Politics

[Black Irish]

The American education system is actually supposed to create productive and upstanding citizens. They should know how the government works and how they can influence the government/elections. They should be able to critically think, problem solve, and use teamwork/leadership to find solutions. The problem is there is a disconnect with what I just said and reality. We are creating citizens with little knowledge of how our country works, students whine when they aren't told the answers, group projects are seen as a way for slacking off, and more students want to be mindlessly told what to do than actually have an individual thought. This problem is cause by many factors: standardized tests, the google effect, limited parental involvment, social media, social pressures, and cultural problems (popularity of Jersey Shore and all reality TV).

I can't argue with what you wrote, I agree with all of that. My post was a jesting attempt to dovetail the 2 recurring themes of the past 30 or so posts.

 

[chicago51]

United States Senate made history today. For the first time a cabinet appiontee was filibustered. That being Obama's choice for defense secretay Chuck Hagel.

Now I thought Hagel had a bad confirmation hearing. Here is the thing though the secretary defense does not make the defense policy he or she runs the Pentagon. The President of the United States makes the defense policy. So Hagel's comment on Isreal years ago does not really matter. Like or not President Obama is our president and he sets our defense policy.

There was very little questioning on what Hagel would do to make the Pentagon run better and more efficent. Also what about huge issue of woman troops being sexually assualted by male troops? This is something the secretary of defense can handle directly and it was barely brought up.

I know politics is a game but this filibuster makes no sense. Another new low.

 

[In Lou I Trust]

His nomination should require a 60 vote threshold... this isn't exactly a filibuster.

 

[HereComeTheIrish]

disgusting...

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

are you against having improved roads and safer bridges? Are you against having professionals whose function it is to keep us safe? Is it a bad thing to have more teachers to educate our kids? why not stimulate the economy by paying for things that we all need to maintain our society? more tax revenue coming in ... fewer requiring public assistance ... more people spending money to buy goods and services produced by US companies ... more jobs ... fewer American families in distress. Why is this bad? Because we don't have the money to pay for it right now? Nonsense. The cost of not improving our infrastructure, adequately educating our children, and leaving ourseves more exposed to risk is far more than a stimulus.

Yes, you hit the nail on the head. I want all the roads and bridges to collapse, I want to fire 90% of cops and firefighters, and let the children teach themselves. Nothing you say matches up with my perspective or reality in general.

Roads and bridges can be discussed to an extent, but let's not talk like we're in 1945 Germany and all our infrastructure has been destroyed.

Cops, teachers, firefighters: we all respect them and the work they do, but the federal government doesn't have the authority or responsiblity here. You won't see anything in the Constitution about these because those duties are of the states. States and local municipalities do. I'm sorry you still don't understand this.

Another stimulus won't happen because it wouldn't get through the House. But if it did, arguing for it again would be like giving Charlie Weis a 6th year after 2009 ended.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I did Google all that stuff. Thanks. Still a bunch of op eds with little actual numbers talking about economic impact and the like. That is unless Uhaul can be considered a good source.

Here's the one kinda reputable analysis from Forbes: apparently it's mostly poor and midle class people leaving. Maybe my reverse dust bowl crack wasn't too far off? Also, it's hardly the mass exodus you've been alluding to.

Jobs Aren't Leaving California For Texas, But People Are - Forbes

Dallas Forth Worth sucks butt. Austin is cool. Don't know much about Houston other than it spawned the Ghetto Boys, who rule btw. El Paso is like Bakersfield. South Padre Islands gonna be underwater any day now due to climate change. All those spring beakers are gonna be pissed.

Denial file haha. I anticipated you wouldn't be able to "find" anything but Op-eds, so I bookmarked a few at home. I'll be happy to send them your way when I get home from work. Probably won't change your mind because your conclusion has already been reached, but just to show you what you can't "find" and back up my statements, I will.

 

[GoIrish41]

Yes, you hit the nail on the head. I want all the roads and bridges to collapse, I want to fire 90% of cops and firefighters, and let the children teach themselves. Nothing you say matches up with my perspective or reality in general.

Roads and bridges can be discussed to an extent, but let's not talk like we're in 1945 Germany and all our infrastructure has been destroyed.

