Not to you

Post #310,665 by crazy 7/9/09 11:34:36 AM Reply	Not to you Without the financial collapse Obama would not have been swept in. A lot of people are in significant agreement with his social policies. ;-} So I consider it a crisis, a perfect moment, with winners and losers. With the stock market and housing collapse, he's put in a position of having to deal with no-win situation. But it sure granted him the presidency. With the Greenhouse gasses == human harm EPA ruling, he essentially got all the leverage he needed to take on energy interests, across the entire spectrum of production to consumption. With the autos tanking, he was handed the industry on a silver platter. Which means he has to do something, and why not have some fun with it? Sure, he has a social policy bend that pisses you off. Oh well. I like most of them. I'll expect it to go too far, And in 10 years there to be another "get off welfare" push, and it'll swing around. At that point, maybe the economy is strong, maybe not, but that portion is long overdue for some help after the Bush years. I know there will be a shitload of abuse, there always is. But I'd rather see a lot of people screw the system for a few dollars apiece, then a few at the top rake in billions and just tank the whole damn thing for the fun of it. Crisis == Opportunity Always. BTW: Hey A'Scott: Am I full of shit, or is box, or is it somewhere in between? I don't claim to be able to analyze 8 years ago, but I sure as hell remember the good times, and anything I was reading at that time talked about the surplus. The combined tax cuts with the "emergency" war allocations pretty much wiped it out, and we've been digging deeper ever since.
Post #310,668 by boxley 7/9/09 12:02:27 PM Reply	if you remove payroll taxes collected that are dedicated funds, the feds under clinton spent more than they collected. Granted the economy was in great shape at the time, a nicely gridlocked government cant spend like drunken repulicans or drunken democrats and the budget actually was able to pay down some debt, but a surplus? Didnt happen and during Clinton's last State of the Union Address he projected spending all of it and running up some huge deficits. Shrub went straight to chaotic financial theory and spending went wild because he owned the house and senate Spending is going wild because Obama owns the house and senate Give me a gridlock during the next election cycle please thanx, bill
Post #310,679 by crazy 7/9/09 1:09:20 PM Reply	No gridlock for me Gridlock is fine when the country is going in a good forward motion. Gridlock right now would simply solidify our downward spiral. You may be good with that, you can go camping in the woods as the world goes to shit, but I can't. I depend on the infrastructure and some semblance of a rational society. It has not been rational for the last 8 years. So a vote for gridlock is a vote to lock into the US as it has been. Nope, seen it, don't want to see it again.
Post #310,678 by beepster 7/9/09 1:08:56 PM Reply	Hmmmm Without the financial collapse Obama would not have been swept in. A lot of people are in significant agreement with his social policies. ;-} 52% "swept" him in, 54% agree with the stimulus. So if his support is "significant", so is his opposition. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #310,681 by boxley 7/9/09 1:28:20 PM Reply	they deserve a shot I remember being interviewed when reagan was running about voodoo economics. I stated, we have tried it their way for several decades and we are still in the toilet, why not try it. The same argument after Bush is "he failed abjectly, let the new guy give it a try" he is trying and failing so the pendulum will swing yet again
Post #310,684 by crazy 7/9/09 1:46:05 PM Reply	"he is trying and failing" Wow. What's the date? How long have you given to accomplish the goal? Ok, this comes down to: Holy shit, how dumb can you be if you expect much yet? On the other hand, stuff is happening that you don't like. He's not failing, he doing stuff. Whether or not that stuff will accomplish the final goal is unknown to most people. It'll take years, possibly a decade for this stuff to play out. For some reason, you feel you know. Wanna tell me who to bet on in the next superbowl while you're at it?
