Every day I visit tons of website, forums, and social networks for all types of topics, most of which are technology based in some sort of form. This election cycle has really brought out the best of the liberal “group think” mentality regarding Obama. On just about every social network Obama is praised as “the one” and any hint of disagreement with his policies or ideals is immediately responded with accusations of racism, or just plain insults. Anybody who wants to claim that liberals are tolerant to others, please give me a shout because I can quickly debunk that. Even here on our network of sites, there have been insults tossed at the slightest hint of either supporting McCain, or being against Obama. I’m certainly not saying conservatives don’t dish out their fair share, but the mentality of liberals has once again bordered on the insane and hateful.
It’s tough being a proud conservative, as I will say what I think regardless of what the group and mob mentality is. The real shame is so many people, especially bloggers in the tech area, are afraid to do the same. I have received so many private notes and comments in support of standing up for conservatism, it’s almost crazy. The best comparison I can make is how conservative actors in Hollywood are often ridiculed or turned down for roles because of their conservative beliefs, and the same mentality is going on right now in the blogosphere. Conservative bloggers, some of which can be considered A-list are having to remain silent about their thoughts on Obama and McCain, simply because they are afraid of retribution from their employers or just not being able to pickup work from other sites. It’s a shame, and it’s more telling about liberals than it is anything.
I am a conservative, I don’t like Obama, and I will never let anyone intimidate me because of that.
My reference was to the chart.
Regardless, over the past 12 years one cannot separate Bush's party from his congressional control. He's had carte blanche to enact whatever he wanted. And we've all paid the price.
Only the House had a clear majority of Democrats from the 2006 election. So, again, Bush has had the senate to set the legislative agenda and veto power. Though with the House under Democratic control, they've been able to stop or at least modify some things Bush.
And as I've concurred with previously, ALL members of congress can take blame for being in the pockets of the Wall Street lobby.
If one were to argue that regarding the needless invasion of Iraq, they would be mistaken. But I get your point and would present that Osama bin Laden STILL represents a credible, viable, proven threat that IS worth putting our military on. I think that type of military action makes your point AND my point, yes?
That may be an oversimplification, but this is just an online forum, not a doctoral dissertation (despite my posts to the contrary, hehe).
Yet, his point is very common right now. I've read numerous pieces recently wherein the current economic collapse is seen as a full repudiation of Reagan's "trickle down economics" as well as the laissez fair capitalism of Ayn Rand. In the same links I provided earlier, it clearly showed the gap between the upper 1% and everyone else has grown MUCH wider now under Bush. So those tax breaks that were supposed to help the wealthy reinvest in infrastructure, employees, new business, etc. apparently were not used for that at all. The majority of it, apparently, according to the numbers, just went into their pockets, and even more tragically, overseas.
Now, again, I am not against anyone making money. But there comes a time when it is clear a policy approach is NOT working, neither as it was pitched, nor for the country as a whole. The "top down" vs. "bottom up" analogy that Dozer speaks of is coming up a lot in conversations and so it may be that the pendulum is swinging back right now. I sure hope it is.
Now, NO ONE is advocating even French Socialist, let along Marxist philosophy here, but McCain/Palin tried the "the Socialists are coming! the Socialists are coming!" and that didn't work any better than the race baiting. At least for 52% of Americans.
So, it's my belief that after seeing how Americans were just forced (against their stated will) to buy out almost the entire financial sector, the taxpayers aren't going to accept "we can't afford basic universal healthcare for all". And that means a little Socialism is very likely coming to America. As far as I am concerned, it's long overdue.
That particular report was quoting the NY Times and others if you read it and I would imagine that you find them somewhat more to your liking. Do you deny that it happened? If so then rant to the NY Times and AP for false reporting.
