DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> The Presidental BS conference
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 75 of 241, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/11/2009 01:39:49 PM · #51
Originally posted by Flash:

My point is merely the ease at which those who supported Obama are excusing his violations. Some of which were pretty core points in his election rethoric.

Such as?
02/11/2009 01:51:50 PM · #52
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Flash:

My point is merely the ease at which those who supported Obama are excusing his violations. Some of which were pretty core points in his election rethoric.

Such as?


"Or take the second presidential debate on October 7, 2008. Obama noted that eliminating earmarks was “important,” but even more important “I want to go line by line through every item in the federal budget and eliminate programs that don’t work and make sure that those that do work, work better and cheaper.” This was his constant theme during the presidential debates to cut government.
So how do you go from campaigning to cut government spending and ban earmarks before the election on November 4 to start talking about a $500 to $700 billion stimulus plan in mid-November. What changed?
What exactly did he learn immediately after the election about the economy that caused him to go from a budget cutter to proposing the biggest increase in spending ever? Prior to the election, Obama was already regularly claiming that the economy was in the worst financial crisis since the depression. Do you cut spending when you are in the worst financial crisis since the depression, but massively increase it if you can claim that things have gotten a little worse?
...
I don’t know of any economic theory that explains Obama’s different policy positions. The most likely explanation is a simple one: Obama told voters what they wanted to hear during the campaign, not what he planned to do....
"
02/11/2009 02:26:44 PM · #53
Going on hearsay here, and haven't had time to properly document it, but wasn't here something about promising 5 days from a bill being passed before he signed it -- giving the public time to "look" at it?

Yet, currently,(IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY), there is a bill scheduled to be passed today (maybe?) and signed later this afternoon.

If things slow down here at work, I will look for facts, not that political discussions actually need them. :P
02/11/2009 03:23:56 PM · #54
Originally posted by Flash:

...how do you go from campaigning to cut government spending and ban earmarks before the election on November 4 to start talking about a $500 to $700 billion stimulus plan in mid-November...

First of all, good luck finding a common definition for earmarks. Some will say that ANY money set aside for a specific project (pretty much everything) is an earmark, while others refer to "Bridge to Nowhere" pet projects for a congressperson's state or district (national programs and institutions like the Smithsonian are not applicable). Without such a definition, debate is futile since the stimulus plan is either riddled with or practically devoid of earmarks per the different approaches.

Second, think about what government spending entails... the Bush tax cuts alone already cost the government trillions, while the war in Iraq rings up another $300+ million a day. You could cut every bit of waste and still have a higher budget if a national crisis makes such spending necessary. Say hello to Lehman, Merrill Lynch and AIG. I'm sure Obama had all sorts of idealistic goals of cutting costs and reducing the budget, but Wall Street's collapse just before the election threw a major monkey wrench into that. He can and probably will cut government waste and earmarks, but it'll to pale in comparison to the unexpected costs associated with the current crisis.

It's easy for armchair political critics to say the economy is only a little worse than it was in October, but is it really? The major bank stocks are down something like 80% since then, so shareholders and Wall St. in general apparently share a much bleaker view than they did back then. Should they also be bound by October forecasts? As I said before, Obama's critics would be whining whether he stuck to exactly what he pledged or not. Do you think McCain would be sticking to his $300 campaign plan for the economy now? If the stimulus plan were still at $175-200 billion, I seriously doubt John Lott would be heaping praise on Obama for keeping a promise while the economy goes down in flames. Right now we need to goose the economy, and while I'm not too keen on America going further into debt, the alternative isn't pretty either and I can't offer a better solution.
02/11/2009 03:29:24 PM · #55
Originally posted by karmat:

Going on hearsay here, and haven't had time to properly document it, but wasn't here something about promising 5 days from a bill being passed before he signed it -- giving the public time to "look" at it?

"We will publish all non-emergency legislation to the website for five days, and allow the public to review and comment before the President signs it."

The question is whether this economic crisis qualifies as an emergency. It probably does.
02/11/2009 03:48:25 PM · #56
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Flash:

...how do you go from campaigning to cut government spending and ban earmarks before the election on November 4 to start talking about a $500 to $700 billion stimulus plan in mid-November...

First of all, good luck finding a common definition for earmarks. Some will say that ANY money set aside for a specific project (pretty much everything) is an earmark, while others refer to "Bridge to Nowhere" pet projects for a congressperson's state or district (national programs and institutions like the Smithsonian are not applicable). Without such a definition, debate is futile since the stimulus plan is either riddled with or practically devoid of earmarks per the different approaches.

