Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > California  > The latest stimulus 'deal' -- a deal or a steal?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 51
The latest stimulus 'deal' -- a deal or a steal?Page 3 of 17    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)
Dave and bclvr,

Apparently, your names haven't yet made it to the suspected terrorist list and all of your airline flights have gone smoothly. But once your name gets on there, good luck clearing it!

Oh, and don't say the word "bomb" when you're talking on the phone to your sweetheart in England. All such calls are now monitored for keywords like that, which trigger closer scrutiny.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 52
The latest stimulus 'deal' -- a deal or a steal?
Posted: 3/15/2009 10:32:07 PM
My point I am trying to make... is I am not ashamed of being an American. I'm not ashamed of being white. And I am not ashamed of being a man.

Did we as a nation get some things wrong along the way.... Yes, we did. But when you look at our history, and even compare it to the history of the world, America did a lot of things right, and the things it did wrong, it corrected a lot faster than other countries. And it was these same so called white men.... Who fought for the freedoms of the black man. It was our white (and might I add) Republican President, Lincoln, who died for that cause.


Good points here. In some cases we weren't faster to correct our shortcomings, but overall we have a lot to be proud of. Lincoln was very reluctant to free the slaves, and only did so as a military tactic, but he did it and that's what counts.



some of us don't live in the past, we learn, move forward... and do better


That's true, but bringing along who are living in the past up to speed with the current understanding--whether their historical role has been that of victim or oppressor--sometimes requires a bit of tough love.


If we believe we are equal, we are. If we don't, we never will.


Which "we," are you referring to? The ones who see themselves as historically oppressed, or the ones who see themselves as historically superior?
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 53
view profile
History
The latest stimulus 'deal' -- a deal or a steal?
Posted: 3/16/2009 12:36:57 AM

However, let me also point out that Fascism, just one of those horrifying and lurid examples, pitched itself as a conservative ideology.


I don't know what your basis for that assertion is, but it's not the fact. Conservatism is the polar opposite of fascism. Mussolini started as a Marxist, like his father, but his thinking evolved. In time, he and others developed a unique form of national socialism. This ideology borrowed quite a lot from the American Progressive movement. Everything about Italy under Mussolini's rule was totalitarian, socialist, and anti-democratic. He never saw his political beliefs as "conservative," at least as we use the word.

It is a common, though, to call national socialist regimes like those in Italy and Germany "right-wing," whatever that is. Neither regime had any more in common with Montesqueue, Voltaire, Locke, Smith, Paine, Jefferson, Monroe et al., and modern heirs of their ideology like Hayek, Buckley, Goldwater, Posner, and Podhoretz, than with the man in the moon.

Fascism today is usually just a meaningless slur, used a lot by people whose intellectual lodestars are the likes of Bill Maher, Michael Moore, and Al Franken. In fact, it's such a complex subject that even the leading experts on fascism, after spending their lives researching and writing about it, can't fully agree on what it is (or was). But it is anything but conservatism--the political philosophy expressed in our Declaration and Constitution.
 strait-country
Joined: 3/12/2009
Msg: 54
The latest stimulus 'deal' -- a deal or a steal?
Posted: 3/16/2009 2:47:22 AM
Universal Health Care: You think medical care is expensive now? Wait til they tell you its " free". Has anyone mentioned that part of the stim. package involves simply printing more money? Save your monopoly money folks! Itll soon be worth more. You want univ. health care? move to Russia, where patients die of ailments we can cure with outpatient care
 cncgandolf
Joined: 7/29/2007
Msg: 55
view profile
History
The latest stimulus 'deal' -- a deal or a steal?
Posted: 3/17/2009 8:01:13 AM
"I cannot for the life of me remember anything that has changed in my life that has affected me directly or personally due to government denying me any particular freedoms. "

How self-centered and self-absorbed can you be that you care not one bit for the freedoms lost by others.
 MermaidSari
Joined: 2/4/2007
Msg: 56
view profile
History
The latest stimulus 'deal' -- a deal or a steal?
Posted: 3/17/2009 8:56:17 AM
Jack --


Can someone explain to me what this cr@p all means...

The bail out money that was given to the banks? Tarp money... was sent over seas? Are we (Or better yet... the next two or three generations of Americans) bailing out the world?

Someone said we are spending a billion dollars an hour of borrowed money? huh?

We have also printed records amount of money....

Obama has spent more money.... than the rest of the presidents combined.... (Washington to W. Bush) In two months. This new budget bill he just signed in private.... and want's to blame it on Bush.... (It's old business) from a Democratic Congress since 06.


LOL -- I think you hit the nail on the head when you said cr@p. As Rabbit stated...I don't think all those in Congress understand what their left or right hand is doing -- other than rewarding financial campaign supporters (or their financial backer's causes) somewhere in the pork added. It's a 1000 plus pages of butt wipe at taxpayer's expense...and will lead to 'foundation' tax breaks (foundations are created by the wealthy for 'causes' but the money is returned to them as founders of the same) and tax increased for the average Joe. It's a bill of promises that will not equalize anything over that of the natural market system straightening itself out. CA is a good example of being spent into bankruptcy.

