Obama's impeachable Offenses(link)

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

And what you failed to do Mookie is read on. Had you read the report itself in full (not my post), you would have noted the following:



In other words - they took 2.8Million people "out of the pool" who wanted to be working - and just didn't count them. Don't look for a job for a month and your not counted as unemployed anymore? And you claim MY premise is faulty????

They are fudging the numbers - and you can choose to look at the data and see what it says, or you can stick your fingers in your ears, yell "LALALALALALALALALA" and ignore reality because its "anti-Obama". The choice is yours.

Or you can read the U-6 unemployment numbers and see those people being counted. No big conspiracy.

But don't link to people who quote the "1.2 million people disappeared" crap. Because that's all it is. Wrong crap and faulty analysis.

[deanjjo]

Originally Posted by MH

Not sure...but this picture seem to have some enlightening aura about it.

Oh Yes

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Or you can read the U-6 unemployment numbers and see those people being counted. No big conspiracy.

But don't link to people who quote the "1.2 million people disappeared" crap. Because that's all it is. Wrong crap and faulty analysis.

OK fine then Mookie - here ya go:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

The U-6 numbers state clearly - Jan 2012 unemployment - seasonally adjusted is 15.1% - not seasonally adjusted is 16.2%

You want to use those numbers to defend Obama and his great economic record?

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

OK fine then Mookie - here ya go:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

The U-6 numbers state clearly - Jan 2012 unemployment - seasonally adjusted is 15.1% - not seasonally adjusted is 16.2%

You want to use those numbers to defend Obama and his great economic record?

Not defending it. In fact, I'll be the first to criticize, and have done so in the past, the ludicrous HARP and HAMP programs for example.

But regardless of what number you look at, the trend remains the same. The employment situation is gradually getting better. And recoveries from financial crises have historically been slow going.

[CaptainHaplo]

How long defines a "trend"? If you take the last 4 months then yes - U-6 has come down.

However, from Nov 2010 to May of 2011, U-6 steadily declined. That was a "trend" - till it jumped (after revision?) .4% in one month - then dropped a month, then went back up, then went up again. 6 month "trend" and then it was broken - so "trending" doesn't demonstrate anything at all.

Now if you want to point to the fact that yes, we have had more than the necessary 166.7k jobs per month - your right. But 70k adds per month is beyond anemic. Its a drop in the bucket.

Harp and Hamp are also not at issue. While they are ludicrous - they are not where the problem is. Business in this country is NOT growing anywhere near what it could. Its not investing.

WHY?

Is it because success is taxed and some want to tax it more? Is it because of overspending by the government, creating a scary currency situation for business? Is it because of consistently burgeoning over-regulation? Is it because of onerous mandates? Is it because the US Senate is unable to even provide a budget over the last three years, even though they are required to do so by law? Is it because the US continues to ignore domestic (and close by, friendly) sources of energy while telling countries in South America that we want to "be their best customer"? Is it because instead of letting capitalism work, government (on both sides) has stepped in and provided "bailouts" to their favorite entities? Is it because instead of looking at growing real, competitive industries, government is throwing money away in crony "capitalism" to so called "green energy" that cannot make it on its own merits?

This economic recovery is a joke. Its not taking off because - just like in the days of Carter, the government is standing in the way of recovery, instead of trying to speed it along. When you realize that the policies of the current president are at odds with economic growth, then you will have at least some understanding of economics. The answer is not as Obama thinks - as demonstrated in his new "budget proposal" - more and bigger government with more and bigger debt and more and higher taxes. If that was the way to prosperity, Carter would have been a huge success. Obama is continuing to push ideas that don't work - and will continue to stifle growth. And he is now being compared more and more to Carter.

Get government out of the way, and you will see a recovery that lasts a good long while, has major impetus, and will put the US back on a better footing. Or keep promoting the guy whose policies are keeping us from that rocket recovery.