Cops, teachers, firefighters: we all respect them and the work they do, but the federal government doesn't have the authority or responsiblity here. You won't see anything in the Constitution about these because those duties are of the states. States and local municipalities do. I'm sorry you still don't understand this.

Another stimulus won't happen because it wouldn't get through the House. But if it did, arguing for it again would be like giving Charlie Weis a 6th year after 2009 ended.

I know we've had this discussion before, but you fail to acknowledge that federal funding goes to the states, who use it to hire teachers and firefighters. Many things that are the responsibility of the states are funded indirectly from the federal government. When this funding gets cut, teachers, firefighters and police officers lose their jobs. There is simply no disputing that fact. If this funding were cut completely, states would be forced to raise taxes, which I'm sure you would also be against.

I believe the President's proposal to raise the minimum wage would function much like a stimulus. When poor people get more money they spend it, which could serve to stimulate the economy while also helping to raise people out of poverty. But, that won't pass the House either. In fact, nothing will pass the House that is designed to help poor people because the GOP has little concern for them. They choose instead to invest their effort into protecting loopholes and tax rates that benefit the very rich in our society. This is the reason that party is slowly eroding into obscurity in the American electorate.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Supposedly Austin is seeing "double or triple" the amount of relocation interest from California executives

Austin’s latest business recruit from California was Visa Inc., which decided in December to create nearly 800 technology jobs here over the next five years. Visa will receive $1.6 million in city of Austin incentives and another $7.9 million from the state’s Texas Enterprise Fund to create a “global information center” at 12301 Research Blvd.

Austin seeing interest from California companies ‘double or... | www.statesman.com

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I know we've had this discussion before, but you fail to acknowledge that federal funding goes to the states, who use it to hire teachers and firefighters. Many things that are the responsibility of the states are funded indirectly from the federal government. When this funding gets cut, teachers, firefighters and police officers lose their jobs. There is simply no disputing that fact. If this funding were cut completely, states would be forced to raise taxes, which I'm sure you would also be against.

I believe the President's proposal to raise the minimum wage would function much like a stimulus. When poor people get more money they spend it, which could serve to stimulate the economy while also helping to raise people out of poverty. But, that won't pass the House either. In fact, nothing will pass the House that is designed to help poor people because the GOP has little concern for them. They choose instead to invest their effort into protecting loopholes and tax rates that benefit the very rich in our society. This is the reason that party is slowly eroding into obscurity in the American electorate.

The federal government is not supposed to be providing money to states for cops, teachers, and firefighters. It is not DC's duty to provide these types of jobs. FBI? CIA? Secret Serivce? Yeah, sure. Sadly, this principle/ constitutional concept has been lost or ignored over the past few decades. States need to figure this out and get their $hit together financially instead of relying on DC for everything. Again, the last stimulus provided a temporary relief to local and state governments. It's not a long term solution. If it were, we'd have lower unemployment and fewer on food stamps. That is not the case.

Your portrayal of the GOP, again, is so far off and unrealistic. If the left put more energy into free market, private sector economic growth and less in promises and free handouts, we wouldn't have record levels of poverty and unemployment.

Minimum wage raise and another "stimulus" aren't happening either way, so you can cry all you want and continue to let your heart bleed, but I think we can move on.

 

[GoIrish41]

The federal government is not supposed to be providing money to states for cops, teachers, and firefighters. It is not DC's duty to provide these types of jobs. FBI? CIA? Secret Serivce? Yeah, sure. Sadly, this principle/ constitutional concept has been lost or ignored over the past few decades. States need to figure this out and get their $hit together financially instead of relying on DC for everything. Again, the last stimulus provided a temporary relief to local and state governments. It's not a long term solution. If it were, we'd have lower unemployment and fewer on food stamps. That is not the case.

Your portrayal of the GOP, again, is so far off and unrealistic. If the left put more energy into free market, private sector economic growth and less in promises and free handouts, we wouldn't have record levels of poverty and unemployment.

Minimum wage raise and another "stimulus" aren't happening either way, so you can cry all you want and continue to let your heart bleed, but I think we can move on.