It's the most expensive irrational bill created in history -- advocated using 'fear' and supported by created hysteria and 'fear' and the 'fault' impression of a Robin Hood (when it's Robin Hood in reverse).

Your word cr@p about explains it.
 MermaidSari
Joined: 2/4/2007
Msg: 57
view profile
History
The latest stimulus 'deal' -- a deal or a steal?
Posted: 3/17/2009 9:00:41 AM
^^I meant 'false' or 'faulty' impression about. (Sorry -- typing in a hurry).
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 58
view profile
History
The latest stimulus 'deal' -- a deal or a steal?
Posted: 3/17/2009 10:21:08 AM

How self-centered and self-absorbed can you be that you care not one bit for the freedoms lost by others.




The obvious purpose of the statement you quoted was to call your claim into question. And deservedly--it's laughable. But instead of just acknowledging forthrightly that you haven't been injured at all by the Patriot Act, either, your transparent dodge is to scold the person for not caring about the "freedoms lost by others."

The only "others" the Patriot Act harmed are those it was aimed at--unlawful alien combatants. And as such, they never had any any such freedoms in the first place. It's indecent of you to scold *anyone* for failing to care about monsters like Khalid Shaikh Muhammad, the mastermind of 9/11 and the one who tortured poor Daniel Perl to death on videotape. For being a Jew. In any other country, he'd have been hanged long ago--and that would be far too good for him. Shame!
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 59
The latest stimulus 'deal' -- a deal or a steal?
Posted: 3/17/2009 5:27:50 PM

... I actually am getting tired of this far left agenda of protection for these thugs that would "behead" you as much as even talk to you.


It is very unfortunate for us all that the Communist influence still colors otherwise legitimate criticism of our government's policies. I guess I'm not "far left," because my concern for those thugs is simply and only that they be afforded due process. In my view, there are two tasks involved in protecting ourselves from attack. The first is to apprehend those who bombed us, put them on trial for their crimes, and then lock them in the cells they belong in. The second is to take all practical measures to prevent future such bombings while still protecting our rights. If we don't stand up for the principle of the rule of law in the process of executing those tasks, we cannot take the moral high ground. Might makes right just delays an attack, which gets even more virulent if legitimate grievances are ignored.

The Bush Administration didn't make a clear case for their Law of Combat approach to dealing with terror suspects. (Thanks, Matchlight, for sending me that reference.) Had they done a better job of educating the public about that approach and the need to use it, there would be far less concern about the abridgement of habeas corpus. However, the Bush Administration also failed to continue the pursuit of the ringleaders, which led critics to suspect that the bombing later became a pretext for our invasion of Iraq. When seen in that light, our actions did look like that of an aggressor, and our suspension of habeas corpus as well as our use of torture looked very frightening to those who care about human rights.


President Bush, even though he may have made a few mistakes... like anyone... (20/20 is a b1tc4).... He is only looking out for what is best and safe for this country.... Any American that walks down this road is absolutely out of their minds... and only bias to their agendas.


I am sure that Dubya believes, like you, that he had the country's interest at heart. However, I am not so certain about Cheney and the other Neocons who influenced our previous President. I believe that these people place their ideology above all else, with the class interest of those who support them a close second, and the rest of us can all just go, well, Cheney said it himself.


But those that want to hang him for only trying to do what is best for this country.... don't realize what some of these so called things that you disagree with... may have even saved your life.


Some things are more important than my life, such as the rights of us all to due process.


Just one question.... What are you really appalled about? placing evil people who kill innocent people in a dark hole... or evil people who cut the heads off of innocent people.... I just don't hear these same people who get so vocal against the US using some of these tactics to get information, to save lives.... when it comes to the use of bombing and beheading innocent people... Why isn't the world out raged at this?


They were! But tit for tat when it comes to violence just leads them to wish a pox on both houses. Maybe it's the 2nd guy who always gets busted for a fight, but that's especially true when someone takes a national tragedy and tries to use it to further their agenda to build a global empire. And that is the Neocon agenda.

Our invasion of Afghanistan was ugly but necessary. But Iraq, Extraordinary Rendition, and all of the other measures that had the effect of undermining our rights might not have been. I'm just glad that's over and we can focus on getting our own house back in order. I was very gratified to hear that the Iraqis who are still there are finally starting to gain a sense of hope and optimism.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 60
The latest stimulus 'deal' -- a deal or a steal?
Posted: 3/18/2009 11:42:01 AM

My ears will prick up and a feeling of alarm will set in is when my government takes away my right of gun ownership. I hope yours do also.


They do.

