Tea Party Pledge to "not Hire anyone"

[gimpy117]

Yep, You heard right, Tea party Nation put out a memo or post on Oct 18th with the last line saying: I, an American small business owner, part of the class that produces the vast majority of real, wealth producing jobs in this country, hereby resolve that I will not hire a single person until this war against business and my country is stopped.

http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/blogs/call-for-a-strike-of-american-small-businesses-against-the

I get it, you hate Obama...but you're really going to suggest business owners ought do do this...at the expense of the economy, the unemployed, and the american people just to spite Obama? :nope:

[magicstix]

Yep, You heard right, Tea party Nation put out a memo or post on Oct 18th with the last line saying:

http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/blogs/call-for-a-strike-of-american-small-businesses-against-the

I get it, you hate Obama...but you're really going to suggest business owners ought do do this...at the expense of the economy, the unemployed, and the american people just to spite Obama? :nope:

Actually it's probably more to spite the privileged, yet entitled yuppy white kids protesting in their anti-semitic, schizophrenic Occupy Wallstreet movement.

[Osmium Steele]

How very Randian.

[mookiemookie]

Yep, You heard right, Tea party Nation put out a memo or post on Oct 18th with the last line saying:

http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/blogs/call-for-a-strike-of-american-small-businesses-against-the

I get it, you hate Obama...but you're really going to suggest business owners ought do do this...at the expense of the economy, the unemployed, and the american people just to spite Obama? :nope:

It's the same as the debt ceiling "negotiations." Normal people are used as pawns and bargaining chips in their game of political brinkmanship. They don't give a tinker's damn about people, only about scoring political points.

[Blood_splat]

You'd think the TP would be OWS too! :damn:

[razark]

So it's "Stop all this class warfare or we'll start class warfare!"?

[Tchocky]

Actually it's probably more to spite the privileged, yet entitled yuppy white kids protesting in their anti-semitic, schizophrenic Occupy Wallstreet movement.

No no, you're thinking of Occupy Wallgreens. Simple mistake.

[magicstix]

You'd think the TP would be OWS too! :damn:

Yeah! I mean they're exactly the same. They both hate the Fed, both hate corporate bailouts. I mean, if you take away the attention to hygene, strong work ethic, and coherent message, the Tea Party is *exactly* like OWS. :D

[Tchocky]

Everybody knows that the administration hates business. It's in the nature of those big-government types to seek less wealth creation, leading to lower tax returns, and....hang on a second.


Seriously though, this should get plenty of the unemplyed and disaffected off their lazy non-hard-working non-wealth-creating posteriors and start voting in some hearty TEA PARTIERS. It is the way of things.

[CCIP]

coherent message

With campaign calls like this, that's not the adjective I'd use...

[magicstix]

With campaign calls like this, that's not the adjective I'd use...

You may not like their message, but they all agree on what it is. That's the definition of coherence. OWS doesn't even agree on what they're angry about or what they want done about it.

[Blood_splat]

Actually it's probably more to spite the privileged, yet entitled yuppy white kids protesting in their anti-semitic, schizophrenic Occupy Wallstreet movement.

You're talking about the 1% when you use words like yuppy, white, and entitled.

[Tribesman]

You may not like their message, but they all agree on what it is.
Maybe you missed the past couple of years and just bought a freshly minted myth.
Agreement is clearly lacking and as for coherence.....:har::har::har::har::har:

[CCIP]

Again, I'm judging primarily on this particular 'call to action', which is by any definition incoherent and absurd. It has some limited measure of cohesion, which is to say it does follow some of the previous Tea Party rhetoric and makes sense grammatically, but in terms of coherence it makes no sense whatsoever. It's a collection of terms and slogans that I don't think the writers of that document even understand, judging by the way they use them, and the call for action is both absurd and inconsistent.

What's even more bizzare is that whatever issues the Occupy movement may have, the mainstream of it have been rather wary with using Marxist logic as such, in part for fear of discrediting their movement in the US which by any world standard is a politically-conservative, market-oriented, right-leaning society. Heck, a lot of what I've read out of the movement falls largely along the lines of laissez-faire market liberalism - thus the aim at big, politically-powerful business. It's at best a left-leaning libertarian stance. Very little of what I've heard from the Occupiers is actually in any sense socialist.

This TP statement, on the other hand, is a call for action that is ironically and hilariously radical-socialist and advocates the kind of class warfare and anti-market sentiment that the most die-hard Trotskyites would be proud of. Huh? That should speak volumes about coherence here. They can't even identify their own ideology and methods correctly - forget actually making sense.

[MH]

.

What's even more bizzare is that whatever issues the Occupy movement may have, the mainstream of it have been rather wary with using Marxist logic as such, in part for fear of discrediting their movement in the US which by any world standard is a politically-conservative, right-leaning society. This TP statement, on the other hand, is a call for action that is ironically and hilariously radical-socialist and advocates the kind of class warfare and anti-market sentiment that the most die-hard Trotskyites would be proud of. Huh? That should speak volumes about coherence here. They can't even identify their own ideology and methods correctly - forget actually making sense.


Right wing anarchists.

[CCIP]

Right wing anarchists.

That's a good description for the 'hard-line' Tea Party, sure, but 'right wing' and 'anarchist' are two things which coexist very, very poorly indeed. Especially when you try to combine it with market capitalism that the statement seems to be so staunchly defending.

Honestly, this statement seems to call for the economic equivalent of suicide bombing.

[magicstix]

What's even more bizzare is that whatever issues the Occupy movement may have, the mainstream of it have been rather wary with using Marxist logic as such, in part for fear of discrediting their movement in the US which by any world standard is a politically-conservative, market-oriented, right-leaning society. Heck, a lot of what I've read out of the movement falls largely along the lines of laissez-faire market liberalism - thus the aim at big, politically-powerful business. It's at best a left-leaning libertarian stance. Very little of what I've heard from the Occupiers is actually in any sense socialist.


Occupy wallstreet isn't socialist? REALLY? Have you actually been to one of these rallies?

[CCIP]

Occupy wallstreet isn't socialist? REALLY? Have you actually been to one of these rallies?

Have you actually read what I wrote or are familiar with what socialism actually means (beyond slogans)?

They may be left-leaning socially but mildly so. Economically, a lot of the rhetoric of the mainstream Occupiers (rather than accompanying splinter groups, which will always appear at any protest) really focuses on "we need an actual free market, get these lobbyist-supported, government-funded fat cats out of here" kind of talk. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with that; but what I am saying is that the message itself is hardly socialist. It's a bread-and-butter libertarian economic stance, well to the right of centre on the economic spectrum.

[MothBalls]

Just my opinion..... I could be wrong....

This has already been in place. My assumption, more republicans are in charge of big business than democrats, enough so they know how to cook books and curtail jobs, just long enough to get through a democratic presidency. They'll intentionally hold back on hiring and spending until a republican gets into office.

Once that happens, the jobs will start coming back, the economy will show signs of improvement, and it will snowball into a recovery. At the same time, corporate taxes will drop and so will taxing the rich, as soon as the republicans are back in control. Social programs will be curtailed and eliminated. Basically they'll undo everything the democrats did.

Obama can't get anything passed. It will be shot down because he wants it. The people are going to get tired of it, and our next president will be whoever runs against him.

The same way Obama got elected, people voted for anyone who wasn't Bush. This election, they'll vote for anyone who isn't Obama.

[magicstix]

Have you actually read what I wrote or are familiar with what socialism actually means (beyond slogans)?

They may be left-leaning but mildly so. A lot of the rhetoric of the mainstream Occupiers (rather than accompanying splinter groups, which will always appear at any protest) really focuses on "we need an actual free market, get these lobbyist-supported, government-funded fat cats out of here" kind of talk. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with that; but what I am saying is that the message itself is hardly socialist. It's a bread-and-butter libertarian economic stance, well to the right of centre on the economic spectrum.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/

This is mildly left leaning?

Dressing up as chairman Mao and calling yourself a communist is mildly left leaning? Demanding free college is mildly left leaning? Being endorsed by the American Communist party is *mildly* left leaning?

