We are now nine months into the Obama presidency without a major terrorist attack having occurred on US soil -- (the Obama Administration thwarted one of those just last month, with Obama himself riding herd on the effort) -- which is more than Dubya Bush could say at this stage of his presidency.
Does this fact depress the Conservatives who want Obama to fail?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
First of all, for the record, I am not a republican or democrat, liberal or conservative. I am an american citizen who up until the Great Recession moved through life with a general focus on life, family, friends and work.
The events of the past 24 months have created a yearning within me to seek more and give more. In seeking more, it is important to understand both sides of any argument. The truth generally lies somewhere in between.
So i ask you on this blog, do you believe in a balanced budget? Do you believe that all less fortunate should be taken care of without demands placed back on them? What are the fundamental underpinnings of the liberal movement and what is the basis for them? Is it socialism that you truly seek?
A balanced budget is a good thing, but not always. Sometimes deficit spending is necessary to pull the country out of a recession.
No one here believes in Socialism. We all believe in capitalism. But, when there is a Great Recession, as we've just been through, steps should be taken to end the recession as quickly as possible. Throwing money at the problem, or priming the pump, is the answer and, as you can see, it's working once again.
As for "helping the less fortunate with no demands being placed on them", most of the money being spent now is to help people help themselves -- create jobs, repair infra-structure, make education more accessible, etc. Even health care reform will help the country by easing the financial burden on small businesses and on hospitals whose emergency rooms now have to care for so many uninsured individuals.
Republicans keep presiding over lots of boom and bust, with too many busts -- 1929 (Hoover); 1987 (Reagan); 2008 (Bush). Every few years, the Democrats keep having to ride to the rescue. Yet Republicans say that they believe in capitalism and liberals believe in Socialism. Isn't that a sick joke?
Please Anonymous, make up a name and stick with it. There's 20 of you guys running around and it's sometimes hard to tell you apart.
--
"Socialism" ... "There you go again".
RayGun
I have done as you suggest and created a name. The previous post was my first so please excuse my ignorance.
How do you define capitalism versus socialism? I am no fan of the Bush era. Blotted budgets, one sided evangelical perspectives, war mongering...
I think it is very arguable that we are in an advanced state of progression towards socialism. I am at the start of my fact gathering and the most useful arguments are those based on fact not opinion.
What percentage does the federal, state and local government make up of GDP? How does that compare to other countries? Certainly a higher percentage, which is the direction we are moving with bailouts in the automotive and financial sector. Add to that the proposed healthcare plans. Where do we stand?
"I think it is very arguable that we are in an advanced state of progression towards socialism."
--
America every industrialized nation in the world has universal health care, are they all socialists? I think all it means is we are a little less advanced, socially.
Regarding the bailouts, do you know how close we came to a complete and total financial collapse? Plus, without the auto bailouts, unemployment would probably be at around 20 percent, maybe more? I'm just guessing but please type in "jobs tied to auto industry" in google and check it out.
The point is, these are crazy times, and the cons with their crazy ideas, lax regulation and trickle down to name a few, caused it. These are also new times, ones that have never happened before, and no one knows really what to do.
I am very familiar with how close we came to a melt down. I am quite familiar with financial products and derivatives. Agreed that more regulation is necessary as it relates to hedge funds and derivates. Excessive leverage is not acceptable and harmful.
However, most governments have demonstrated an over zealous response in most all cases. Now the government wants to regulate compensation to financial institutions that did NOT take tarp funds? Frank and Dodd have backgrounds full of lies and unethical behavior. As do many other democrat and republican politicians. There is an interesting chart showing government spending and further information on other international governments and what they spend. Once I get the data i will include.
Once a government reaches a high percentage of spending, then they have everyone in their back pocket. Now it is being proposed that the Cadillac health care plans by the unions and government employees will be exempt from taxation under the healthcare reform? Again, when government controls a near majority of spending, they can ply the groups necessary to pass whatever they want. That in my book would be socialism? No???