There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents the federal government from contributing funding to critical services in the states. These are state responsibilities, and the states ask for funding from the federal government to keep these services afloat. If it were as easy as "the states need to get their sh*t together" there wouldn't be thousands of cops, firefighters and teachers out of work. You'd think that at least some states wouldn't take any money from the fed, but that isn't the case. They all do. Without federal assistance, critical institutions would crumble in every state.

The GOP has lost the popular vote in five of the past six elections -- even when they tried to stack the deck in their favor. In the last election, they lost despite the sitting president having 8.0-plus unemployment numbers and a growing defecit (both of which the public widely blames on the Republicans). Their GOP's demographic disadvantage grows every day in this country and their backward economic policies -- policies that have been in place for the past 30 years and have failed this country -- make increasinglly less sense to voters. On top of that, they continue to alienate huge groups of people with their rhetoric about gay marriage, women's reproductive rights, and immigration. I don't think my "portrayal" is far off or unrealistic. But you go ahead and hope against hope that I am wrong while the rest of the country passes you by.

 

[Black Irish]

Big government anti-poverty programs have been in place for decades, not to mention entitlements that also benefit the middle class (e.g. Social Security). Billions, if not trillions, have been spent. So is the supposed lack of progress among the poor and working class really the result of conservative economic policies? The New Deal and The Great Society had a huge head start on Reaganomics. You'd think if these big government welfare and entitlement programs were so effective, they'd have been too strong to get torn down by some tax cuts.

 

[Bluto]

Denial file haha. I anticipated you wouldn't be able to "find" anything but Op-eds, so I bookmarked a few at home. I'll be happy to send them your way when I get home from work. Probably won't change your mind because your conclusion has already been reached, but just to show you what you can't "find" and back up my statements, I will.

Here's Fox News (people consider leaving)

California residents, businesses consider bailing on Golden State over taxes | Fox News

Here's an article from The Manhattan Insitute (not really sure who they are). Basically says the same thing as the article from Forbes.

Civic Report 71 | The Great California Exodus: A Closer Look

So according to the census and the articles cited the net loss in population for 2011 was about 100,000 people out of a total population of about 40,000,000. That's a .0025 percent change in population. Not exactly the Isrealites fleeing the Pharoah kind of stuff.

So there you have it. Again most of the people pulling a chicken little (Fox) have an obvious bias and or agenda. If you are in fact interested in a good book on California and how it got to where it is politically and economically Paradise Lost by Peter Schrag is the place to start.

 

[Ndaccountant]

There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents the federal government from contributing funding to critical services in the states. These are state responsibilities, and the states ask for funding from the federal government to keep these services afloat. If it were as easy as "the states need to get their sh*t together" there wouldn't be thousands of cops, firefighters and teachers out of work. You'd think that at least some states wouldn't take any money from the fed, but that isn't the case. They all do. Without federal assistance, critical institutions would crumble in every state.

The GOP has lost the popular vote in five of the past six elections -- even when they tried to stack the deck in their favor. In the last election, they lost despite the sitting president having 8.0-plus unemployment numbers and a growing defecit (both of which the public widely blames on the Republicans). Their democraphic disadvantage grows every day in this country and their backward economic policies -- policies that have been in place for the past 30 years and have failed this country -- make increasinglly less sense to voters. On top of that, they continue to alienate huge groups of people with their rhetoric about gay marriage, women's reproductive rights, and immigration. I don't think my "portrayal" is far off or unrealistic. But you go ahead and hope against hope that I am wrong while the rest of the country passes you by.

Personally, I understand what you are saying. However, I would much rather have the federal funding cut off to states (assuming this means federal taxes are lowered) even if the states increase taxes. My vote is much more meaningful at the state level than the federal level. My voice on the issue is enhanced and I have a much greater chance of seeing services that I pay for (some states get more/less money that what they pay in taxes. While some states are helped by this, I am a firm believer that people need to understand what it costs to have certain services). While I have a "representitive" in the House and Senate, the ability of my voice and locality to sway national politics is very limited.

 

[RDU Irish]

The American education system is actually supposed to create productive and upstanding citizens. They should know how the government works and how they can influence the government/elections. They should be able to critically think, problem solve, and use teamwork/leadership to find solutions. The problem is there is a disconnect with what I just said and reality. We are creating citizens with little knowledge of how our country works, students whine when they aren't told the answers, group projects are seen as a way for slacking off, and more students want to be mindlessly told what to do than actually have an individual thought. This problem is cause by many factors: standardized tests, the google effect, limited parental involvment, social media, social pressures, and cultural problems (popularity of Jersey Shore and all reality TV).