Post #310,686 by boxley 7/9/09 2:02:04 PM Reply	if you can get 3-1 or better patriots decades my ass. He used the financial crisis to push a social agenda, failure is measured by money expended versus financial results achieved measured not by dow jones but by demand and unemployment. So when do you expect the unemplyment rate to get to 6% decades? Hope not thanx, bill
Post #310,689 by crazy 7/9/09 2:15:04 PM Reply	6%? Decades? Maybe Go ahead box, give me a solution to put to work those people that are not part of the current recovery. And make sure you have it complete in 7 months. Don't forget to account for their salary loss and health care costs. Add in all those "discouraged" people who they don't count anymore. No, I'd say the world has changed, and the vast majority of the elder (40+) that are out of work due to economy shifts are not going back to work any time soon, and when they do, their salary will be far less than it was before. It is a new world, and those who can't shift with it are screwed. And it is not necessarily any fault of their own, but it doesn't matter. They are screwed. A combination of protectionist policies could have delayed it, but it was inevitable once we started trading internationally heavily and the internet allows a large portion of the activity to happen "unnattended", which means less grunt work, which means the jobs left have a higher demand.
Post #310,691 by boxley 7/9/09 2:27:29 PM Reply	so a much smaller population making less money to support a much larger percentage of the population to the same lifestyle that the working get? hmm, with those parameters it makes more sense to be a non worker, the rent food and bennies are the same but you get to sleep in somehow I dont think that is going to work Housing forclosures are going up but rental vacancies are also going up. Not good
Post #310,694 by crazy 7/9/09 2:49:40 PM Reply	For a while I'd expect more people to be living together, multiple generations in a household, just like the old days. That reduces cost of living for these groups. That will drive down housing prices as demand remains soft, as well as rental requirements. But that other comment was classic red-herring. Why should I work if these people who are not working get these benefits that I am paying for, and they live as good as me. Well, they won't. Not as good as you box, because you are well qualified to make far more than these people, and you know it. This issue is the part of the population that barely qualifies for a "joe-job", and the fact that most of them are going away based on the current scenarios of industrial implosion. What will there decision process be? Try to get the government to pay for their life, or get a job that barely allows them to get more than they'd get anyway? Which I say is also bullshit. You have visions of a sub-class of people living off of you, and this makes you annoyed. I have no idea how that will play out, and what requirements there might be to get benefits, or if a 70s style welfare state is coming back. I guess it is possible. The father of my grandson would do this. Or at least he'd try. He's a worst case stereotype. Which means I accept that you have a powerful emotional argument. Emotional arguments are worthless, except to and from true believers. But the next time you are making a standing rib roast (yum), enjoying your multiple houses (you just bought one for the kid, right? Cool), take a moment to think about that blameless kid standing outside the closed emergency room. There are many scenarios that come into mind, and they simply don't matter. The room is closed. So, do you fund the hospital or preventative care? Or do you ignore it until it goes away.
Post #310,696 by boxley 7/9/09 3:03:53 PM Reply	not really kid used his own money for the house and standing rib roast, a monthly thing is now twice yearly. Yeah I make but barely. Still shop at goodwill and food depot, IGA etc. without that I couldnt afford anything else where is the closed emergency room? the ones around here are standing room only and only a few have funds to pay. The working folks pay for the rest. Walk in any emergency room. They HAVE to treat you regardless. Lets change that. Unless you are in immediate need of crisis medical help you get steered to the equally long but cheaper line at the county health clinic, My one brother already has his daughter and husband plus gran moved in. More are angling for the spots on the living room floor. A subclass of people is when you have workers thrust into minimum wage from stimulous money grants that specify davis bacon but the non profs want more for administrative salaries so are fighting to get the laws changed. Greed of the mid level gummint apparatchiks is just as high an the mbas of wall street no different. I dont resent, I dislike true believers of all stripes whether its the mullahs, peta or obamaites. They all have one thing in common, let us prey (thanx ash)
Post #310,683 by crazy 7/9/09 1:42:02 PM Reply	So more people support what he is doing than voted for him? Cool. And yes, swept is exactly what he got. As opposed to stole via brother's governership and Katherine Harris. Here's a key issue that you seem to forget. More people disagree with you than agree with you, and those numbers are getting larger on the social side as the older people die off. Standard generational change. The financial fluctuates, but the social advances. The culture war (and it is a war, people do die from it) is what triggers most people to vote, both on the right and the left. Everything else is details until people lose jobs. Then they get pissed. So as the revolt against (and revulsion of) of the Christian dominated government happens, and we spend some time throwing aside 8 years of poor decision making, we will find out if the rational players or the true believers can get the hearts and minds to the people. Or if another "I BELIEVE" asshole jumps in and scares enough people to counteract the growing non-religious base. Yeah, you'll give the standard "but I hated (or disagreed, etc) with Bush too", and pretend we don't notice the level of support you give to his policies, no matter how badly enacted. Occasionally you seem to pretend to not care either way, when someone calls you to task on it, but the bottom line, he (and repubs in general) are more closely aligned to your world view. So matter how bad they do, it is the lesser evil to you, so you seem to try support it without being overt about it. Well, not really. You are very overt for the most part (to us), but seem to be embarassed and deny it. Which should really make you think, are you really choosing the lesser evil? If abortion is your litmus test, then I assume you can always vote that way, and not care. But then you spend an awful amount of time defending the rest of the crap that happens from the same belief system. Those numbers are a tipping point. We find out in 2 years (mid-term elections) whether or not the public continues to support or yanks back.