A very selected choice of charts and figures. During any war in the US history the debt as gone up considerably as the attached charts from the same source shows. Just look at the figures during the WW2 years. However, as a % of GDP the debt now (prior to the recent housung bailout programs is actually lower than during much of the Clinton years. (As a note, I certainly give him credit for reducing that but he also was not fighting a war)
http://www.grabup.com/uploads/d559ffa3c6d79bfd0b01e8972000b3b2.png
As for the Chineese debt it is only 3% higher than it was in 1997 under Clinton and China is a far different coubtry now than it was then,
http://www.grabup.com/uploads/c3a2c5c9c18725ecb4e5ecfaec68fdc7.png
Oh okay. I just saw that it was on Drudge and, like many people with huffpo, I just dismissed it as tabloid drivel. I'll give it a read then, thanks!
I'm not debating the issue you bring up, and of course, I agree with your facts.
But I was asked to show HOW Bush's policies have affected the debt and the economy, etc. so I did. And these issues - the preemptive and needless invasion of Iraq, and the tax cut that put us underwater from a cash flow perspective - were his babies.
Unfortunately, buying out almost the entire financial sector appears now to be only the beginning. The bailout of the auto industry will be pushed through by the dems and I for one can't imagine that the airlines are far behind and of course the ever expanding insurance industry. It seems so sad to me on behalf of both parties that we have heard for years how impossible it was to adequarelty fund social security and yet they can spend what will surely be trillions after a one week debate on keeping failing companies afloat.
As for healthcare, it certainly won't be paid for. It might be borrowed for, but paid for? I can not see how.
There is a reason that the CEO of GM does not automatically get the Chairman of the Fed job.
I did miss that (the thread is a busy one). I appologize for not seeing your post you reference.
That is a matter of opinion not fact. But we do have the fact that ObamaBiden gave virtually nothing to charity over the past several years (despite making millions) and that traditionally, conservatives (those professsing to be) give more to charity than do liberals. We are talking about walking the walk - not a dissertation of who did what to whom in the economy.
Correction: You dont see or admit any.
ONly to a delusional or highly partisan person. We are still in Kosovo (an illegal action virtually identical to Russias invasion of Georgia), and the chinese sure dont think there is nothing there.
You said seances. Are you denying it now? Clearly you are using selective editing. That is your problem.
YOu dont know the meaning of the word. But I can see the new PC - slinging insults to conservatives is ok. Calling a liberal a liar when caught in one is taboo. All hail Big Brother.
Um, no it is not. It is the bastardized version. Check out what the founding fathers created. Hardly what you are alleging here, and you are dead wrong even then.
And you think tingling legs are Journalism? Dream on. Drudge never called himself a journalist, just a breaking news site (and he has the track record to prove it).
Dont you just love a source that sources itself! Can we have a more accurate source of your contention? One that sources the raw data and not itself?
You mean, like Social Security Reform? You mean, like reigning in Fanny & Freddy? You're a one-man myth machine, Ex.
All feelings & beliefs, not facts or critical analysis. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater is just fine & dandy now.
There's no debate over the cause of the economy being in bad shape right now? Really?
Your premise is that national debt has gone up - to which you blame tax cuts - and that is what caused the economy to worsen.
That's your argument is it not?
There is certainly no consensus as to the slowing economy's cause. There are lots of different hypothesis's in which you named one - yours. There's certainly a debate.
The difference is that your proof is simply that Bush has a low job approval rating (almost as low as the Democratic congress).
That's not proof, that's feel-good partisan fantasy.
You are NOT addressing the issues. Look, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but your pronouncements are not the same as proof or evidence.
You clearly stated earlier on that you support higher taxes because "You're not selfish". But you don't explain how the two are connected.
I think you are simply projecting your emotions onto others.
I don't know if you're serious or just oblivious. You have repeatedly tried to use your vast, famous, experience as proof unto itslf that your opinions are better than other people's opinions. And I have no problem with that if the person chooses to identify themselves. Like you said, I'd rather let the facts speak for themselves but you seem to go out of your way to bring yourself into the discussion but also desiring not to identify who you are.
I mean really, talk about hypocricy. I said our health care plan is good, you weren't willing to take my word for it, you wanted me to identify the plan. Yet, when roles are reversed, you expect us to simply take you at your word that you're an expert on these topics despite what seems to me to be a very limited grasp of economics.