Second, think about what government spending entails... the Bush tax cuts alone already cost the government trillions, while the war in Iraq rings up another $300+ million a day. You could cut every bit of waste and still have a higher budget if a national crisis makes such spending necessary. Say hello to Lehman, Merrill Lynch and AIG. I'm sure Obama had all sorts of idealistic goals of cutting costs and reducing the budget, but Wall Street's collapse just before the election threw a major monkey wrench into that. He can and probably will cut government waste and earmarks, but it'll to pale in comparison to the unexpected costs associated with the current crisis.

It's easy for armchair political critics to say the economy is only a little worse than it was in October, but is it really? The major bank stocks are down something like 80% since then, so shareholders and Wall St. in general apparently share a much bleaker view than they did back then. Should they also be bound by October forecasts? As I said before, Obama's critics would be whining whether he stuck to exactly what he pledged or not. Do you think McCain would be sticking to his $300 campaign plan for the economy now? If the stimulus plan were still at $175-200 billion, I seriously doubt John Lott would be heaping praise on Obama for keeping a promise while the economy goes down in flames. Right now we need to goose the economy, and while I'm not too keen on America going further into debt, the alternative isn't pretty either and I can't offer a better solution.


Scalvert - it is really OK with me if you want to support and defend Obama. Just please admit that you criticised a liar last term and are forgiving one now.
02/11/2009 03:55:37 PM · #57
Originally posted by Flash:

Scalvert - it is really OK with me if you want to support and defend Obama. Just please admit that you criticised a liar last term and are forgiving one now.


Oh for gawdsake! The man campaigned for over two years on a sensible program for cutting government waste (who can argue with that?) only to be blindsided by a HUGE economic upheaval that has thrust him into an entirely different game. If he did what he'd been "promising" right now, we'd probably go under. He's not a miracle worker, and he's trying desperately to keep our economy afloat. Cut him some slack. This is not "lying".

Emerson: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."

R.
02/11/2009 04:13:02 PM · #58
Originally posted by Flash:

... Of course, it may be different if it is "your man" who is doing the misleading. ;-)

I think this is the crux of your argument, and yes, it is fascinating how different people view the same people and events so differently.
02/11/2009 04:13:11 PM · #59
I know this sounds stupid but so does a lot of the 455 amendments in the HR1 bill. But here is my proposal

Since the leaders of our country feel we need to insert a trillion dollars into the economy how about doing this.

Part 1
1. Issue every legal household a Economy Recovery Card (ERC) valued at $7,000.00
2. The card would be used like a gift card. It only has value to purchases within the US and can only be used to purchase not to save or pay off debt. If they can put restrictions on food stamp cards then they can on the ERC card.
3. Make people use it quickly but wisely by giving them some time before making a purchase but not let the wait a long time, after all this is a stimulus program. They could do that by having the card retain it's full value for six-months then it will begin depleting it's balance at a rate of 2% per month until the card is either used in full or reduced to zero.
4. The Card would would not be transferable and could not be sold. The sale or trade of a ERC card would be treated as a felony just like a food stamp card.

Part 2
1. All assets not used by the consumer (2% per month reduction) will be used to pay back the stimulus debt.
2. A central bank will NOT be allowed to hold the funds to back the ERC card. The funds will be distributed to regional banks in proportion of customers in their region with cards. This will allow banks to have more money on hand.
3. With the funds the regional banks can offer provisional loans at a rate of 9:1 freeing up some credit but they are not allowed to use the central banks provisional standard of 1:10 with this money.
4. Banks nor customers can earn interest on this money.

Part 3.
1. All federal taxes generated from the ERC Card will go toward the payment of this bill only.
2. All unused money taken from the ERC Cards will go toward the payment of this bill only.
3. The interest that would of been paid to the banks and/or customers will go toward the payment of this bill only.

Message edited by author 2009-02-11 16:21:49.
02/11/2009 04:22:46 PM · #60
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by karmat:

Going on hearsay here, and haven't had time to properly document it, but wasn't here something about promising 5 days from a bill being passed before he signed it -- giving the public time to "look" at it?

"We will publish all non-emergency legislation to the website for five days, and allow the public to review and comment before the President signs it."

The question is whether this economic crisis qualifies as an emergency. It probably does.


Actually, the bill I was thinking of was NOT the economic crisis. Had something to do with education, but will have to check.
02/11/2009 04:28:43 PM · #61
You're probably thinking of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
02/11/2009 04:42:21 PM · #62
Originally posted by SDW:

I know this sounds stupid but so does a lot of the 455 amendments in the HR1 bill. But here is my proposal

Since the leaders of our country feel we need to insert a trillion dollars into the economy how about doing this.

