ray-gun came into office, yet he appealed to so called "Christian" GOP/Right-wingers.
And then he still ran an enormous deficit and added Trillions to the debt. Where did all the money go???????? Who did profit under Ray-gun??????
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
Sep 10, 2011 - 03:16pm PT
|
Which snarky comment did I make this time?
Edit: Ah.. you mean the one to jeff. Well, it wasn't pointed at you, so I see no reason for you to get snarky to me.
Or is there another snarky comment that you don't like of mine?
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
Sep 10, 2011 - 04:04pm PT
|
I can appreciate that you wish to be treated with respect. I wonder if you could appreciate the same thing about me. Because it is highly disrespectful for you to interpret much of what you do, in the way that you do.
You jump to the worst conclusions if I say anything even remotely outside your comfort zone. With the military statement, I was responding to Jeff's continual disrespect for anything government, and his blatant disregard for our own misuse of the military and his own desire to be imperialistic when he supports the invasion of multiple countries around the world.
Yet you interpret my statement to mean that I hate the military, which I don't. I hate the misuse of the military. There is a huge difference in that, and someday I hope that you can understand that and stop interpreting everything I say about the military through that bias.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
Sep 10, 2011 - 04:40pm PT
|
I appreciate that and I wouldn't be surprised if we have more fights. I don't think that is the end of the world. What I find troubling is that after all these years, you still seem to believe that
1. Liberals hate the military.. But we don't.. we hate the misuse of the military.
2. Liberals hate the wealthy.. But we don't.. we hate the misuse of wealth and power.
3. Liberals only want a nanny state... But we don't.. we just think that some things like healthcare are better paid for through a single payer system, similar to what Canada has, simply because so many americans go without healthcare on a daily basis, and this feels like a crime against our great nation. This does not mean we like what Obama and Congress ended up with. Most of us don't. But we don't see the country making the big leap to a single payer system without some interim system.
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 10, 2011 - 04:58pm PT
|
I have a wonderful idea!
How about those who are Billionaires multiple times over give back to the Nation of their wealth by paying off National or State debt, making up the difference for a State that is struggling financially? Or putting a great many people to work through Public Work Programs like the CCC, YCC, and YACC?
They could do this just out of generosity, and the goodness of their hearts, and the love of their country that allowed them to gain all that wealth.
How many Billions do you need?
If I had that kind of wealth that is what I would do. Take care of your family and extended families first, since you have an obligation to do so, and then help out your Country, your Nation of Birth, the Country that gave you the opportunity to do so well.
Help out others in the most beneficial way possible (without strings attached Mr. Gates and others!), especially in great times of need like now. Pay off National debt. Get States out of the Red. Put vast amounts of people to work with PW projects that do multiple good things at once, like the CCC, YCC, and YACC. These programs put people to work, educated people in the outdoors and gave them new job skills and work experiences, gave them an appreciation of the natural world, took care of our Nation's infrastructures, took care of our environment and our National Treasures: out National Parks and State Parks.
It's what I would do if I had the chance.
The World’s Billionaires:
http://www.forbes.com/wealth/billionaires
'Forbes' Rich List: Number Of New Billionaires Reflects Global Recovery
March 11, 2010
By Nikola Krastev
http://www.rferl.org/content/Forbes_Rich_List_Number_Of_New_Billionaires_Reflects_Global_Recovery/1980413.html
Special Report
The World's Billionaires
Edited by Luisa Kroll and Matthew Miller, 03.10.10, 06:00 PM EST
http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/10/worlds-richest-people-slim-gates-buffett-billionaires-2010_land.html
In Pictures: Richest 25 American Billionaires:
The U.S. now has 403 billionaires with a collective net worth of $1.3 trillion. Here is a list of the country's 25 top tycoons.
http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/09/united-states-richest-people-warren-buffett-michael-bloomberg-billionaires-2010-gates_slide.html
How Many Billionaires Are There in the World?
Posted in World on March 29, 2011
http://howmanyarethere.net/how-many-billionaires-are-there-in-the-world/
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Sep 12, 2011 - 01:52pm PT
|
Thanks President Obama--finally!
|
|
CrackAddict
Trad climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
Sep 12, 2011 - 09:51pm PT
|
Klimmer,
And then he still ran an enormous deficit and added Trillions to the debt. Where did all the money go???????? Who did profit under Ray-gun??????
Looking at both the Reagan and the Obama jobs "recoveries" it is pretty clear that a hell of a lot more Americans profited under Reagan than the current administration:
[from the Heritage Foundation]
//Why was the Reagan Recovery so strong and why is the Obama Recovery so weak?
* President Reagan cut marginal tax rates. President Obama is about to allow the largest tax hike in American history.
* President Reagan reined-in government union power by firing striking air traffic controllers. President Obama bailed-out state government unions, hired more federal government union members, and even bought a car company for the very same union that ran it into the ground in the first place.
* President Reagan simplified and reduced telecommunications and anti-trust regulations. President Obama expanded and complicated regulations in the health and financial sectors.
* President Reagan returned power to the states by reducing the percentage of state expenditures that come from the federal government. President Obama, through both the failed $862 billion stimulus and the trillion dollar health care plan, has made the states more dependent on Washington than ever.
//
BTW, I am not against the types of Conservation Corp projects you recommend, because they actually create things that increase our (real) standard of living, such as trails, roads, etc. However as we saw in the last round stimulus, there are almost no "shovel ready" projects out there, this is where Government has boxed themselves in with regulation. Any construction project, even a trail, requires years of hurdles.
|
|
Mangy Peasant
Social climber
Riverside, CA
|
|
Sep 12, 2011 - 10:46pm PT
|
That chart is utter bullsh#t.
You really think that the economic circumstances during Reagan's term were anywhere near as bad as they are now?
And are you seriously trying to claim that Reagan made government smaller?
Heritage Foundation? Do you know who they are?
Reagan wasn't a bad president, but you are absolutely clueless about economic history.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
Sep 12, 2011 - 10:53pm PT
|
The ONLY President that added MORE to the National Debt than Reagan was another Republican, Bush the Junior.
Reagan RAISED taxes 10 times as President.
Reagan DOUBLED the National Debt as President with his "Star Wars" spending.
|
|
CrackAddict
Trad climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
Sep 12, 2011 - 11:44pm PT
|
http://www.cnsnews.com/node/72404
In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.
Here they make a distinction between public debt and "intragovernmental borrowing" i.e., raiding the Social Security or Highway Trust Funds, etc.
And at least we got something for it in terms of economic growth and tax savings - under this administration all we have is economic stagnation and a permanent class of unemployed.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|