[Sea Demon]

I can't believe anybody is seriously trying to defend the Obama economy. It's comical. Deficits are sky high, gas prices are up over 80%, employment and job creation are still in the tank, and the housing markets are still not showing any real progress. Obama seriously has nothing to show economically that could validate him for another 4 years. He's not fit for the office. He has no knowledge of what it takes to run a business, because he never did. But if we're talking impeachable offenses, this is more applicable:

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/20...329133/?page=2

Seriously...why even have security clearances in the age of this administration?

Or even worse...this:

http://freebeacon.com/nuking-our-nukes/

Hello Joint Chiefs. Congress? Anybody home?

Obama is not only an economic failure....but a traitor in my opinion by weakening our national defense like this.

[Stealhead]

Some people believe anything that they read Bill Gertz clearly has an agenda and Free Bacon is a very right wing conservative publication.You do realize that he wrote both articles might as well read an issue of Pravda from 1953.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

I can't believe anybody is seriously trying to defend the Obama economy. It's comical. Deficits are sky high, gas prices are up over 80%, employment and job creation are still in the tank, and the housing markets are still not showing any real progress. Obama seriously has nothing to show economically that could validate him for another 4 years. He's not fit for the office. He has no knowledge of what it takes to run a business, because he never did. But if we're talking impeachable offenses, this is more applicable:

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/20...329133/?page=2

Seriously...why even have security clearances in the age of this administration?

Or even worse...this:

http://freebeacon.com/nuking-our-nukes/

Hello Joint Chiefs. Congress? Anybody home?

Obama is not only an economic failure....but a traitor in my opinion by weakening our national defense like this.

on a related note,
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/02/...ity-in-nation/

We get what we vote for. Where's 1480 when you need him?

[nikimcbee]

All I have to say is that the last 20 years, we've sure done a great job of picking our politicians. Both parties are guilty.

[misha1967]

Originally Posted by joegrundman

can you define what it is that you mean by socialism? What forms of government spending are not socialism in your view? For example is government maintenance of public highways a form of socialism in your view? And if so, is it an acceptable form?

Now that is a very good question, defining socialism

Particularly since you can't hardly pin an actual socialist down on one because they're constantly running around moving the goal posts every time their latest Utopia of Next Tuesday project fails miserably, as they all do.

But it's a fair question and deserves an answer.

Contrary to Tribesman's rather simplistic belief (but he can be excused since he obviously has trouble with concepts more advanced than remembering to alternate exhaling and inhaling), I don't define it as "everything I don't like." Granted, there is a strong inverse correlation, as in "everything that is socialist, I don't like", but that's not quite the same. One of these days, if I'm massively bored, I'll introduce Tribesman to Venn diagrams, but I'll probably be better off trying to teach my dog to sing. It's more likely to be met with success and there is at least a borderline chance that it might prove enjoyable.

But back to socialism:

It used to be fairly simple: It used to be simply "the belief that everything should be collectively owned and distributed equally to all." This led to socialists taking over all property in the name of the Community, and it failed. Also, they found out that people rather resent having their property taken away at gun point, which sometimes led to unpleasant consequences for the socialists. Finally, they weren't really all that interested in taking over private industry, they just wanted the money so they could redistribute it to themselves and their friends. Running a company is too much like work, and if there's one thing that socialists hate more than somebody, somewhere having more than they do, it's actually having to work for a living.

So they found out that you could "take over" private property in other ways, such as micro-managing them through excessive regulations as well as taxing the everloving hell out of them. This required no work other than sending out goons with guns to collect, and it got them all that they were really interested in in the first place, which was the money.

In addition, they could then claim that they weren't "socialists" at all since they weren't actually, you know, taking control of the factories. They were just grabbing the wallet of the owner and emptying it into their own pockets while he had all the trouble of actually running the business.

So a different definition of socialism is necessary, and the best I've been able to come up with over the years (I had help too, didn't think it up all by myself) is that it involves taking from those who earned and giving it to those who didn't, or "redistribution of wealth" as it's also called. But that's too general as well. To refine it further, socialism involves not just the redistribution of wealth, all functional societies need to do so to an extent in order to continue to exist, but the targeted redistribution of it.