Part 1
1. Issue every legal household a Economy Recovery Card (ERC) valued at $7,000.00
2. The card would be used like a gift card. It only has value to purchases within the US and can only be used to purchase not to save or pay off debt. If they can put restrictions on food stamp cards then they can on the ERC card.
3. Make people use it quickly but wisely by giving them some time before making a purchase but not let the wait a long time, after all this is a stimulus program. They could do that by having the card retain it's full value for six-months then it will begin depleting it's balance at a rate of 2% per month until the card is either used in full or reduced to zero.
4. The Card would would not be transferable and could not be sold. The sale or trade of a ERC card would be treated as a felony just like a food stamp card.

Part 2
1. All assets not used by the consumer (2% per month reduction) will be used to pay back the stimulus debt.
2. A central bank will NOT be allowed to hold the funds to back the ERC card. The funds will be distributed to regional banks in proportion of customers in their region with cards. This will allow banks to have more money on hand.
3. With the funds the regional banks can offer provisional loans at a rate of 9:1 freeing up some credit but they are not allowed to use the central banks provisional standard of 1:10 with this money.
4. Banks nor customers can earn interest on this money.

Part 3.
1. All federal taxes generated from the ERC Card will go toward the payment of this bill only.
2. All unused money taken from the ERC Cards will go toward the payment of this bill only.
3. The interest that would of been paid to the banks and/or customers will go toward the payment of this bill only.


Doesn't sound stupid to me, though it sounds too simple and evenhanded to have a prayer of passing. I'll buy my coveted 5DII and the 16-35mm f/2.8 and the 180mm f/2.8 macro, sell my 10-22mm and 60mm macro, and have some money left over to buy some nice steaks 'n stuff and do my part for the local AND national economy by doing all this in local bricks'n'mortar stores. :-)

R.
02/12/2009 06:30:56 AM · #63
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

The man campaigned for over two years on a sensible program for cutting government waste (who can argue with that?) only to be blindsided by a HUGE economic upheaval that has thrust him into an entirely different game...
R.


Blindsided?

During the campaign he consistently called this the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression. He consistently blamed the Republicans for the mess. He consistently mocked McCain for suspending his campaign as grandstanding. And NOW he has been "Blindsided"?

I think not.

As Citymars has aptly pointed out; the crux of my argument is it depends on who your "man" is. We use behavior (as in misleading) to chastise and criticize the opposition, when the truth is, we are agenda driven, not behavior driven. Your man's agenda agrees with your own - at least enough to garner your support - thus you will excuse his misleading behavior.
02/12/2009 08:00:07 AM · #64
Originally posted by Flash:

Blindsided?

During the campaign he consistently called this the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression. He consistently blamed the Republicans for the mess. He consistently mocked McCain for suspending his campaign as grandstanding. And NOW he has been "Blindsided"?

Lehman, Merrill, AIG, et al. reared their ugly heads about 90 days before the election. The repercussions of that and the woes of other industries (auto) did not become fully apparent until sometime thereafter.
02/12/2009 08:25:20 AM · #65
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Doesn't sound stupid to me, ... and have some money left over to buy some nice steaks 'n stuff and do my part for the local AND national economy by doing all this in local bricks'n'mortar stores. :-)

R.


Do let me know when that happens. I would be willing to help the US economy by driving down for a visit, purchasing some shrimps, lobsters and the like, and try to finagle an invitation to dinner. I still drool when I think of your cooking... :O)

Ray
02/12/2009 09:19:17 AM · #66
//apnews.myway.com/article/20090212/D96A0AGO0.html

$13/week??? Why even bother?
02/12/2009 09:24:40 AM · #67
But Pelosi gets 30 million for her mouse and Reid gets his Vegas train so it's all good.

But no pork...

Yeah, we didn't just get screwed either.
02/12/2009 10:03:59 AM · #68
Originally posted by RayEthier:


Do let me know when that happens. I would be willing to help the US economy by driving down for a visit, purchasing some shrimps, lobsters and the like, and try to finagle an invitation to dinner. I still drool when I think of your cooking... :O)

Ray


Hell, Ray... If you're of a mind to help our poor, staggering economy, no need to wait for my Personal Stimulus Package™ to do it, since you've already volunteered to spring for the fixin's. Just come on down. If you REALLY want to help, I have an idea: Go ahead and buy me my 5DII and my 16-35 on the way down, and I *promise* to pay you back when my Personal Stimulus Package™ arrives. Unfortunately, I can't offer you any interest because the rules clearly state that the package is to be used for purchases, not interest payments, and I'm already stretching it by "repaying" you.