You are a great American.

 

[GoIrish41]

Personally, I understand what you are saying. However, I would much rather have the federal funding cut off to states (assuming this means federal taxes are lowered) even if the states increase taxes. My vote is much more meaningful at the state level than the federal level. My voice on the issue is enhanced and I have a much greater chance of seeing services that I pay for (some states get more/less money that what they pay in taxes. While some states are helped by this, I am a firm believer that people need to understand what it costs to have certain services). While I have a "representitive" in the House and Senate, the ability of my voice and locality to sway national politics is very limited.

this is a fair point. personally, I don't care if schools are paid at the federal, state or local level so long as it is paid for and students receive a quality education. I think that if the federal government stopped funding and the states were left to raise taxes to make up the difference, many, many students in this country would be left high and dry because some states would opt out of raising taxes at a level sufficient to provide a quality education.

 

[Ndaccountant]

this is a fair point. personally, I don't care if schools are paid at the federal, state or local level so long as it is paid for and students receive a quality education. I think that if the federal government stopped funding and the states were left to raise taxes to make up the difference, many, many students in this country would be left high and dry because some states would opt out of raising taxes at a level sufficient to provide a quality education.

That may be the case.

Maybe I am a dreamer, but I really do love what my city does. Each year when I get my property tax bill, I get a breakdown of how much money went to each department (police / fire / education / sanitation / etc), how much tax was collected in the city and how results of the actual spend vs budget for each department. Additionally, it lists out propositions that will be voted on for additional local sales tax or additional propoert tax and what the reveneue would go to.

While all this information is available to anyone who wanted to see it, I think there is an inherint value in seeing how much you spend for certain activities and the impact of additional tax increases / decreases as you pay your taxes. I think there is a major problem in this country in that people do not know how services cost. We can't identify with $50B federal program spend. That number is too big to comprehend. But, $4,750 in propery taxes going to your local police, who have an annual budget of $12.1m, those numbers hit home. I would love for my state to do this.

 

[chicago51]

This is what it means to me to a liberal. Not necessarily a democrat as there are some spineless gutless democrats like Harry Reid is more worried about traditions of the Senate than acting on meaningful legistration. While it is commonly suggested that liberalism is anti constitution. I would argue liberalism is what the framers meant by promoting the general welfare.

Whatever Happened to "We the People"?
By Thom Hartmann
Berrett-Koehler Publishing

Friday 23 November 2007

The following is an excerpt from Thom Hartmann's new book, Cracking the Code: How to Win Hearts, Change Minds, and Restore America's Original Vision.
We the people

The traditional American liberal story is the story of We the People.

As Americans, the most important part of our social identity is our role as citizens. To be a citizen means to be part of, and a de- fender of, the commons of our nation. The water we drink, the air we breathe, the streets we drive on, the schools that we use, the departments that protect us - these are all the physical commons. And there are also the cultural commons - the stories we tell ourselves, our histories, our religions, and our notions of ourselves. And there are the commons of our power systems (in the majority of American communities), our health-care system (stolen from us and privatized over the past twenty-five years, our hospitals in particular used to be mostly nonprofit or run by mostly city or county governments), and the electronic commons of our radio and TV spectrum and the Internet.

Most important for citizenship is the commons of government - the creation and the servant of We the People.

Franklin D. Roosevelt understood this commons. In his "Four Freedoms" speech, he said, "Necessitous men are not free men." Hungry people aren't free people, no matter what you want to call them. Hungry people can't be good citizens: they're too busy taking care of the hungry part of themselves to care about the citizen part.

Republicans don't want to fund FDR's social safety net because they fundamentally do not believe in the concept of We the People collectively protecting all of us in anything other than a military/police way. They don't believe that "the rabble" should run the country. They want big corporations to run the commons of our nation, and they think that the most appropriate role for citizens is that of infantilized consumers - of both commercial products and commercially produced political packaging.

This is the fundamental debate in our society: Are we a nation of citizens or a nation of consumers? Are we a democracy run by citizens, or are we a corporatocracy that holds consumers locked in dependency by virtue of their consumption?