Also, it is founded on the core belief that the Common Good comes before the good of the individual or, as one socialist born in 1889 in Austria put it: "Gemeinnutz vor Eigennutz." Of course with the socialists in charge of what the Common Good is, which tends to coincide magically with whatever helps the socialists stay in power and control of the redistribution.

If you, as an individual, were to practice that it would land you in jail in short order. It's called "armed robbery." Harsh? Not really. If I were to put a gun to somebody's head in order to grab his money so I could keep a chunk for myself and hand some out to my fellow gang members, it would earn me a well-deserved stint in the slammer. If the government puts a gun to your head (as in threatening with dragging you off to jail if you don't pony up) so they can keep a chunk for themselves (administrative costs) and hand the rest out to voter groups that they need to keep voting for them (and yes, that makes Republicans in this country guilty of socialist acts as well), it will give them rave reviews about "social justice" in The New York Times.

Sorry about the long-windedness, but it's a serious question that deserves a serious answer and it can't be boiled down to a sentence or two.

As to your second question: Would I consider using tax funds for highways "socialism?"

Again, I can't really answer that with a yes or no.

As I mentioned before, any functional society, if it wants to keep on functioning, has to redistribute private wealth to some extent. The alternative is anarchy, and it really doesn't work out that well for most people and certainly not for nations.

Even the most resourceful among us must realize, if we're honest about it, that we can't do everything ourselves, which leads to the formation of communities, states, nations, call it what you like. They're all the same. People getting together to complement each other. You might even call them "clubs." And clubs must have membership fees to cover the basic functions that keep the club going.

As to funding national highways no, I wouldn't generally call that "socialism" as a solid infrastructure is important to the nation as a whole. It doesn't benefit any particular group. The ability to quickly move goods and, for that matter, armed forces in case of a threat to the nation, not to mention police and firefighters to protect the population from internal threats, is a cornerstone in providing a safe, prosperous society. Oh, you can surely find exceptions where a particular infrastructure project only benefits a tiny group of people (in which case they ought to damn well pay their own way), but generally speaking a good infrastructure is paramount when it comes to prosperity, safety and national security.

Speaking of national security, the same goes for paying for the armed forces over your taxes. It doesn't matter a whole lot how wonderful your society is if a neighboring one can take it all away from you without firing a shot once they find out that you have something they want. And they will. It's human nature. "He who beats his sword into a plowshare will soon find himself plowing the fields belonging to he who didn't."

Police and courts? Absolutely. The only thing keeping your stronger neighbor from kicking you in the nuts and taking all your stuff is his fear that the police will come grab him and/or you being able to wipe him out in court. If your neighbor is weaker than you... Well, then the problem will solve itself and not in his favor, but I think that we can all agree that equal protection before the law is key to maintaining a functional and honest society.

All of the above examples have one thing in common: They don't benefit any group in particular, they're all designed to keep society as a whole from falling apart into anarchy or falling prey to foreign subjugation, something that benefits all, poor and rich.

"Socialism" is the errant belief that it is somehow "unfair" that some people are better at amassing wealth than others and that they, as a result, should be punished by taking away their wealth. Needless to say, that doesn't quite encourage the amassing of wealth and, well, then you have the classical problem of socialism where they eventually run out of other people's money and everybody ends up with their weenies in the wringer. Which is then, of course, immediately blamed on capitalism, but I digress.

It's hard to get your butt out of the bed in the middle of the night in a blizzard to go catch the escaped communal cow since it's not "yours", it's "everybody's", so let "everybody" go catch the damn thing. If it's your cow, on the other hand.

I hope this clarifies things a bit

[misha1967]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

Some people believe anything that they read Bill Gertz clearly has an agenda and Free Bacon is a very right wing conservative publication.You do realize that he wrote both articles might as well read an issue of Pravda from 1953.

I have no familiarity with Bill Gertz, but I actually did use to read both Pravda and Izvestiya on a regular basis, and he'd really have to work hard to reach their level of mendacity.

As the saying went: "Pravda is not true and Izvestiya tells no news." (You have to understand Russian to get the joke )

Anyway, if Mr. Gertz is really that good, he needs to get a job with The Washington Post because, quite honestly, they really blow chunks when it comes to spin and propaganda and I'm sure they'd be able to pay better.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

on a related note,
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/02/...ity-in-nation/

We get what we vote for. Where's 1480 when you need him?