We can debate many of the hot topics at length. It seems best however to establish what the "american" belief system is or should be. Historically it was based on freedom of religion, right to pursue life as you saw fit without harm to your neighbor.
What is it that we stand for fundamentally as Americans in America? is it a place where everyone is taken care of? or where handcuffs are removed so that individuals can utilize their talent to the maximum good?
"That in my book would be socialism? No???"
--
so⋅cial⋅ism
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
According the definition above I'm not convinced we are heading towards "socialism"
"What is it that we stand for fundamentally as Americans in America? is it a place where everyone is taken care of? or where handcuffs are removed so that individuals can utilize their talent to the maximum good?"
--
There have to be regulations, because there is always roughly 20 percent who will abuse their freedom at the expense of others.
And I don't think everyone should be taken care of. I really think people on welfare etc, should have to show up and pick up trash or watch each others kids etc, to give them incentives to get off welfare.
Didn't Clinton enact the 5 year limit?
"To address long-term welfare dependency, TANF placed a five year lifetime limit on assistance"...
http://www.policyalmanac.org/social_welfare/welfare.shtml
America?, don't you think that having the government raise the price of gas would help the auto industry in the long term? A big reason they got hurt so bad is they were building gas guzzlers and gas quadrupled in a very short time. If the gas was always priced high, they would know what to expect, and automatically build more fuel efficient cars.
when government spending accounts for 36% of total spending as it does now (approximately) and healthcare passage will result in possibly as much or more than 10% more, if the government controls the spending then they are directly or indirectly "owning" capital or production.
That is a key issue that is difficult to debate. Earlier mentions of europe having universal healthcare does not mean that such a system is more advanced. If you look at net migration from europe to us and from us to europe you will find an overwhelming weighting of migration into the states. This has to at least be loosely interpreted as a statement that opportunity and the "system" are better here than there correct? And if so then why would we necessarily want to follow their path. Agreed without a doubt that reform is needed in healthcare. Republicans have not done an adequate job of alternative proposals. However what we see coming through the house and senate do not seem to be well thought out. These are lifetime politicians whose only real goal is to stay in power. Is the political process we now have working? Would term limits assist here?
"That is a key issue that is difficult to debate. "
--
I would like to see the numbers broken down. Does the 36 percent include SS?
And if our health care system was as cost effective as the 36 nations that rank above us in quality of health care, and all 36 (I believe) have government run care, then the cost would be at least half what it is now.
RayGun,
I am not up to speed on the raw price of gas at the pump versus the already existing layers of taxes per gallon.
Yes, I would agree that a higher price would likely drive an outcome as you suggest. However, is that really all we care about doing is driving the desired outcome without regard to how we get there?
Should we be investing in alternative fuels? Absolutely, these are long term investments that we need to continue to fund. We should be more intelligent about our approach. Ethanol for example has many ancillary costs associated with it that are not always taken into account. Certainly solar, wind and wave turbines are clean and generally safe. The problem lies the cost of these items per KWH. Until the supplies of gas dimension to the point that it is break even with these alternatives we should continue to use fossil fuels. You can buy diesel automobiles right now that get 38-50 mpg and have such low pollution levels that they qualify for green tax rebates (VW TDI, Audi TDI, not advertising for these folks just pointing out the example).
Why did the us automotive industry fail? Many case studies will and have been written on this subject. It would be nice to blame one party but unfortunately many are to blame.
I have the good fortune of living in the motor city state and have heard first hand stories from white collar workers about failure and bureaucracy in management and likewise first hand account of laziness and inflexibility of the union. They all made their bed and we have been aware of this for 30 years. The bailout was a bad aid. Bankruptcy was the only viable option for these folks to reorganize top to bottom.
My two cents worth.
RayGun,
I will see what i can dig up on stats regarding SS. Our 36% however compares to a 16 european nation average of 40-46%. So, their spending levels are even higher than the US. I believe most of these countries have even higher unemployment rates than the US with perhaps the exception of a few northern european countries.
"The bailout was a bad aid. Bankruptcy was the only viable option for these folks to reorganize top to bottom."