Saying that we need to have a bloody, French style revolution, and that Ghandi was a "tumor" because his peaceful revolution did nothing to help the poor in India is "mildly" left leaning?


Uhm, OK?

[magicstix]

http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/



I especially like demand 11. Yeah, we've all seen fight club...:har:

[CCIP]

http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/

This is mildly left leaning?


Yes, in absolute terms.

But I should also point out that this is "not an official list" and even that doesn't really represent the OWS mainstream, as noted by the article itself.

[magicstix]

Yes.

Then define for me, if you would please, what in your opinion is hard left leaning.

[Buddahaid]

Those demands are ludicrous! While I like the theme of a return to non-Reaganomics with safeguards against financial abuses, these are stupid.

[CCIP]

(qualified my post above - I realize it's rude to post one-word remarks like this, sorry)

Then define for me, if you would please, what in your opinion is hard left leaning.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_economics

Right away, even that set of demands fails point #1 of socialist economic theory - namely the track towards abolition of free market and profit, to be replaced with generating use value. That's the polar opposite of what those demands are, in the end, suggesting. The underlying subtext to all of them is to generate markets, on 'new terms that would make them more free and sustainable', whatever that means. That's hardly extreme socialism.

There's also a bunch of idealist environmental stuff and weird economic proposals. It's also a poorly-written document and sabotages itself by not really knowing its market-oriented premise, but more coherent than the TP call-to-action.

[CCIP]

And by the way, let's not skirt the topic here.

I'm not really a fan of the OWS people either. I completely agree that the movement is confused, and has done a pretty good job of sabotaging itself through a confused agenda and not actually thinking through what they really want, or what getting their way might even mean. There are a lot of splinter groups within it muddying the waters, and there's a lot of ideological trash floating around in it.

But none of that changes the fact that the TP "resolution" is an incredulous pile of crap, and that their call for economic terrorism shows that at least some of these people are, to put it mildly, pretty darn crazy.

[MH]

http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/

This is mildly left leaning?



Its truly against all that USA represents.
I believe that capitalism has overgrown it self and needs a little corrective kick in a butt but this document is just idealistic loony tune.

[CCIP]

Its truly against all that USA represents.
I believe that capitalism has overgrown it self and needs a kick in a butt but this document is just idealistic loony tune.

It's also pretty funny that the very start of the page says...

Admin note: This is not an official list of demands. This is a forum post submitted by a single user and hyped by irresponsible news/commentary agencies like Fox News and Mises.org. This content was not published by the OccupyWallSt.org collective, nor was it ever proposed or agreed to on a consensus basis with the NYC General Assembly. There is NO official list of demands.

Yup, a representative OWS position right there - someone's obviously read that very clearly :roll:

If you're interested in more considered, organizationally-backed proposals associated with (though not directly produced by) the 'Occupiers', here's one list that's been published and circulated among protesters here in Canada: http://dwatch.ca/camp/RelsOct1211.html
That's about the closest you get to an 'official demands' list from them.

That's some hardline Leninism there, eh?

[magicstix]

It's also pretty funny that the very start of the page says...



Yup, a representative OWS position right there - someone's obviously read that very clearly :roll:


I don't think anyone can get a representative OWS position, given that they themselves don't know what they want.

They shut down the National Air and Space museum here with their antics. Can someone please tell me what the hell that has to do with corporate greed or wealth inequality?

[MH]

I don't think anyone can get a representative OWS position, given that they themselves don't know what they want.

They shut down the National Air and Space museum here with their antics. Can someone please tell me what the hell that has to do with corporate greed or wealth inequality?

To tell the truth it looks like a bunch of radicals mixed with some naive shmocks.
The growing stupid polarisation in USA just fuels this stuff.

You got tea party and this....bunch of idiots.

[CaptainMattJ.]

that list is the funniest thing ive read all day.

"equal rights amendments for all 'Minorities'" So called "minorities" are getting extra special treatment and being placed in jobs that they are less qualified in than another candidate whos one of those "pasty white guys".

"open border immigration" HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. This guy must be mentally brain damaged. We already have high unemployment. If we allow more people to come in, and work for whatever they can, it would copmletely lower the average wage, averge pay, and obliterate the job market entirely. Its beyond me how anyone could think its the "right thing" to do. Why? Cause we hate minorities? Psh. Get out of your ultra liberal bubble and get real.

"a TRILLION dollars in eco spending AND disabling all nuke plants." Nuclear power is the single most viable option of cleaner power we have seen yet. Theres only so many hydroelectric, wind and solar plants we can build that simply cant keep up with nuclear power (hydroelectric palnts being the second most viable). seriously? who is this moron.

"raise the minimum wage to 20 dollars an hour". do i really have to explain how this will never work in todays debt-ridden "economy"
"guaranteed living wages regardless of unemployment". Cant possibly afford it. not in a million years. Dream on, moron. That, and the fact that more people have the option to simply just live off the system without lifting a FINGER, just lets leeches suck us dry.

"free college education" No. what we do need however, is more programs to help Citizens (not anchor-babies or illegals, or sports players) afford college and living expenses without taking out nearly 100 grand in loans (which a growing number of people arent paying back) to pay for even a simple 4 year bachelor.

"immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all (and immediate banning of all crediting reporting agenicies)" HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Why should people in debt just be totally forgiven for the debt that they put themselves into? moron. credit is based on what youve done in the past. if you didnt pay off multiple bills, then why should you be trusted to pay off another. There are agencies which unfairly judge credit, obviously, but Debt is there for a reason, and must be payed off.

Even if they were desperate, or needed loans for college, this is real life, and you shouldnt be able to escape debt unfairly. Regardless of why. we need to revamp the living costs, and control it based on the average cost of living. Everything has gone up in price except the workers wage, and thats rediculous. People put themselves into debt and shouldnt be able to "get out of jail free". But if they cant pay it off, then its cash that goes down the drain regardless. We need to allow people to be able to afford payments into debt, and let people live a decent life off of the hard work they put in, not paycheck to paycheck with nothing to spare.

He has about 3 or 4 things that still dont work but arent too far from the right thing. minimum wage needs to be increased in a realistic sense in according to living wages, There needs to be a multitude more fair, and highly regulated government insurance companies rather than the completely dominant outrageous private insurance companies today.


Capitalism and the rise of corrupt private sector business has failed the average taxpaying, hard working citizen. Food companies that literally completely dominate the market are absolutely degrading quality and raising health risks while increasing prices. insurance companies, knowing that they are the only ones to turn to, are setting their rates at ridiculous heights and increasing monthly charges disproportionately when the insurance company's services are ACTUALLY used. More and more businesses are hiring illegals to work for a lower wage and firing others simply to make more money. The fourteenth amendment has been beyond abused when pregnant families come across the border to have a baby and automatically get a free pass to live here.


And people wonder why we falter with this free market greedy capitalist nonsense...

[Sea Demon]

Put the bums and homeless into shelters, put the insane into asylums, and arrest and put the druggies and criminals in jail. Then the rest of us can get back to work, taking care of our responsibilities, and raising our families without worthless distractions. :)

[Tchocky]

Drug addicts in jail. That'll fix 'em.

[August]

Bottom line here is the average Americans standard of living has to fall in order for the rest of the worlds standard of living to rise. That is what a world economy is all about.

It's a waste of the time protesting the loss of something that won't come back, we should be thinking about what we can do to better ourselves in the future.

[magicstix]

Bottom line here is the average Americans standard of living has to fall in order for the rest of the worlds standard of living to rise. That is what a world economy is all about.

It's a waste of the time protesting the loss of something that won't come back, we should be thinking about what we can do to better ourselves in the future.

Protip: If you live in America, YOU ARE THE 1%. This is the funniest part of the OWS protests.

[MH]

What about American health care?
Maybe im ignorant but here it is regarded as one of the most technologically advanced but inflated and ineffective systems in the world.

I think that its government responsibility to give equal access to medical care no matter how wealthy citizen is.
Even if its at expense of few dollars in taxes.