But you're a Canadian, which means you're reasonable, so I'm sure you'll understand. What week shall I pencil you in for?

R.
02/12/2009 03:26:47 PM · #69
Selloff gains steam -

"Financial sector: Banks and the broader market continue to react to the Obama administration's bank bailout plan announced earlier in the week and seen by critics as lacking details."
02/12/2009 03:39:56 PM · #70
I'm getting tired of hearing about how "the market" (usually meaning the DJIA) reacts -- these people are speculators (gamblers), not investors, and their daily attempts to score a quick (like today) profit skew stock figures enormously. Down 400 points one day, up 410 the next -- does anyone really believe those numbers have anything to do with the actual worth of those companies, or their ability to be profitable in a year, two years, five years? "Technical" investing is all about predicting what other traders will do (and betting on that prediction), not about establishing a company's worth.
02/12/2009 04:08:51 PM · #71
Originally posted by Flash:

Is Obama keeping his promises

Lest anyone get the impression that I have turned to the "other" side.


The arguments in this article are a dishonest way to judge Obama's performance so far. If you're driving down the road and you come upon a sign that says "Bridge Out - Detour," you will not ignore the warning signs and drive the car off the bridge (unless you're George W. Bush). You'll take the detour, assuming you're a responsible person of average intelligence with a flexible character. And Obama IS trying to keep his campaign promises by directing that some of the "recovery act" funds be spent on health care reform projects, energy reform projects and infrastructure projects. Reasonable and honest people will judge Obama on whether and to what extent his approach reverses the current economic trends.
02/12/2009 04:10:55 PM · #72
Originally posted by scalvert:

I wouldn't expect anyone getting "information" from a blog at Faux News to see daylight.


Faux News also printed this story on fossil proof of evolution. Must be false due to the source. Those darn Faux editors should know that no one believes their crap. Why even print this piece in support of evolution? That dog gone Faux News anyway. Crap - just crap.

Glad we finally agree on this evolution thing being a hoax. Faux News just proved it.

Oh wait - you mean that in this case Faux News was correct? There really was evolution and fossils are proof? We what is this country coming to. Obama gets elected and Faux News actually runs a truthful story. Well praise be!

;-)
02/12/2009 04:19:21 PM · #73
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

If you're driving down the road and you come upon a sign that says "Bridge Out - Detour," you will not ignore the warning signs and drive the car off the bridge ...

Sad to say, I know someone whose brother did exactly this, in her car ... :-(
02/12/2009 04:20:16 PM · #74
Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by scalvert:

I wouldn't expect anyone getting "information" from a blog at Faux News to see daylight.


Faux News also printed this story on fossil proof of evolution. Must be false due to the source. Those darn Faux editors should know that no one believes their crap. Why even print this piece in support of evolution? That dog gone Faux News anyway. Crap - just crap.

Glad we finally agree on this evolution thing being a hoax. Faux News just proved it.

Oh wait - you mean that in this case Faux News was correct? There really was evolution and fossils are proof? We what is this country coming to. Obama gets elected and Faux News actually runs a truthful story. Well praise be!

;-)


huh? shannon said blog. you're linking to an article that wasn't even originally written by fox news.
02/12/2009 04:21:01 PM · #75
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Flash:

Is Obama keeping his promises

Lest anyone get the impression that I have turned to the "other" side.


The arguments in this article are a dishonest way to judge Obama's performance so far. If you're driving down the road and you come upon a sign that says "Bridge Out - Detour," you will not ignore the warning signs and drive the car off the bridge (unless you're George W. Bush). You'll take the detour, assuming you're a responsible person of average intelligence with a flexible character. And Obama IS trying to keep his campaign promises by directing that some of the "recovery act" funds be spent on health care reform projects, energy reform projects and infrastructure projects. Reasonable and honest people will judge Obama on whether and to what extent his approach reverses the current economic trends.


It is not dishonest to remind voters that Obama ran on this being the "worst economic crisis since the Great Depression" and a fiscally sound economic plan with "line by line review" and "transparancey" with "earmark elimination". Reasonable and honest people will indeed judge Obama and so far he is not doing that well. Above a post linked Pelosi's "mouse" project and Reid's "train" project. Each linked article gave the details. If it looks like an earmark, smells like an earmark, walks like an earmark, and talks like an earmark, it might just be an earmark (aka Pork) regardless of what you call it. Wasn't one of the Dem's favorite campaign digs - something about a pig and lipstick. Well...
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 05/26/2020 01:50:44 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 05/26/2020 01:50:44 PM EDT.