Consumerism appeals to the greedy and selfish child part of us, the infantilized part that just wants someone else to take care of us. The core message of most commercials is that "you are the most important person in the world." Commercial advertising almost never mentions "we" or "us."

What is at stake today is the very future of our democratic republic. If we accept an identity as fearful, infantilized consumers, we will be acting from our baby part and allowing corporate America and an increasingly authoritarian government to fill the role of a parent part.

The story we are told is that we should surrender all of our power to corporations and just let them govern us because a mystical but all-knowing godlike force called "the free market" will eventually solve all of our problems.

That story fits in very well with the conservatives' other story: that we are children who need to be protected from evil humans; and because corporations are amoral and not human, they are intrinsically and morally superior to evil humans.
To save democracy we must crack that code and bring back the code so well understood by the Founders of this nation: that we're a country of barn-builders, of communities, of intrinsically good people who work together for the common good and the common wealth. We begin this process by speaking to the responsible part of us, the part that enjoys being grown up and socially responsible.

The story we have to tell is the story of citizenship derived from our best and most noble parts. It's the story of We the People.

We talk a lot about the features of citizenship, like the right to vote, but we sometimes forget what the benefits are. The main benefit of citizenship is freedom - not freedom from external or internal dangers (although that is included in the package, it's only one of the six purposes listed in the Preamble to the Constitution) that conservatives obsess on, but freedom to think as we want, to pray as we want, to say what we want, and to live as we want to fulfill our true potential as humans (the other five things listed in the Preamble).

The question, ultimately, is whether our nation will continue to stand for the values on which it was founded.

Early American conservatives suggested that democracy was so ultimately weak it couldn't withstand the assault of newspaper editors and citizens who spoke out against it, leading John Adams (our second president and our first conservative president) to pass America's first Military Commissions Act-like laws: the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. President Thomas Jefferson, who beat Adams in the "Revolution of 1800" election, rebuked those who wanted America ruled by an iron-handed presidency that could - as Adams had - throw people in jail for "crimes" such as speaking political opinion, and without constitutional due process.

"I know, indeed," Jefferson said in his first inaugural address on March 4, 1801, "that some honest men fear that a republican government cannot be strong; that this government is not strong enough." But, Jefferson said, our nation was "the world's best hope" precisely because we put our trust in We the People.

--------

Thom Hartmann is an author and nationally syndicated daily talk show host. His newest book is We The People: A Call To Take Back America.

 

[chicago51]

That may be the case.

Maybe I am a dreamer, but I really do love what my city does. Each year when I get my property tax bill, I get a breakdown of how much money went to each department (police / fire / education / sanitation / etc), how much tax was collected in the city and how results of the actual spend vs budget for each department. Additionally, it lists out propositions that will be voted on for additional local sales tax or additional propoert tax and what the reveneue would go to.

While all this information is available to anyone who wanted to see it, I think there is an inherint value in seeing how much you spend for certain activities and the impact of additional tax increases / decreases as you pay your taxes. I think there is a major problem in this country in that people do not know how services cost. We can't identify with $50B federal program spend. That number is too big to comprehend. But, $4,750 in propery taxes going to your local police, who have an annual budget of $12.1m, those numbers hit home. I would love for my state to do this.

I agree with this. It would be nice to see transparency.

 

[chicago51]

His nomination should require a 60 vote threshold... this isn't exactly a filibuster.

The thing is that the hold is allegadly because Hagel took money from radical groups. Ok that is a legitimate issue if true. Yet during the confirmation hearing not one person asked about this "money". It is after the fact now that it is time for a vote that they are bring it up which leads me to think it is made up.

Bottom line though this has never happened before. The fact is Obama for whatever reason has had to deal with more hate than any other President before him.

 

[GoIrish41]

Big government anti-poverty programs have been in place for decades, not to mention entitlements that also benefit the middle class (e.g. Social Security). Billions, if not trillions, have been spent. So is the supposed lack of progress among the poor and working class really the result of conservative economic policies? The New Deal and The Great Society had a huge head start on Reaganomics. You'd think if these big government welfare and entitlement programs were so effective, they'd have been too strong to get torn down by some tax cuts.