[magicstix]

What about American health care?
Maybe im ignorant but here it is regarded as one of the most technologically advanced but inflated and ineffective systems in the world.

I think that its government responsibility to give equal access to medical care no matter how wealthy citizen is.
Even if its at expense of few dollars in taxes.

Part of the reason healthcare is so expensive in the US is that we have no limits on medical malpractice. It's also incredibly expensive and time consuming to become a doctor in the US.

The healthcare system in America is just plain broken. Here we have a system where drug development is directly subsidized by the taxpayer, then the drug companies charge outrageous prices to quote "recoup the incredible expense of R&D," which in most cases they didn't even pay for. We have an over-reaching, slow, inefficient bureaucracy in the FDA that makes it near impossible for small drug players to enter the game. And we have no limits on ambulance chasing lawyers that get outrageous settlements for people who have barely been injured or not injured at all by malpractice.

It makes no sense to put American taxpayer dollars into a fundamentally flawed system without reforming it in the first place.

[yubba]

It's all about energy, to get this economy turned around, if we don't address this problem, prices will keep skyrocketing, the price of fuel is what drives the prices in the stores, our economy is based on a 35 dollar a barrel of oil. It wouldn't hurt to clean up washington either.

[magicstix]

It's all about energy, to get this economy turned around, if we don't address this problem, prices will keep skyrocketing, the price of fuel is what drives the prices in the stores, our economy is based on a 35 dollar a barrel of oil. It wouldn't hurt to clean up washington either.

Only way to get oil back down to $35 a barrel is to massively increase the supply or nuke China...

[CCIP]

To tell the truth it looks like a bunch of radicals mixed with some naive shmocks.
The growing stupid polarisation in USA just fuels this stuff.

You got tea party and this....bunch of idiots.

I think this post summarizes the real problems here better than anyone could :up:

And people really need to realize that the real problems with world economy, justice and bad governance start not with "1%" or "the socialists", but with themselves. Both right-wing libertarians and the the Occupying pseudo-socialists really have a pretty deluded view of how the world works. Both are irresponsible. But of course that doesn't look very good on banners, slogans and trashy pamphlets, so someone else is always gotta be the bad guy sabotaging America.

[Tribesman]

put the insane into asylums
But that would be the death of the your favourite media, unless they allowed them to run it as an internal hospital radio show.

arrest and put the druggies and criminals in jail
You really hate those wingnut broadcasters don't you.


Protip: If you live in America, YOU ARE THE 1%. This is the funniest part of the OWS protests.
Wow Magic isn't very good with numbers.
Hey thats a CAPS LOCK strikes:yeah:

I think this post summarizes the real problems here better than anyone could
No, it should read "You got this bunch of idiots and this.....bunch of idiots"

[Rockstar]

I want to protest in Washington and get them to take action, but everyone just laughed at me. They all live in a denialosphere they'll wish they would have listened.

There's something out there which threatens our very existence and may be the end to the human race as we know it. I'm talking about... "manbearpig." It's half man, half bear, and half pig! Some people say that manbearpig isn't real. Well, i'm here to tell you now, manbearpig is very real, and he most certainly exists!

Lets depolarize and all come together to start spreading manbearpig awarness!

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Z41cBiWCOBg/Tegz4qfxeDI/AAAAAAAAAMc/gTsFuCsSHX4/s1600/man_bear_pig.jpg

I think I've gone off the deep end :rotfl2:

[Takeda Shingen]

Yeah! I mean they're exactly the same. They both hate the Fed, both hate corporate bailouts. I mean, if you take away the attention to hygene, strong work ethic, and coherent message, the Tea Party is *exactly* like OWS. :D

So, in other words, Team R's thugs are better than Team D's thugs.

[TLAM Strike]

Only way to get oil back down to $35 a barrel is to massively increase the supply or nuke China...
http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/6233/bothq.jpg

[magicstix]

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/6233/bothq.jpg


Hmm... You make a good argument. General quarters missile. Make ready for condition 1SQ.

[Sea Demon]

Put the bums and homeless into shelters, put the insane into asylums, and arrest and put the druggies and criminals in jail. Then the rest of us can get back to work, taking care of our responsibilities, and raising our families without worthless distractions. :)

Drug addicts in jail. That'll fix 'em.

Yes. Get em' off the streets and off the voter rolls. Many of these types commit other crimes related to using their illegal drug. They can seek treatment in jail if they wish. In my state, nobody will stop them from cleaning up if they want to.

[CaptainHaplo]

and that their call for economic terrorism shows that at least some of these people are, to put it mildly, pretty darn crazy.

At no point is this "economic" terrorism. Your throwing out a term to make your arguement sound better - when its not accurate.

The only way this would be terrorism is if a business had an obligation to hire more workers and refused. No small business has any such obligation (unless they have previously agreed to do so for incentives, etc.). No private business has any responsibility to the general public regarding its own growth of employee numbers.

This is where the left leaning side goes so wrong in its call for "free enterprise" - its not FREE if its weighted down with the expectations and demands upon society to somehow cure the social ill of unemployment - even at the cost of the business itself. Business has one obligation - to make a profit. That is anathema to the folks like OWS - and why any refusal to "hire more people" when its "possible" to do so is somehow "economic terrorism".

If a company makes a profit through illegal or unethical means - I have no problem holding them accountable. But to claim that their refusal to hire more people is somehow "terrorism" is inaccurate, inflamitory and intentionally misleading.

[August]

Yes. Get em' off the streets and off the voter rolls.

So you favor taking the Constitutional right to vote away from anyone who uses illegal drugs?

[CaptainHaplo]

So you favor taking the Constitutional right to vote away from anyone who uses illegal drugs?

I favor upholding the law - in which anyone convicted of a felony (including felony drug charges) loses their right to vote. So - if your using illegal (hard) drugs - then that would mean you would be committing a felony. So yes... In those cases I support it.

Not only is it in keeping with the law - it also makes good sense. One defense against governmental tyranny is an educated electorate. A drugged electorate does not provide the same defense.

[August]

I favor upholding the law - in which anyone convicted of a felony (including felony drug charges) loses their right to vote.

Show me in the US Constitution where it says that.

[mookiemookie]

I favor upholding the law - in which anyone convicted of a felony (including felony drug charges) loses their right to vote.

That's only "the law" in Kentucky and Virginia.

[Betonov]

Taking the right to vote from drug users means you're also taking the right to vote from people you're voting for :O:

[CaptainHaplo]

That's only "the law" in Kentucky and Virginia.

No, it is only the law that you can lose your right to vote for LIFE in 2 states. Other states allow for a restoration of rights after certain criteria have been met.

Show me in the US Constitution where it says that.

Amendment 14;2

The only other voting rights were the removal of barriers for age, race, sex and previous servitude.

[TLAM Strike]

Show me in the US Constitution where it says that.
Would that fall under the 5th Amendment?

"No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Would the right to vote fall under Liberty?

:hmmm:

[CaptainHaplo]

Would that fall under the 5th Amendment?

"No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Would the right to vote fall under Liberty?

:hmmm:

TLAM - Amendment 14;2 makes it clear that a man (at the time of the amendment, only men could vote) could lose his right to vote via "treason, or other crime". It is not specified what other crime is. Due to the fact that it is not specified, it (as with so much else), falls to each soveriegn State to determine.

[mookiemookie]

I say decriminalize drugs. The "War on Drugs" is allowing the cartels to make more money, and it's an infringement on personal liberty and it's costing billions of dollars in a stupid fight against human nature.

Ron Paul has it right:

In Texas, it's common knowledge that the current wars on the Mexico-Texas border are, to a large extent, about drugs. Ironically, the two strongest groups that want to maintain the status quo of prohibition are the drug dealers and Christian conservative --two groups with opposite motivations but who share a common interest in keeping the drug war going. The cost to pursue the drug war in the past 40 years runs into hundreds of billions. The social cost, including the loss of civil liberties, is incalculable. Crime relating to the drug laws far surpasses the crime related to the 15 years of alcohol prohibition. I expect that someday the country will wake up and suddenly decide, as we did in 1933, that prohibition to improve personal behavior is lost cause, and the second repeal of prohibition will occur. This is more likely now than ever before because of the growing perception that the federal government is inept and more Americans are becoming aware of the senselessness of the war on drugs.