I thought it was determined in the 1920's that Chicago was the most corrupt city?That article was not news to me.

As you say though both parties are guilty and there are few reliable media outlets seems like the game is rigged.Some say "viva la revolution" but that is never going to happen and even if it did the old Status quo is gone to be replaced with a new one.

There are too few people just sitting around if more people actually got together and made their voices heard they would listen no violence needed problem is the two parties have so many people divided.

@ misha1967 Mr.Gertz became well known for a column known as "Inside the Ring" on the Pentagon and defense a former CIA director said that he liked the column and some of his writings because he knew where leaks where coming from which does not mean in anyway that he agreed with what Gertz was saying but that he could see how "leaky" things are.

I get your joke actually my wife was born in the Ukraine SSR though only lived in that system as a child before moving to the US whit her parents. Pravda is "truth" in Russian

I dont think Gertz is to that extreme of Pravda but he is not neutral by any means.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

Some people believe anything that they read Bill Gertz clearly has an agenda and Free Bacon is a very right wing conservative publication.You do realize that he wrote both articles might as well read an issue of Pravda from 1953.

It was in his last signing statement from 2011. It's a public record. And as far as the dangerous and utterly treasonous cuts to our deterrence:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

All over A.P. And from a statements made earlier. It's also recorded and a matter of public record. Pull your head out. This isn't a left/right thing. But it seems Democrat Presidents are always very eager to make us less safe, as they put our national secrets at risk as a matter of policy. We never get anything of value in return other than a compromise in our safety and that of our allies. The Cox Report from the Clinton era was extremely damaging. Bush put an end to the foreign nationals (including Chinese and Russians) in our labs. It looks like Obama is just willing to dismantle everything, and give away the technology to reduce ballistic missile threats (a defensive system). This is serious and alarming stuff. And I hope someone in Congress will look into this seriously. This traitor in the WH should not unilaterally be able to do these things.

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

All I have to say is that the last 20, we've sure done a great job of picking our politicians. Both parties are guilty.

Agree to a certain extent. Both parties have their failures, and Republicans also need to be excoriated over a number of matters, but Republicans simply don't dismantle our national security apparatus with the haste that the Democrats do. Nor do Republicans wish to turn the whole nation into some sort of nanny state hell.

[Stealhead]

I never said that the entire article was not true.It has to do with the START treaty it is just his proposals it does not mean that they are going to happen. Reagan also wanted to eventually abolish or eliminate the threat of nuclear weapons you will never here these neocons say that but it is a known fact. Reagan and Gorbachev actually came very close to an agreement.Both of those articles you posted are the standard right wing conservative response.If you had posted something form a left wing media outlet it would have listed quotes by every left minded retied general (perhaps Wesley Clark) and such.

Your the blind leading the blind you said: "Agree to a certain extent. Both parties have their failures, and Republicans also need to be excoriated over a number of matters, but Republicans simply don't dismantle our national security apparatus with the haste that the Democrats do. Nor do Republicans wish to turn the whole nation into some sort of nanny state hell."

Why do the Republicans get to be excoriated over a number of matters if they are failures?On second thought do not even bother answering that question. You realize that you are saying that one group gets to make a mistake and one side does not if that is not having your head stuck in something I do not know what is.

What is the excoriation cut off I wonder

Pull your head out.I have never been the type foolish enough to place my proverbial head into anything in the first place. That defense system only served to make the Russians more likely to produce more missiles the USSR and the CIS treat a missile defense system as a threat because it lowers their odds off striking the US and raises the effect of our missiles the only recourse is to desire to produce more missiles the US would react in the same manner if Russia started making a defense system.

[nikimcbee]

I think the best thing we could do for the country is to, have a national referrendum and term limit congress and the president to 1 term and that's it! (more so for congress) Get these career politians out! Elections to be held on April 15th.

And we need better people to run.
Between the bamster, HRC, Edwards, Palin, and Gingrich, surely the US could find better choices than this?