I'm not going to go through each "entitlement" (hate that application of this word) program and make a defend it, but lets use Medicare as an example.

The long term deficits that we face in programs such as Medicare and in the private healthcare market are primarily driven by rapid rates of growth in healthcare costs. According to an Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) study, "health expenditure as a share of GDP in the U.S. has always been higher than the OECD average, but the gap has widened a lot in recent decades. Since 1970, the United States. has outstripped all other high-income OECD countries, with a five-fold increase in health spending per capita in real terms. Health expenditure as a share of GDP was 40 percent higher than the OECD average in 1970. It is now 80 percent higher."
Source here: Why Does Health Care Cost So Much in the United States? | PBS NewsHour

These dramatic increases have a direct effect the solvency of programs like Medicare just as they are making healthcare on the private market much more expensive. Are there inefficiencies in Medicare? Sure there are, not the least of which is fraud within the system by healthcare providers. Lawmakers have put limitations on the Medicare system that limits their ability to negotiate prices with drug companies. Why would they do that? We as a nation should be working to put reforms in place that will address these inefficiencies without affecting the quality of care that people are receiving.

But, lets be fair. The free market economy is at least as much to blame for the insolvency in Medicare as the government is. I have read countless posts on this thread about how the government is incapable of efficiency while praising the free market system as a beacon of efficiency. I call BS. No organization running a program the size and scope of Medicare could absorb the massive cost increases that have been thrust upon it without running into financial problems.

I will briefly touch on Social Security, too. Its solvency is largely affected by decades of raiding the trust fund by our own lawmakers, who have a long history of kicking the can down the road. We can see that in the series of man made crisis' that this and the last Congress have made an art form. Baby Boomer retirements will also jolt the system, but again, reforms can and should be made to ensure this program remains in tact without affecting the security it provides (not privitization).

 

[GoIrish41]

That may be the case.

Maybe I am a dreamer, but I really do love what my city does. Each year when I get my property tax bill, I get a breakdown of how much money went to each department (police / fire / education / sanitation / etc), how much tax was collected in the city and how results of the actual spend vs budget for each department. Additionally, it lists out propositions that will be voted on for additional local sales tax or additional propoert tax and what the reveneue would go to.

While all this information is available to anyone who wanted to see it, I think there is an inherint value in seeing how much you spend for certain activities and the impact of additional tax increases / decreases as you pay your taxes. I think there is a major problem in this country in that people do not know how services cost. We can't identify with $50B federal program spend. That number is too big to comprehend. But, $4,750 in propery taxes going to your local police, who have an annual budget of $12.1m, those numbers hit home. I would love for my state to do this.

That is awesome that your city does that. Unfortunately, I think this is the exception to the rule.

 

[chicago51]

I'm not going to go through each "entitlement" (hate that application of this word) program and make a defend it, but lets use Medicare as an example.

The long term deficits that we face in programs such as Medicare and in the private healthcare market are primarily driven by rapid rates of growth in healthcare costs. According to an Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) study, "health expenditure as a share of GDP in the U.S. has always been higher than the OECD average, but the gap has widened a lot in recent decades. Since 1970, the United States. has outstripped all other high-income OECD countries, with a five-fold increase in health spending per capita in real terms. Health expenditure as a share of GDP was 40 percent higher than the OECD average in 1970. It is now 80 percent higher."
Source here: Why Does Health Care Cost So Much in the United States? | PBS NewsHour

These dramatic increases have a direct effect the solvency of programs like Medicare just as they are making healthcare on the private market much more expensive. Are their inefficiencies in Medicare? Sure their are, not the least of which is fraud within the system by healthcare providers. Lawmakers have put limitations on the Medicare system that limits their ability to negotiate prices with drug companies. Why would they do that? We as a nation should be working to put reforms in place that will address these inefficiencies without affecting the quality of care that people are receiving.

But, lets be fair. The free market economy is at least as much to blame for the insolvency in Medicare as the government is. I have read countless posts on this thread about how the government is incapable of efficiency while praising the free market system as a beacon of efficiency. I call BS. No organization running a program the size and scope of Medicare could absorb the massive cost increases that have been thrust upon it without running into financial problems.