Leave it up to the states to decide.

[soopaman2]

I personally think drug users should be hung on piano wire at halftime during Monday Night Football.

Before the game we can honor Goldman Sachs, WaMu, Bank of America, Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac for their contributions to todays society.

[Penguin]

I personally think drug users should be hung on piano wire at halftime during Monday Night Football.


Wouldn't this affect about 80% of the football fans - those who watch the game with a can of beer in their hand? :03:

[soopaman2]

Wouldn't this affect about 80% of the football fans - those who watch the game with a can of beer in their hand? :03:


I always say alcohol has killed more people than pot...

But it sure does feed the Prison complex..Alot of private run county jails and prisons taking state money for each inmate they incarcerate.

Lock up more, need more prisons, need more cops, need more laws...

We give harsher sentences for weed posession, than if you burglarize someones house. Simply because there are more pot smokers than house burglars.. Law of large numbers..etc





(Not a pot smoker, I get tested for my job :03:, so calling a dirty drug user who should be thrown in a gulag is out)

[CaptainHaplo]

The problem with the war on drugs is that it - like so many other "conflicts" we have fought in the last 50 years - is that it was never fought like a true war.

If we truly wanted to stop the influx of hard drugs into this country - we could. You won't eradicate it entirely, but if you restrict the supply enough - there won't be enough to go around. Not every hillbilly in the backwoods can manufacture cocaine. Sure, you will still have some domestic production - mainly meth - but you could take a HUGE bit out of the real drug problem.

Pot.... do we really need to spend time on that subject when there are a lot more deadly substances out there? I won't say legalize it right now - but stop the outside sources and move on. Tackle the biggest problems first.

As for the issue of how we treat "soft" drug offenders vs violent criminals or thieves - there is a disparity that should be rectified.

EDIT - still don't have a problem with taking the right to vote away from a drug user though - including a pot smoker. Stoned and w/ munchies does not a wise voter make.

[August]

Amendment 14;2

The only other voting rights were the removal of barriers for age, race, sex and previous servitude.

But it doesn't say that Hap. It only says that Congressional representation cannot be affected by those in rebellion and only male rebels at that.

[CaptainHaplo]

"...But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."

Specifically it recognizes the fact that the right of voting may be vacated for participation in rebelleion or other crime.

[August]

Specifically it recognizes the fact that the right of voting may be vacated for participation in rebelleion or other crime.

But the Constitution does not provide for the right to be removed. It only mentions whether congressional representation is affected and then concerning males only.

You'll note I never said it was against the US Constitution for a State to deny a person their voting rights, I only asked since your post doesn't distinguish between Federal and State.

[Penguin]

Lock up more, need more prisons, need more cops, need more laws...


oh, they sure do lock up more:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/U.S._cannabis_arrests_by_year.gif

:-?


(Not a pot smoker, I get tested for my job :03:, so calling a dirty drug user who should be thrown in a gulag is out)

Oh, you potential dirty drug user, to Siberia with you! :O:



If we truly wanted to stop the influx of hard drugs into this country - we could. You won't eradicate it entirely, but if you restrict the supply enough - there won't be enough to go around. Not every hillbilly in the backwoods can manufacture cocaine. Sure, you will still have some domestic production - mainly meth - but you could take a HUGE bit out of the real drug problem.

Pot.... do we really need to spend time on that subject when there are a lot more deadly substances out there? I won't say legalize it right now - but stop the outside sources and move on. Tackle the biggest problems first.


But the attempt to stop the outside sources is exactly what our countries tried to do in the last decades, with not much success...


As for the issue of how we treat "soft" drug offenders vs violent criminals or thieves - there is a disparity that should be rectified.


I agree with you 100% on that issue!


EDIT - still don't have a problem with taking the right to vote away from a drug user though - including a pot smoker. Stoned and w/ munchies does not a wise voter make.

Drinking a 12-pack or throwing in some funny OTC drugs before going to the election makes a wise voter? :doh:

[CaptainHaplo]

But the Constitution does not provide for the right to be removed. It only mentions whether congressional representation is affected and then concerning males only.

You'll note I never said it was against the US Constitution for a State to deny a person their voting rights, I only asked since your post doesn't distinguish between Federal and State.

It does not provide a mechanism for it to be removed - thus it is a state by state issue (which as I noted to mookie - different states have different guidelines). However, the 14th amendment makes it clear that the removal of the right to vote due to criminal activity was recognized in the amendment itself. Thus making it "constitutional". Its not directly spelled out, but explicitly provided for.

[August]

Thus making it "constitutional". Its not directly spelled out, but explicitly provided for.


I see. So when you say:

I favor upholding the law - in which anyone convicted of a felony (including felony drug charges) loses their right to vote.

You're talking about just your own state.

[gimpy117]

At no point is this "economic" terrorism. Your throwing out a term to make your arguement sound better - when its not accurate.

The only way this would be terrorism is if a business had an obligation to hire more workers and refused. No small business has any such obligation (unless they have previously agreed to do so for incentives, etc.). No private business has any responsibility to the general public regarding its own growth of employee numbers.


See, I don't think so. Sure, nobody has an obligation to hire workers, but, it's a common fact that business owners often hire when the economy gets better, and they need more help due to increased demand. This is where the Tea Party's pledge comes into play. Essentially, It's holding hostages again (or at least a mad ranting trying to, luckily nobody actually has to do what they say). To me, It stinks of a tactic to try to keep the US economy artificially depressed, or at least appear so. Nobody gets hired, keeps unemployment numbers high, and cash flow to workers lower, so less is spent, meaning economy stays down. This will make Obama look bad, and that's what the tea party wants. Sadly, this tactic would also hurt the american people and economy. But who cares as long as the tea party isn't in the presidency...right?

[CaptainHaplo]

Gimpy,

First of all - that was a singular blog by a singular person - so its not a "memo" or creed or pledge. Just as a single OWS post can be the writings of a wacko, so too would this be (Obama being dictator and Congress allowing it tells me it is). The difference is the reaction to such statements by others on the respective sites, and the pervasiveness of such types of comments. On that score - OWS has a lot more "wacko's" in general.

However, to the point your making - there are a lot of businesses out therer that COULD hire - but are not. They refuse to do so because of a lack of long term financial policy stability. They don't know what kind of hammering they are going to get from the government on taxes. They know they are going to get slaughtered on Obamacare if it is upheld as constitutional. The long term fiscal outlook for the country is in question, and businesses are being targetted as the cash cow to fix it all.

Were you in business for yourself - would you be willing to gamble your future success - both long and short term - by growing your employees with that kind of uncertainty - especially when you have very little to no control over those factors that affect you? Of course not - its a NATURAL reaction to pull back and wait till things firm up. This is a continuation of that.

The administration laments the lack of hiring and the slow to non-existent growth. Yet they do not take action to resolve the questions for business. One is the result of the other.

Lastly I have to ask:

This will make Obama look bad, and that's what the tea party wants.

With real unemployment running around 14%, median wages and the standard of living dropping as it has over the last 3 years, government debt ballooning even further, the lack of any coherent fiscal policy, insistence on failed or rejected policies (see stimulus and Obamacare, respectively), - does the tea party really need to do anything to make Obama look bad????

[mookiemookie]

This is a continuation of that.

I agreed with your post up to this point. This is not a continuation of that. It's taking it a step further, asking business owners not to hire employees, under any circumstances, good times or bad, in order to spite the current administration and score political points. That's ridiculous and it is indeed economic terrorism. It's playing politics with peoples livelihoods.

[CaptainHaplo]

I agreed with your post up to this point. This is not a continuation of that. It's taking it a step further, asking business owners not to hire employees, under any circumstances, good times or bad, in order to spite the current administration and score political points. That's ridiculous and it is indeed economic terrorism. It's playing politics with peoples livelihoods.

Did you read the link? Nowhere did it ask ANYONE to do anything.