I am happy to have us debate "like equal men". But if you want to do that, you're going to need to back up your partisan assertions with proof.
A Wiki page arguing tax cuts caused the debt is certainly a good start in proving that the tax cuts affected the national debt levels (though I remain quite skeptical because the evidence you showed is premised that the economy is zero sum and doesn't grow). And at least you explained in your opinion why you think the debt affected the economy.
But what really struck me is how you've repeatedly made the argument that supporting higher taxes is somehow compassionate or that you're not selfish because you believe this.
As for who you are, I have known who you are since the first post in this thread because in your profile, admins can see first and last names on WinCustomize. I haven't disclosed who you are to maintain your privacy. I have been gently trying to point out that your resume dosn't imply any sort of special business economic knowledge. But I'm happy to debate purely on the issues as long as you are willing to not try to back up your opinions with a rather unsubtle "I'm a rich guy so just take my word for it".
You say I'm misinterpeting you. Fine, educate me. What do you mean when you say that you're not selifhs in the context of supporting higher taxes? What do you mean when you say that I'm a basically a good guy IF I pass on my earnings to my employees versus other types of spending?
And then, just last night, I agreed to take your word on it once I had pressed the point for detail.
I'm one of the only people here providing debatable citations and links to public and verifiable information, instead of just personal opinions. You can pretend the wiki is biased, though it is peer reviewed, but the cited documents are public record, provided by this administration, and if anything are biased as much as possible in their favor, hehe. But it still makes the point pretty clearly. Again, I provide the citations so that they may be challenged. And when I have been proven inaccurate, I publicly have said so...three times by my count in this thread so far.
Thanks. But to follow your point, even with a 1-2% annual growith, it's crystal clear that our economy has not DOUBLED - like the debt has. And remember, those debt figures are NET, in other words, after growth, after revenues, etc. This is what we are left with that has had to be borrowed. Either way, we should be able to agree that our revenues versus expenditures are upside down now.
Again, you are confusing two or three separate points and blending them into one. That, as I have repeatedly said, was never my intention.
What I have actually said is that I believe it's time to give back a little after 8 years of deficit spending on the tax cuts and war. You are absolutely free to disagree and vote accordingly.
Which you didn't exploit until very recently in your postings. And that is what concerned me.
For which I respected, until...you know very well what you did to earn my condemnation on this issue. If you go no further, then I will return to the discussion at hand.
Apparently, you've only dredged up my creative resume. You might want to dig a little deeper and read between the lines a bit more, because everything I have said previously in this post is 100% accurate and you should be able to connect most of the dots now if you care to do so.
But regarding "special business economic knowledge", all I have ever said is that I have created and/or run companies small and large and it was my hope that my broad perspective might have some value as far as this thread was concerned. Neither of us is presenting ourselves as economic phD's here.
I've never said that. Period. In fact, my exact words were "I have been rich and I have been broke". But, more to the point, my positions on these issues have not changed regardless of what my financial position has been at the time. For example, when I've been wealthy, I've been grateful to be able to pay taxes and 2% either way didn't kill me.
As an aside, I will mention that you have shown an odd pattern of putting disparate things together to create a picture that turns out not to be the least bit accurate to what I've said. And then challenging me on it. It may be that the non-threaded nature of this forum, and both of our megaposting styles have confused things, but it's like there's this third person and we're both debating HIM!
Fair enough. Hopefully, this (and previous messages) clears up more of that.
I covered this earlier. If you've missed this, or perhaps I missed what you want me to answer more specifically, could you please quote me or give me the post #? I will address that as directly as I can, of course.
As for me, I believe that, as a society of men, we are all our brother's keeper. My tax point was in regards to getting us to pay our way and undo the damage we have done to our economy and the US dollar, etc. My universal health care point is that we need to join the rest of the civilized world and admit that not everything we do should be a purely for profit enterprise - especially when it is costing people their lives, physically or financially. I actually don't believe Obama's plan will go far enough, but maybe that will change once congress goes ahead with it. Or maybe he sees this as a baby steps process, loosening the grip the HMOs have on our health and welfare one step at a time. Time will tell.