--
I probably agree, but now is the wrong time to let them fail.
Those unions are a little out of control, when the average auto worker is making 70 dollars per hour.
But why is the government now subsidizing cheap gasoline? The true cost of gas is estimated at anywhere from 10-17 dollars per gallon. Type in "gas true cost gallon" into google for proof.
"Our 36% however compares to a 16 european nation average of 40-46%."
--
So are they all socialist nations?
politicians may or not proclaim themselves socialists. However, if government spending is an enormous percentage of total spending, i am not sure how it could be considered anything but. Even a 1/3 of total spending is fairly large. www.usgovernmentspending.com shows the history of us government spending. There is some interesting information here. I have NOT looked into the operators of the website so viewer beware in terms of the angle from which it is presented.
RayGun,
I began reading the CTA publication on "the real price of gas". This will take some dissecting. Some of what I read already though makes me view this, as everything, with skepticism. They are including road construction and the like in the cost? Don't get me wrong, social subsidies and business subsidies need to be reduced. If we actually had politicians in government who had to pay for things I am confident our country would be in a better position at this time.
"Some of what I read already though makes me view this, as everything, with skepticism."
--
But if you think about it, 10.00 gallon seems very realistic, if you consider pollution, defense (3/4s of our defense now seems related to protecting oil), health costs, and God forbid if we consider global warming, as the price will probably double again.
RayGun,
But you can make the same argument for any good produced. Add in subsidies for food production, etc etc. For sure there is opportunity I just don't think we can make the statement that all these costs are associated with it specifically. We still have troops in philippines, europe and other non oil producing nations. Does that mean we should add those costs to other things we consume?
I think that government can do certain things better, like manage health care. The US ranks 37th in the quality of health care and pay an average of 2 times as much as anyone else. Plus I don't want to be bankrupted by major medical, because my insurance companies (2) weasel out of paying for some bs reason.
"Does that mean we should add those costs to other things we consume?"
--
Sure.
At least we will know the true cost of anything and whether it is costing too much.
And why do we need troops in Europe and the Philippines?
"Add in subsidies for food production"
Why shouldn't those subsidies be included in the price of food?
I for one do not think we necessarily do need troops in those locations. Personally, I would prefer to see us pull back significantly and invest 99% of our taxpayer dollars in the us. We certainly could use it.
Considering we spend as much on the military as rest of the world combined, I think we could cut back also.
But we should be honest about our love for the middle east, in that it is entirely based on the love of oil.
Why not gradually raise taxes on gasoline, and pay some bills, reduce dependence on religious nuts, cut pollution, reduce carbon output, etc and etc. We'll become efficient in it's use and offset the negative aspects like inflation.
RayGun,
in theory it would have merit on some respects. However, government has shown a weak kneed ability to stay the course. For example, in the state of michigan, lottery proceeds were intended to benefit schools. Now in fact schools do benefit from these proceeds. However, I believe the amount they receive has become a small fraction of the total proceeds generated. Where oh where has the money gone?
I stand corrected. According to the michigan lottery website. Approximately 40% of gross receipts have been paid to the schools. I would love to see the accounting in the numbers though.
"Where oh where has the money gone?"
--
I understand America?, but where is the money going now? (hint many of them wear turbans)
Regarding the bailouts, do you know how close we came to a complete and total financial collapse? Plus, without the auto bailouts, unemployment would probably be at around 20 percent, maybe more? Raygun
That's strange. Obama promised unemployement would stay at 8% if congress gave him more cash. News firms are not supposed to report that because they would be labelled enemy of the state. This country is closer to a financial collapse than ever before. Our children will deal with heavy inflation and will suffer more than us. When China starts to give us advise on slower spending then you know things are bad.
By the way, Obama is still thinking about what to do on the war. He has had countless people from generals to democrats tell him to do something now. I think that he is politicizing the war and has been backed into a corner by the left. I predict that he will conveniently have an answer immediately after the elections. That is a real shame when we have military people dying while they wait on their commander in chief.
Post a Comment