Nor it is playing politics with people's livelihoods even if it had asked others to sign on - because its NOT THIERS - not their job, not their business, until AFTER that job is offered. Again its this expectation of business should provide. It has no reason to do so.

[Sea Demon]

So you favor taking the Constitutional right to vote away from anyone who uses illegal drugs?

Well ultimately there is no "constitutional right to vote". At least not in a federal election. It may be true that a state's constitution contains some sort of guarantee of your right to vote in an election....but that's as far as it goes.

The Framers in no way intended to grant a universal right to vote in federal elections in the Constitution. As for the states ... well, it's pretty much up to them. What the US Constitution does do, by virtue of the 14th, 15th and 19th Amendments, is set forth some parameters upon which a state cannot limit the voting franchise IF that state decides to offer a right to vote in its state constitution. In other words, a state can't formulate a constitution which says you can vote in a state or local election unless you're black, or a woman, etc. The same rule would apply to any federal elections as well.

But as far as taking voters off the rolls....it happens all the time. Felons in prison are stripped off the rolls for example. If illegal aliens are participating in elections...they need to be removed as well. Personally, for me, I don't want someone who can't stay away from the crack pipe deciding how much taxes I will pay, what laws will govern my choices, and how my property can be used.

If we decriminalize, like mookie says, then the point will be moot. And it will be up to the individual states.

[CCIP]

But it is economic terrorism. It's a call to directly sabotage a primary mechanism in the workings of the economy and encourage action through putting people in jeopardy through economic action. Don't tell me that's not it - that's a natural working mechanism of capitalism. When you do something like that, you're wilfully disrupting it. I am willing to concede however that the person who wrote the blog post doesn't actually understand anything about how the capitalist system works and is not an economic terrorist but just stupid.

[Sea Demon]

I agreed with your post up to this point. This is not a continuation of that. It's taking it a step further, asking business owners not to hire employees, under any circumstances, good times or bad, in order to spite the current administration and score political points. That's ridiculous and it is indeed economic terrorism. It's playing politics with peoples livelihoods.

Absolute BS. My own company downsized recently because of the anti-business climate provided by the current administration. The healthcare law, forced down the thtroats of the American people by the Democrat Party in a lame duck session is economic terrorism due to the outrageous costs levied on businesses. The American people threw these Democrats out, and they forced their law on an unwilling populace. I would say that's the ultimate form of playing politics with people's livelihoods right there.

[August]

Personally, for me, I don't want someone who can't stay away from the crack pipe deciding how much taxes I will pay, what laws will govern my choices, and how my property can be used.

So the answer is yes then. Thanks for the reply.

[Sea Demon]

But it is economic terrorism.

Only problem CCIP.....it ain't happening. Businesses simply aren't making their hiring decisions based on any calls like this. I do see people on the left trying to find ways to shift blame for their utterly devastated economy on someone else though....

[Sea Demon]

Personally, for me, I don't want someone who can't stay away from the crack pipe deciding how much taxes I will pay, what laws will govern my choices, and how my property can be used.

So the answer is yes then. Thanks for the reply.

Well yes, but there was more substance to my answer than just that statement. :-?

[CCIP]

But then where do you draw the line?

If someone who can't stay away from the crack pipe can't vote, why can't we ban someone who can't stay away from, say, a religion? Or any religion? Opiate of the people, after all! (and no, I'm not targeting anyone - just playing devil's advocate)
Or why can't we ban someone who drinks alcohol? It is known to cause more social ills and poor judgments, let alone kills more people.
Or someone who can't stay away from a political association? I mean, socialism is bad for america! Let's ban socialists from voting!

That would set a pretty dangerous precedent. I think research shows that, in any case, the drug regulation is pretty arbitrary. Fascinating history behind it, too. It could just as easily happen to alcohol, socialism or religion. And then what?

[Sailor Steve]

Good points, George. On the other hand we could go with Robert A. Heinlein's idea - the main prerequisite for voting is prior military service. You didn't join, you can't help govern.

[mookiemookie]

Only problem CCIP.....it ain't happening. Businesses simply aren't making their hiring decisions based on any calls like this. I do see people on the left trying to find ways to shift blame for their utterly devastated economy on someone else though....

Except that the financial crisis and resulting recession began under GWB's watch. And to ask businesses to not contribute anything to any sort of recovery out of pure political spite is indeed playing politics at its most base and despicable level.

[CaptainHaplo]

Except that the financial crisis and resulting recession began under GWB's watch. And to ask businesses to not contribute anything to any sort of recovery out of pure political spite is indeed playing politics at its most base and despicable level.

Business has contributed to the recovery - and every time they have tried - government has stuck them with more and more unreasonable and unworkable regulations and demands. For the few who didn't get "stuck" - like GE, GM, etc, they instead were the recipients of massive corporate bailouts (which the American people did not want), government guaranteed loans, or simply "waivers" that other corporations don't get.

Of course - there is always "it's Bush's fault". Ok, the recesson started on his watch. Obama has had 3 years now and he has done nothing but make it worse. Bush drove us into a ditch according to Obama. Now Obama is doing his best to drive us over a cliff..

Really want to compare the two?

Pointing at the mud on someone else's fins isn't going to make your fish swim any better......

[gimpy117]

However, to the point your making - there are a lot of businesses out therer that COULD hire - but are not. They refuse to do so because of a lack of long term financial policy stability. They don't know what kind of hammering they are going to get from the government on taxes. They know they are going to get slaughtered on Obamacare if it is upheld as constitutional. The long term fiscal outlook for the country is in question, and businesses are being targetted as the cash cow to fix it all.



I wasn't saying there are lots of businesses out there that can hire all willy nilly, but mookie pretty much summed it up on the point that I was trying to make: the blog, pledge, thingy...is asking companies not to hire under any circumstances, no matter if they are doing well nor not. I understand that companies do have to shed positions in times of hardship...didn't think I had to explicitly say that.


Except that the financial crisis and resulting recession began under GWB's watch. And to ask businesses to not contribute anything to any sort of recovery out of pure political spite is indeed playing politics at its most base and despicable level.

I don't think it's a matter of them contributing anything, A company hires first and foremost for their own profit. When times are good they hire to fill demand, when bad they lay off and don't hire. The economy benefits from this as a side effect. The memo or whatever it is, asks for companies to NOT hire as implies this should be done even if they would like to, and are financially ready to do so. So really, this is asking companies more than anything to contribute; contribute to a pledge to spite Obama.


Of course - there is always "it's Bush's fault". Ok, the recesson started on his watch. Obama has had 3 years now and he has done nothing but make it worse. Bush drove us into a ditch according to Obama. Now Obama is doing his best to drive us over a cliff..

It took a day for the stock market to crash in 1929...took 12 years for the economy to recover. I see many opponents angry that Obama hasn't waved a magic wand and fixed everything; using that as an excuse to say he's such a bad president etc...but I remember that it always is faster to destory than to build.

[mookiemookie]

Obama has had 3 years now and he has done nothing but make it worse.

If you are a student of economic history, you will know that recoveries after credit crises are long and drawn out. But I guess scholarly studies don't make for good sloganeering.

If you care to educate yourself: http://www.economics.harvard.edu/files/faculty/51_Aftermath.pdf

[August]

Good points, George. On the other hand we could go with Robert A. Heinlein's idea - the main prerequisite for voting is prior military service. You didn't join, you can't help govern.

Yeah the idea being you don't have a right to govern your country unless you have served your country. That Heinlein was a smart cookie.

[August]

[/I]



Well yes, but there was more substance to my answer than just that statement. :-?

Well yeah but the rest of it it didn't really address my question did it?

[CCIP]

It's an interesting possibility, yeah. Although it does create a couple of caveats, e.g. disabled persons (who may not be physically able to serve) or conscienscious objectors (again, they're not all just lazy hippies). It also risks creating a very jingoist kind of state and society by favouring military thinking.