Maybe a better word rather than selfish/unselfish would be sacrifice? What level of sacrifice I am willing to make to help my fellow man? What do you think?
As for you, I don't know you well enough to know how you feel about this. If I knew you as a friend perhaps this could be a more worthwhile conversation.
I already clarified that whole IF thing in a previous post. I was trying very hard NOT to make any assumptions, not insult you personally. And email can come off as cold and without nuance. I honestly believe this is a non-issue and there's no reason for you to have taken offense.
I hope this clears the detritus up and we can get back to discussing the issues.
I agree with you 100%, though I hold the administration and the GOP controlled congress PRIMARILY responsible for the state we are in today rather than just the Democrats.
Unfortunately, it's the Democrats who are going to be stuck with paying the check...or at least telling us how they suggest WE pay the check.
Yes, I posted this one as just my opinion and used words like "I've read" and "apparently" to make it clear it was just that. I also did not cite specific documents etc. because I was just indeed stating my opinion.
Yes, if you had clicked on the 52 hyperlink, it would have taken you to the footnotes of an article, pre-highlighting the footnoted source's name. Clicking on THAT link takes you to that source. To save confusion, this is the document cited.
http://www.cbpp.org/12-13-06bud.htm
Now this itself is an article with the table, etc. in it, but that table cites footnotes that discuss how the numbers were calculated from the Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, etc.
However, it can appear as though this deficit calculation is conservatively LOW, as most sources are quoting a total DEBT (ed: corrected from deficit) of $10-11 trillion as of today, including the bailouts, and this article only discusses an increase of $2.3 trillion on top of about $5 trillion when Bush came into office. But then again, this is dated 2006, so i assume the discrepencies are due to the intervening years plus bailout, etc.
Either way, MY OPINION is that the point is still convincingly made that we have been overspending compared to our revenues and if we hadn't have gone into Iraq and hadn't enacted the tax cut we might be much closer to debt free right now instead of at $11 trillion and climbing. I can only imagine how strong our dollar would be right now, how much leverage we might have with the Chinese, how closer we might be to reforming Social Security and Health Care, etc., if we weren't so damn far in the hole.
No, it sourced itself. I guess the clown anxious to prove a point forgot to edit his links.
I doubt that. And no, no where can I find anyone talking about a deficit of 10-11 trillion
I said the dems would push through the auto industry bail out and that BOTH parties were responsible for the inability to fund social security and yet pass the bailout and begin the spending of trillions after a one week debate. I did not say just the democrats.
This is not a religious debate. That's another thread.
As for me, all seances, speaking with the dead, astrology, etc. have been shown to be un-proven and un-scientific at the least, hokum and confidence games at the worst. There is not a single shred of evidence whatsoever that either of these are real in the slightest. No one has EVER been proven to be able to talk to the dead and no connection between the positions of the planets, stars, and moons and human events has EVER been shown. To say otherwise is indeed ignorant of the scientific facts of how our world and universe work. People's WISH that they be true does not mean they have any validity whatsoever.
Come now. Russia preemptively invaded Georgia without UN or NATO mandate or support. It's MUCH more analagous to our invasion of Iraq, though not nearly of the same scale, of course.
As far as Kosovo, here is some useful information to show you the difference...
The Bosnian War as part of the Yugoslav Wars.
Which came after the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as crammed together after WW2, in much the same artificial fashion as Iraq was created by the British after WW1. Note how impossible it has been to keep these artificial confederations together considering their divergent ethnic and religious lines?
Operation Deliberate Force was NATO's involvement under UN mandate to protect Bosnian refugees.
In other words, we were sent in to help end genocide with the full support of ALL of our allies on a mission that, to this day, is considered an American "good deed" in Europe (except among those who commited the war crimes, of course).
Therefore, I believe that to compare Russia invading Georgia with NATO and UN peacekeepers in Bosnia/Kosovo/etc. shows a complete lack of historical knowledge.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