I will briefly touch on Social Security, too. Its solvency is largely affected by decades of raiding the trust fund by our own lawmakers, who have a long history of kicking the can down the road. We can see that in the series of man made crisis' that this and the last Congress have made an art form. Baby Boomer retirements will also jolt the system, but again, reforms can and should be made to ensure this program remains in tact without affecting the security it provides (not privitization).

We don't have a Medicare problem we have a health care cost problem.

Say with me folks.

 

[ACamp1900]

The fact is Obama for whatever reason has had to deal with more hate than any other President before him.

Do you honestly believe this?? I seem to remember a president or two being murdered... and every president in recent times has faced quite a bit of 'hate' from the other side... Bush and Clinton faced more than their share and just as much as anything today... I think the Obamaites view is skewed by their emotions a bit on this topic, I really do.

Overall I can't believe i just posted in this thread again, I keep seeing it on the front page and just had to see what in the world everyone kept up with it for... Last few pages are nothing but the same political pissing matches... my side is good, your side sucks, my thought is what the founder's intended and every bit of bad going on in the country is your side's fault...

 

[chicago51]

Do you honestly believe this?? I seem to remember a president or two being murdered... and every president in recent times has faced quite a bit of 'hate' from the other side... Bush and Clinton faced more than their share and just as much as anything today... I think the Obamaites view is skewed by their emotions a bit on this topic, I really do.

Overall I can't believe i just posted in this thread again, I keep seeing it on the front page and just had to see what in the world everyone kept up with it for... Last few pages are nothing but the same political pissing matches... my side is good, your side sucks, my thought is what the founder's intended and every bit of bad going on in the country is your side's fault...

I am refering to legistlative hate not necessarily "hate hate"

 

[ACamp1900]

On a somewhat related note, I just had some transcritps hit my desk from a "George C. Wallce Community College"...

I am aware of his FULL sotry, but that is still crazy to think there is a college named after him in this era...

anyway, enjoy your thread...

 

[GoIrish41]

On a somewhat related note, I just had some transcritps hit my desk from a "George C. Wallce Community College"...

I am aware of his FULL sotry, but that is still crazy to think there is a college named after him in this era...

anyway, enjoy your thread...

You'll be back

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

4 more years! 4 more years! Unfortunately, our president and most in his party will not learn from mistakes or even admit that the first "stimulus" failed miserably. This is the "fundamental transformation."


Obama's Economic Growth Record Is The Worst In 60 Years

Wed, Feb 13 2013 00:00:00 E A13_ISSUES
By Jeffrey H. Anderson
Investor's Business Daily

Posted 02/12/2013 06:37 PM ET

0.8% — The Abysmal Rate of Economic Growth under Obama

President Obama's defense of his economic stewardship has effectively amounted to this: At least we no longer have the Bush-era economy. With an entire 4-year term in the books, it's now possible to confirm, and to lament, the essential truth of those words.

Prior to Obama, the second term of President Bush featured the weakest gains in the gross domestic product in some time, with average annual real (inflation-adjusted) GDP growth of just 1.9%. That's according to figures from the federal government's own Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).

Obama's first term, however, puts the paltry level of growth during Bush's second term in a newly favorable light. According to the BEA, average annual real GDP growth during Obama's first term was a woeful 0.8%.

To put Obama's mind-bogglingly low number in perspective, consider this: It was less than half the tally achieved during Bush's second term. It was barely a quarter of the tally achieved under President Carter.

It was the worst tally achieved during any presidential term in the past 60 years.

And here's the kicker: If it had been doubled (to 1.6%), it still would have been the worst tally in the past 60 years.

True, Obama inherited a recession, but that recession only lasted for the first six months of his term. Eighty-eight percent of his term was post-recession.

In comparison, that same recession covered fully one year of Bush's second term — a full 25% of it. Yet, Bush's second term witnessed well over twice the growth of Obama's first.

Moreover, the abysmal performance of the economy in 2009 (Obama's first year in office) gave it plenty of opportunity to grow rapidly in the years to follow — there was essentially nowhere for it to go but up.

Misery On Main Street

In fact, the real GDP in 2009 was lower than it had been three years earlier (in 2006). Only two other times since 1932 had that been the case: in 1933 and '34 (during the Great Depression), and from 1946-48 (coming out of World War II).