However if you expand it to civil service - not just military, but helping serve your country by building, saving lives, and doing tough jobs that others don't want to - then I'd say we have a deal. Virtually anyone can serve their country in some way, and IMO it would set a good precedent - might teach people a few things about the value of their vote, too. That's partially why I have somewhat conservative views on immigration myself - I really think it's unfair and stupid to give citizenship (and rights that come with it) to people who've done nothing to so much as prove their worth to the country they want to live in. So I'm all in favour of checks and balances for civic duty - and military duty along with it. I think the former's even more important as far as vote requirements go.

And in that, by the way, there's no need to exclude drug addicts. While drugs certainly cause problems, there are also many instances where drug addicts are perfectly capable of performing good civic or military duty; and other instances where people who've really done more than their share for the society who've fallen into addiction and deserve help, not removal of rights. I can bet your right now that the rates of substance abuse are far, far higher among Iraq or Afghan vets than among the general population - it's not just street trash that does it. You wanna tell them the country doesn't owe them anything?

[Sailor Steve]

Yeah the idea being you don't have a right to govern your country unless you have served your country. That Heinlein was a smart cookie.
On the other hand I didn't say I agreed with it.

[August]

On the other hand I didn't say I agreed with it.


You don't?

[Sailor Steve]

You don't?
It's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure whether I like it or not. If they'd had it at the beginning it would have excluded some of my favorite founders, Jefferson, Madison and Franklin among them. Well, Franklin helped organize the very first Colonial Militia, so he may qualify, but still...

It would also keep out anyone who doesn't qualify for the military, though public service may be an alternative. Basically I just don't like the idea of voting requirements in general.

[TLAM Strike]

However if you expand it to civil service - not just military... That is what Heinlein was getting at in Starship Troopers. The majority of "Citizens" in the Federation were civil service and not military. :yep:

[August]

It's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure whether I like it or not. If they'd had it at the beginning it would have excluded some of my favorite founders, Jefferson, Madison and Franklin among them. Well, Franklin helped organize the very first Colonial Militia, so he may qualify, but still...

It would also keep out anyone who doesn't qualify for the military, though public service may be an alternative. Basically I just don't like the idea of voting requirements in general.


It's been decades since I read any of his stuff but I thought it was any type of public service like CCIP says.

I do however support at least some voting requirements. All voters should be verified citizens.

[Sailor Steve]

It's been decades since I read any of his stuff but I thought it was any type of public service like CCIP says.
Same here, though I have pretty much everything he wrote. In storage. :damn:

I do however support at least some voting requirements. All voters should be verified citizens.
Well, yeah, there's that. But that's also true on other levels. Theoretically only Americans can vote in American elections, but Californians can't vote in Utah elections, and Salt Lakers can't vote in Provo elections. Citizenship as a requirement is sensible.

[CaptainHaplo]

the blog, pledge, thingy...is asking companies not to hire...

The memo or whatever it is, asks for companies to NOT hire ... So really, this is asking companies

And I will say it again - if you actually READ the link - nowhere does it ask anyone to do anything - it is the simple stated intent of the writer to put forth their own plan of action for themselves. Yet you persist in trying to paint it as something it is not.

If you are a student of economic history, you will know that recoveries after credit crises are long and drawn out. But I guess scholarly studies don't make for good sloganeering.

If you care to educate yourself: http://www.economics.harvard.edu/files/faculty/51_Aftermath.pdf

ROFL - you and gimpy are still acting like this was some request that companies follow - and it doesn't have any such request. Of course - your "scholarly studies" would have indicated that - but facts shouldn't get in the way of slamming those opposed to you, apparently....

Regarding your source - they are proven wrong - although we have hindsight where they did not:

The housing collapse has already lasted 6 years, and continues on - the only thing from keeping it from falling completely off the map is the difficulties banks now have proceeding with foreclosures.

Unemployment started rising majorly in 8/2007 - more than 4 years ago that your paper said was needed to see recovery. In case you haven't been paying attention - unemployment has NOT been improving. Especially considering the fact that the unemployment rate does not even count those who have given up looking for work. Real world estimates of unemployment - 22% - using the way it has historically been rated instead of the "new math" introduced in 1994.

http://usawatchdog.com/real-unemployment-rate-2011/

At least they got the debt explosion part right. We are up to our eyeballs in debt. For what? Nothing good has come of it - unless you count massive bailouts to banks, GM, and loads to Sunpower, Solyndra and electric car companies in Europe.....

The reality is that "hope and change" has left us with no hope... and change is about all we have left in our pockets. That isn't success, that isn't results, and sorry - but the worst of it has hit (and continues to do so) on Obama's watch. Had he dealt with the economy instead of trying to force through the DREAM act, had he focused on jobs (like he promised to do so repeatedly) instead of Obamacare that the majority disagreed with, had he focused on the main struggle this country faced instead of spending time on gay rights issues (such as ending DADT and deciding to stand idly by while the DoMA gets attacked), had he spent mroe time trying to find solutions to get people working instead of trying to punish business in between his apology tour of the world, then maybe your arguements would carry some weight. But, they don't.

[gimpy117]

ROFL - you and gimpy are still acting like this was some request that companies follow - and it doesn't have any such request. Of course - your "scholarly studies" would have indicated that - but facts shouldn't get in the way of slamming those opposed to you, apparently....

hrm, well, i could walk over to somebody with a gun and say, "I resolve that people should give me money, or they will get shot"...and it would still be a request. You're pigeon holing the issue, and basically hinging your whole argument that the phrase isn't in there, where the writing in on the wall.

yeah, maybe the worst did hit on Obama's watch, but who was it who inherrited a good economy in 2000? oh wait. Bush would be like Ismay, getting off the Titanic just before she sunk, and trying to blame it on Smith, who drown in the mess Ismay had a large hand in making.

[mookiemookie]

Ok Haplo. You've got it all figured out, apparently. I'll be sure to let Rogoff and Reinhart know that Haplo's destroyed their study in one post on the Subsim forums.

[CaptainHaplo]

Ok Haplo. You've got it all figured out, apparently. I'll be sure to let Rogoff and Reinhart know that Haplo's destroyed their study in one post on the Subsim forums.

Can't argue the reality so all you have left is sniping sarcasm? Thats sad.

hrm, well, i could walk over to somebody with a gun and say, "I resolve that people should give me money, or they will get shot"...and it would still be a request. You're pigeon holing the issue, and basically hinging your whole argument that the phrase isn't in there, where the writing in on the wall.

No, your making a strawman. There is a huge difference between an immediate threat of violence against others unless they part with their personal property, and the statement that a person / business will not act further unless the attacks against it cease. The description you gave above was a criminal action in any state in the US. There is nothing criminal in a business refusing to hire. Comparing apples to oranges with hyperbole and prevarication won't make you right.

yeah, maybe the worst did hit on Obama's watch, but who was it who inherrited a good economy in 2000? oh wait. Bush would be like Ismay, getting off the Titanic just before she sunk, and trying to blame it on Smith, who drown in the mess Ismay had a large hand in making.

Again a total strawman. The titanic sunk because of substandard materials and bad design after collision. Smith was captain - he chose to listen to the "insistence" of Ismay. Smith was responsible for the safety of his ship - his choice to cave to company pressure resulted in the collision damage that sank the Titanic. Does not make Ismay innocent, but last I checked, George Bush wasn't advising Obama. If Ismay had been captain during the collision, then left the captains chair to Smith after, you would be correct in saying that Ismay was THE one responsible. But that isn't the case, and we both know it.

No one disputes that Obama inherited an economy in trouble. However, if you think you can "blame Bush" for Obama's failed fiscal policies, or his intense avoidance of economic focus for the last nearly 3 years, your sadly mistaken. I mean, cmon - even Obama has figured out that he can't "blame Bush" any more - thats why he has turned to blaming Congress.

Of course, the fact that the Democratically controlled Senate won't pass his ideas, and the reality that they refuse to take up any economic legislation that originates (and passes) in the House, goes to show that the left not only isn't backing him fully, but that they are the ones more interested in playing politics with the economy.

[mookiemookie]

Can't argue the reality so all you have left is sniping sarcasm? Thats sad.