Post #310,688 by boxley 7/9/09 2:11:20 PM Reply	why wait he won the independents the dems didnt have the numbers http://www.rasmussen...ial_tracking_poll since there is now almost more old farts as a percentage of population than ever before your other point doesnt make it either
Post #310,692 by crazy 7/9/09 2:30:01 PM Reply	I simply responded to Beep's numbers I know any number from any survey is suspect, driven by the questions. My comment on cultural issues remains. Older people die. Attitudes concerning rebellion any type of organised religion (which then leads to independent thinking) is the typical path. Almost all children wake up and stop believing in Santa Claus sooner or later. The same thought process happens in some adults for the rest of the sky pixies. Those that it doesn't, oh well, they weren't strong competitors anyway unless they are clinging to their group. Or outbreeding the rest. But more kids == more people to turn away from the bullshit, sooner or later. At least to me. This cycles back and forth, which each swing being a bit louder. The non-religious can't really understand how bad it can be, so they aren't very active. Until we experience something like King George, and then it pushes them into action. So we get to see how the other side reacts now. Will we find some hidden majority? Will another Karl Rove show up and weave the various fighting factions together to elect someone as bad as Bush? Sure, it could happen. But now there is enough people who have seen it once, and will fight it.
Post #310,701 by beepster 7/9/09 4:36:58 PM Reply	Think you went a bit further than that... ..into the common theme of placing me on a side and then pretending the other side is this "vast majority". In pure numbers, yes 52 and 54% are more...but it isn't vast by any stretch of the imagination. And, in general, Rep will be alot closer to Libertarian than the Democrats will be, so saying I will generally like more of what they do than less is quite possibly fair...but it misses the entire point I make over and over and over again...which you seem to think is pretend. View #1 is that Washington is bad. It doesn't matter which side. And if we can solve a problem without them getting involved, we should...because they are more likely than not going to muck it up even worse. I would be equally critical of this stimulus had it come from Bush, as I was with the initial bank bailout that did come from Bush. Hell, we're still dealing with that impact on the hospitality industry (which is huge) because all of a sudden "meetings" became taboo...even the ones that had a real purpose, agenda and benefit. I can't wait to see what lands in this cap&trade bill that has nothing to do with environmental change...already we are hearing of the huge amount of pork and earmark in healthcare. All stuff that was supposed to go away...change...you know? Right. Its inside the beltway. The only change we get is to our expectation that things would be different, somehow. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #310,693 by Andrew Grygus 7/9/09 2:47:17 PM Reply	Actually, the incoming old farts . . . . . are quite different from the outgoing ones. Outgoing are the WWII knee-jerk patriots, incoming are the Vietnam generation.
Post #310,695 by crazy 7/9/09 2:50:19 PM Reply	Yay. Good point. Thanks.

Welcome to IWETHEY!