But it's what the economy did in the subsequent three years in each instance that's striking:

From 1935-37, under Roosevelt, real GDP growth reached as high as 13.1% (in 1936).

From 1949-51, under Truman, real GDP growth reached as high as 8.7% (in 1950).

From 2010-12, under Obama, real GDP growth hit a mere 2.4% (in 2010) — and never again hit even that meager mark in the two years following ObamaCare's passage.

Of course, GDP growth isn't the only measure of economic prosperity — and, in truth, even the puny 0.8% rate of growth under Obama hasn't extended to those who aren't well connected to the Big Government-Big Business alliance. On Main Street, things haven't gotten 0.8% better; they've gotten worse.

Figures from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey, compiled by Sentier Research, show that the real median American household income dropped 8.1% — and more than $4,500 — from December 2008 to December 2012. (It rose 1.7% during Bush's second term — a nearly 10-point swing vs. Obama's tally.)

Trio Of Failures

What's more, according to figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the portion of Americans at or above the age of 16 who were employed dropped by 2.4 percentage points from December 2008 to December 2012 — from 61 % to 58.6%. (It dropped by only 1.4% during Bush's second term.)

If there were a Triple Crown of economic failure for one presidential term, it might justly be awarded to a president who managed to oversee only 0.8% average annual growth (the worst in six decades), failed to steer even that paltry growth toward the middle class (whose real incomes dropped substantially), and likewise failed to spur greater employment (as employment dropped significantly).

It will be interesting to see how much longer Obama — and his fawning allies in the press corps — can convince Americans, in spite of all evidence, that they have it better now than they did under Bush.

 

[DSully1995]

4 more years! 4 more years! Unfortunately, our president and most in his party will not learn from mistakes or even admit that the first "stimulus" failed miserably. This is the "fundamental transformation."

That doesnt even mention the Ben Bernanke, liek it or not, the fed has a larger role in my opinion

 

[chicago51]

Could Obama's low growth be because we had the worst economic down turn since the Great Depression?

Hey I will be real. The stimulus did not work to the extent that economists was said it would. The real issue is that it gave money to state and local governments for projects. The problem was the local and state government's simply took the stimulus money and cut back on their on funding. Bottom line we should not have given stimulus funds for infastructure unless state government spent an equal amount to what they did the previous year. That part was a big mistake but it was better than doing absolutely nothing.

What is the Republican plan to fix the economy? Cut back on helping people, and hope it will fix itself. That seems to be the conservative reasoning. When their is a problem with economy leave it alone and it will fix itself. The "your on your own" plan.

You notice the conservatives always turn the attention to the deficit. They complain about the economy but don't really put out job solutions. They are trying to convince people that cutting back on our debt will somehow grow the economy.

How is simply cutting the debt going to fix the economy?

Consider this: The government is funded by the private sector through taxation. Now if you have a budget surplus what does that mean? It means you have a private sector deficit because the government is pulling more money out of the economy than it is putting it back in. So some debt is actually a good thing because it means a private sector surplus.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

At the Army laboratory where I work more than half of the workforce is eligible for retirement within the next ten years. In our colleges and universities, fewer and fewer students are graduating with science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) degrees that will be needed in order for my lab and virtually every other lab across the country, civilian or government, to find a pool of employees to fill the jobs that will be vacated. The Department of Defense sends a lot of money to its laboratories to develop educational outreach campaigns that aim to encourage students to pursue STEM careers. I think this is an excellent use of government resources that are targeted at helping to fix a long-term problem.

Might be the first time, but I agree. If you look at American kids' math and science scores vs the rest of the world, it's embarrassing (google "PISA scores"). We're not even top 20 in these two categories. Also doesn't help that we're watering everthing down, babying these kids, telling them they never do anything wrong, etc.

With that said, each school district/ county has the freedom to design their curricula as they see appropriate. Programs like "no child left behind" and "race to the top" should not infringe in education because all those decisions should be left first to the district then the state.

Sidenote: I spent 3 years in education (left for some reasons stated above), my dad is a junior high asst principal, and half of my extended family is in the biz. Most of them are dedicated and work really hard for all the right reasons. But a lot needs to change and it won't be easy.