I could go into how your source on unemployment rate is screwy, how using unemployment rate is not really an accurate measurement due to introducing other factors that skew it higher or lower (participation rate, birth/death adjustment, etc) and a better measurement would be total jobs lost/regained from peak employment month, and how they're study isn't "proven wrong," as it's an examination of historical data and not a subjective statement, and blah blah blah

But then sooner or later you realize you're dealing with someone who wouldn't listen anyways and you just cut bait.

[gimpy117]

No one disputes that Obama inherited an economy in trouble. However, if you think you can "blame Bush" for Obama's failed fiscal policies, or his intense avoidance of economic focus for the last nearly 3 years, your sadly mistaken. I mean, cmon - even Obama has figured out that he can't "blame Bush" any more - thats why he has turned to blaming Congress.



here we are again, raging at Obama that he couldn't fix everything in 3 years, when that's never been done before from a downturn this severe. Straw Man I may have, But the seeds for this collapse were sewn long before Obama, and expecting everything to be fixed Immediately is naive, or just good ammunition for the Right if people are dumb enough to believe it.

[August]

here we are again, raging at Obama that he couldn't fix everything in 3 years, when that's never been done before from a downturn this severe.

Not only has Obama not fixed anything, he's made it worse.

[gimpy117]

Not only has Obama not fixed anything, he's made it worse.

data?

[CaptainHaplo]

Unemployment climbing.
Deficit exploding.
Median income lower.
Housing economy worse than ever.
More people than ever on government aid.

How much more data do you need?

[Tribesman]

How much more data do you need?
Data that would prove someone did better.

[August]

Unemployment climbing.
Deficit exploding.
Median income lower.
Housing economy worse than ever.
More people than ever on government aid.

How much more data do you need?

Hap he's not going to accept the obvious because it doesn't jibe with his partisan beliefs.

[Tribesman]

Accepting the obvious is knowing that you cannot show Obama made things worse as there is no "better" to compare it with.

[CaptainHaplo]

Sure there is "better" to compare it with.

Unemployment levels on January 20th, 2009
Federal deficit on January 20th, 2009
Median income on January 20th, 2009
Housing economy on January 20th, 2009
# of people enrolled in government aid on January 20th, 2009

A president is defined by what he had when he started compared to what he has to show for his time in office. The definition on Obama is failure. Run from it all you want - he sure will try - but the American people know better.

[gimpy117]

Hap he's not going to accept the obvious because it doesn't jibe with his partisan beliefs.

here we go again with that....

[Sailor Steve]

Bush would be like Ismay, getting off the Titanic just before she sunk, and trying to blame it on Smith, who drown in the mess Ismay had a large hand in making.
Bad analogy. Bush might have stayed, or tried to, if he had any say in the matter. Also, have you heard Bush saying anything at all, much less blaming Obama?

[mookiemookie]

Sure there is "better" to compare it with.

Unemployment levels on January 20th, 2009
Federal deficit on January 20th, 2009
Median income on January 20th, 2009
Housing economy on January 20th, 2009
# of people enrolled in government aid on January 20th, 2009

A president is defined by what he had when he started compared to what he has to show for his time in office. The definition on Obama is failure. Run from it all you want - he sure will try - but the American people know better.

So the economy magically has to change on January 21st, 2009 or he's a failure? It doesn't work that way. According on one estimate, the wars, the Bush tax cuts and the economic downturn are the major components of the deficit:

http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//12-16-09bud-rev6-28-10-f1.jpg
And if you don't like that one, then The Pew Center found that it was (http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Fact_Sheets/Economic_Policy/drivers_federal_debt_since_2001.pdf)

Revenue declines due to two recessions, separate from the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003: 28%
Defense spending increases: 15%
Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003: 13%
Increases in net interest: 11%
Other non-defense spending: 10%
Other tax cuts: 8%
Obama Stimulus: 6%
Medicare Part D: 2%
Other reasons: 7%

Now if you want to bash him for continuing the wars and renewing the idiotic tax cuts, I'll be right there with you. But don't act like some $500 million loan guarantee to a podunk company made things worse.

See how much stronger an argument is when you have data rather than partisan bombast?

[August]

here we go again with that....

Well?

[tater]

The "stimulus" spending was simply wasted money. You can't claim microeconomic effects of "stimulus" (which would be made up numbers of jobs saved) unless you allow similar made up numbers for effects of lower taxes.

Myself, I'm fine with lower taxes, even if it lowers revenue, just cut spending if need be. Note that I don't care about having zero debt, but over 100% of GDP is too much. Hold it between maybe 50-75% of GDP and I'd be fine with it (lower gives us slop in case we need to fight another big war).

Medicare D is only 2% now, but will get way worse. Medicare needs to be scrapped, or severely limited. It's poised to make SS look solvent in comparison (SS will hold at like 6% of GDP as I recall, MC gets way higher).

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/SS-and%C2%A0Medicare.gif
If that is not scary to you... Medicare needs to go away, basically. Or massive increases in copays. No amount of taxation will fix that. It's heading towards more than the feds collect, period. Even the highest rates of tax revenues during the Clinton years are around half what will just be needed, with Medicare almost equally all tax collections during those years (FY 2000). You could confiscate ALL income of the top 1% and not pay for it.

Capping government spending at ~20% of GDP is entirely reasonable. Then we have our representatives decide what the priorities are for spending a finite amount of money instead of letting them spend an infinite amount, instead. That's not unreasonable.

[Tribesman]

Sure there is "better" to compare it with.

Still the same Presidents.
If Obama has made it worse then you must be able to show that another President could have made it better.

[gimpy117]

Well?

I may be partisan, but there's a lot of that going on here. I know I'm the young gun, but please don't single me out

[CaptainHaplo]

Still the same Presidents.
If Obama has made it worse then you must be able to show that another President could have made it better.

Thats funny. You want some "hypothetical" presidential holder to be named and then show he/she could have done better... :doh:

Were that even possible - you would simply note that since its hypothetical - its not "proof".

Use logic. "If Obama has made it worse" - ok - worse than what? This has to be a REAL, measurable thing. Thankfully - we have that - with historical numbers - so the answer becomes "worse than it was prior to his taking office".

I like how you keep trying to move the goal post, though.

[August]

Medicare needs to go away, basically.

Then you had better have something to replace it or the senior vote alone will sink you. It's obvious that medical treatment is unaffordable for most seniors and even medical insurance is unaffordable for most seniors. Shall we just put our elderly on ice flows and let nature take it's course?

[CaptainMattJ.]

What was Obama allowed to do in his term? Not much. Not much at all.He has to work his way through the stingy republican-dominated house to get anything real done.

"blame Obama" Hahaha. its quite mind boggling who people point to fingers at when faced with consequences. Blame Obama. isnt he the all mighty PRESIDENT? He lied to get into office. So has every other politician. What CAN Obama do. every one of his ideas is shot down by the right wingers. You quote how the cost of living, unemployment, and debt has shot up, but exactly how does that relate to the president. Gas, food, electric, ect. are ALL private sector. they go on and on about obama when the private sector essentially controls the price of living. The private sector is a greedy joke. You think that the oil companies are really "dangerously low" in supply? HAHAHA! They completely embellish their over the top prices with their lame, outrageous lies. Last i checked, banking and the housing market go hand in hand. Who exactly did we "have" to bail out? who exactly gambled away in the housing market and lost?

instead of pointing fingers at the real culprits, they blame the one with the LEAST amount of power.

[Platapus]

Also, have you heard Bush saying anything at all, much less blaming Obama?

It is a tradition in politics for Presidents to blame predecessors and not successors. Bush Jr blamed Clinton for plenty.

That is one of the admirable traits of Jr. He is following tradition. I will salute him for that :salute:

[vienna]

It is a tradition in politics for Presidents to blame predecessors and not successors. Bush Jr blamed Clinton for plenty.

Yeah, damn that Clinton for sticking BushJr. with a balanced budget, a surplus, and a healthy economy; at least Bush Jr. fixed those problems... :DL

[Platapus]

instead of pointing fingers at the real culprits, they blame the one with the LEAST amount of power.


The public likes complicated issues reduced to simple terms.

This person is bad

The problem was caused by this

The solution is that.

The reality is much more complex than that. But let's be honest, how much does the average citizen really understand about how our government works?

The President is the Chief Point of Blame for the country. By design, the President has limited powers concerning the running of our country.

I always snicker when people lament about why Bush/Obama was/is not doing more to create jobs. What exactly can the President do to create jobs other than expand the Executive Branch?

-Change tax rates? That's congress
-Change laws? Congress
-Cut taxes? Congress handles that
-Change tax deductions/expenditures? Congress
-Change government spending? Congress
-Decide where money already appropriated gets spent? President with restrictions from congress, so that's something

But somehow not only are our problems the President's fault, the solution, somehow is also the President's responsibility.

The President ASKS congress. The President never TELLS congress to do anything. I don't care who is in power, congress is never going to allow any president to forget the power of congress.

The problem is congress, as a whole, in both chambers. Congress is the only branch authorized by the constitution to cause and fix these problems.

But the president sure makes a handy scapegoat. :yep:

It must suck to be blamed for not doing what you are not authorized to do by law.

Now if we can only get the citizens to understand how and why congress is making or not making their decision and vote accordingly.

:har::har::har::har::har::har::har::har:

Like that will ever happen.

[Platapus]

Yeah, damn that Clinton for sticking BushJr. with a balanced budget, a surplus, and a healthy economy; at least Bush Jr. fixed those problems... :DL

And Clinton bitched about Bush Sr. Hell, Bush Sr bitched about Reagan.

It is what you do when you are POTUS. :x

[August]

What was Obama allowed to do in his term? Not much. Not much at all.He has to work his way through the stingy republican-dominated house to get anything real done.

Only for one of the three years he's been in office. The large majority of his presidency so far has been with his party in full control of both houses of congress.

In fact the only reason he still doesn't have both houses is because he went on a crazy spending spree with the public's money.

[mookiemookie]

because he went on a crazy spending spree with the public's money.

Yes, dangit for extending the Bush tax cuts at the expense of the deficit, and extending/expanding wars that the hawks deemed necessary lest he be labeled soft on terrorism, and dangit for having the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression to deal with.

He's made some stupid decisions, but please, let's give credit where credit is due.

[CCIP]

Yes, dangit for extending the Bush tax cuts at the expense of the deficit, and extending/expanding wars that the hawks deemed necessary lest he be labeled soft on terrorism, and dangit for having the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression to deal with.

He's made some stupid decisions, but please, let's give credit where credit is due.

Yeah, I was gonna say, I look at the bill from the Iraq/Afghanistan war and I can't help but ask "what spending spree?" Anything Obama initiated looks like small change compared to that fiscal (and otherwise) black hole. Even the ludicrous bailouts look tame in comparison.

[mookiemookie]

Yeah, I was gonna say, I look at the bill from the Iraq/Afghanistan war

He deserves a lot of blame for continuing them, though.

[CaptainMattJ.]

Obama is most certainly not someone id think of voting for again. He hasnt done much to help, for sure.

But, not only the hawks, but Republican candidates in general wouldve most certainly tacked the "pro-terrorist" BS on obama had he not decided to stay (stupid decision anyway)in afghanistan until 2014. The republicans have almost completely played puppet with Obama, and have been against anything hes proposed throughout the term. then the republicans spoon feed the public this blame train that everything is obama's fault.

I do agree with platypus though. The general population knows little if anything about the way our central government works. Its quite depressing to realize that so many voters have the power to do so and base most of their choices on the torrent of BS flowing from the political debates they see on TV or in the newspaper. They dont seem to realize that theyre being completely manipulated and used. All i ever hear from people is that obama is the worst president in US history and such, and less educated responses.

What a bad joke they are. the way things are going, with the flood of supposedly "bright" teenagers and undereducated (politically) general public, its anyone's guess as to if we'll ever go back to the prosperity we once had.

[CaptainHaplo]

Obama is most certainly not someone id think of voting for again. He hasnt done much to help, for sure.

He has done nothing to help - and instead done quite a bit to hurt.

have been against anything hes proposed throughout the term. then the republicans spoon feed the public this blame train that everything is obama's fault.

The guy had 2 years of his own party controlling the entire congress. What does he have to show for it? The problem was and is the economy - but he spent two years apologizing to other countries, forcing Obamacare, trying to force the DREAM act, getting rid of DADT, government bailouts, etc. He didn't focus on the root economic problems at all.

The president has a bully pulpit. The guy gave a speech almost every day - but there was nothing IN them worth a dime. Never once did he propose a bold solution.

All i ever hear from people is that obama is the worst president in US history and such, and less educated responses.

Nothing uneducated about that statement. Historically it will prove true. The ONLY thing Obama did on the economy was continue the policies that GWB had - throw money at the problem. It didn't work the first time under Bush - it exacerbated the long term problem. Then Obama did it again. Bush's QE was a failure - that Obama repeated. This is why it is "his" fault. Try something once and it fails - you should learn from it - not try it a second time. Or - in Obama's case - a third (with his latest stimulus bill that has been repeatedly rejected).

Herein lies the biggest complaint - instead of staying focused on the important things - as he continually promised he would - he has focused on everything BUT the economy, and encouraged "solutions" already proven not to work.

That's not leadership, that's not vision - and when your President of the USA, that equates to failure.

[Platapus]

All i ever hear from people is that obama is the worst president in US history and such, and less educated responses.




Nothing uneducated about that statement. Historically it will prove true.


It will only be proven true by people who don't know history and specifically the history of our presidents.

I don't know why people these days have to put things in extreme terms of hyperbole.

Bush worst president in history
Obama best president in history
Obama worse president in history

Why do people only deal in best/worst? That is so limiting and frankly inaccurate. Bush Jr was certainly not the "worst" president in history despite my personal dislike for his administration.

What ever happened to pretty good, kinda bad, or just simply "OK"? :D

Obama is not, by far, the "Best" president nor the "Worst" in our history. To apply the label "best" or "worst" indicates a lack of depth in though and, in my opinion, severely lowers the credibility of the speaker/writer.

When ever I read "X was the Worst/Best in HISTORY!", I usually turn off at that point as what follows is unlikely to be anything truly analytical.

Jus an ole guy's worthless opinion. :D

[CaptainHaplo]

Plat,

Sorry, Obama is definitely in contention for the worst. The only other candidates would be Carter and Hoover. Carter put us in a tailspin - though not nearly as bad as Obama has continued (thought not started). Hoover - well look - any president that was focused on wearing dresses - speaks for itself.

Who else would you nominate for the "worst"?

[Platapus]

Just off the top of my head, these rise high on my sucky president list

Andrew Johnson
William McKinley
Warren G Harding (20th century)

Johnson and Harding were involved in several scandals of the type people are concerned with today. McKinely is just a personal worst in my opinion. :)

I would say that with few exceptions the presidents of the 19th century were not so good. Graft and political deals were the norm it seemed and the influences of the rich on politics is worse than it is today in my opinion.

[CaptainHaplo]

Scandals - pfft - talk nixon with watergate, clinton with interngate, or JFK with drug parties and orgies.

Scandals happen - heck Obama has Solyndra, Sunpower, Fast and Furious, Finnish car companies etc all on his scandal list.

Scandals themselves don't make a president bad. Clinton wasn't nearly as "bad" as some think. His biggest problem was scandal compared to governance. I still am not fond of him - but he did a damn sight better than Obama.

The "worst" is (or should be) reserved for the president's whose POLICIES were failures - and how they adapted (or failed to adapt) to those failures. This is why Carter and Obama are near the top of the list - while D's like Clinton are not.

I can't believe I just wrote a "defense" of Clinton post! LOL

[gimpy117]

Yeah, I was gonna say, I look at the bill from the Iraq/Afghanistan war and I can't help but ask "what spending spree?" Anything Obama initiated looks like small change compared to that fiscal (and otherwise) black hole. Even the ludicrous bailouts look tame in comparison.

anything is a spending spree when there's an election soon, and you have a political axe to grind