They also prick up when the government continues to deny gay people equal access to the legal benefits that married couples enjoy, and for any other institutionalized restriction based on prejudice. I hope yours do too. Unpopular groups are canaries in the coal mine.
 The Minister of Dudeness
Joined: 6/11/2006
Msg: 61
The latest stimulus 'deal' -- a deal or a steal?
Posted: 3/18/2009 1:42:02 PM
Look at this video. It's hard to argue with this guy's take on things:

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/22914/
 cncgandolf
Joined: 7/29/2007
Msg: 62
view profile
History
The latest stimulus 'deal' -- a deal or a steal?
Posted: 3/19/2009 9:02:20 AM
"I don`t care who it is, a dem, reb, lib... the whole thing and their reaction is a song and pony show. A big freaking act to make the public think they are outraged when in fact they signed this very issue into legislation months ago !!!"

I care to the point where I will vote against those who are benefitting from stealing this money from the middle class taxpayers (if the wealthy want to play games with who has the cash it is one thing, but this is robbing those who are losing jobs to pay those who have destroyed their jobs).

I have been a 21st Century insurance person since the late 70's. AIG bought them. I am now strongly thinking of talking with my $$ and taking my business elsewhere. So, are any other outraged people taking their money and/or business away from those receiving financial stimulus monies?
 Rabbitman49
Joined: 10/20/2005
Msg: 63
The latest stimulus 'deal' -- a deal or a steal?
Posted: 3/19/2009 9:52:34 PM
RE #78:
The only "others" the Patriot Act harmed are ....
You forget (or don't know) about the little room in San Francisco at the AT&T building (plus 6 other cities) where the NSA has the special tap room that sniffs ALL the Internet traffic - probably including this very message (which may even set off a level 1 alarm in their system), completely bypassing the FISA Court and the 4th Amendment.

As to the current deals and such, we're learning with this latest controversy that Congress didn't even know what was and wasn't in it....
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 64
view profile
History
The latest stimulus 'deal' -- a deal or a steal?
Posted: 3/19/2009 11:27:44 PM

You forget (or don't know) about the little room in San Francisco at the AT&T building (plus 6 other cities) where the NSA has the special tap room that sniffs ALL the Internet traffic - probably including this very message (which may even set off a level 1 alarm in their system), completely bypassing the FISA Court and the 4th Amendment.



Good heavens! I may not sleep tonight!

I'm on good terms with the tap rooms in my neighborhood, but I didn't know about the ones you mention. Can you give me a cite for your information about these places? I wonder if this AT&T building has a helipad, and if so, whether any black helicopters have been seen landing and taking off from it.

I couldn't care less about FISA. To the devil with it. You forget (or don't know) that when our national security is at stake, the President's constitutional power as commander-in chief and power to wage war *come first.* No President worth his salt would ever let an outdated product of congressional meddling like FISA seriously hamper--as it certainly does--his ability to defend the United States and our people from foreign attack.

Fourth Amendment--let's see--you must be claiming this Internet surveillance is an unreasonable search of the effects of the surveilled. If not, what are you claiming? Whatever your 4th Am. claim is, can you state it and cite me the legal authorities that support it?

The question was whether any person had been unjustly harmed by the Patriot Act. If all this intrusion is as serious as you claim, it must have harmed all sorts of Americans. And yet you can't name even one of them, let alone specify exactly what harm that person suffered.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 65
The latest stimulus 'deal' -- a deal or a steal?
Posted: 3/19/2009 11:41:25 PM
2nd Amendment advocates make the slippery-slope argument all the time. Any measure, no matter how mild, that might impose any sort of requirement that gun owners demonstrate the capability to exercise the right to own and bear before making a purchase is shouted down as an infringement.

I see no difference between that conservative use of the argument and the "liberal" use of the argument when it comes to 4th Amendment rights.

Has anyone actually been harmed by a restriction on the purchase armor-piercing ammunition?

The problem with a President bypassing laws intended to protect our freedom isn't the immediate harm, it is the PRECEDENT. I am sure you understand what that means and what the implications can be of allowing a bad precedent.

If, as under the Bush rationale, we just declare a state of perpetual war, and then reify it by attacking yet a new foriegn enemy every few years, a President can use the pretext of war to extend his power interminally. Giving someone that much firepower who is not willing to cooperate with Congressional oversight is asking for a tyrant to emerge.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 66
view profile
History
The latest stimulus 'deal' -- a deal or a steal?
Posted: 3/20/2009 10:41:13 AM
This is OT, but since you brought it up--nothing applies the 2d Am. against states. They should be able to do all sorts of infringing.

The Constitution is our supreme law, not acts of Congress. And there's all sorts of precedent for a President to ignore attempts by Congress (e.g. the War Powers Act) to restrict his war powers. It is the Congress that enacts those measures, and not the President, that is ignoring the law.

And still, no one has responded to the poster's original challenge to name one American the Patriot Act had harmed. No one can, because it hasn't. If someone tried to claim a law had harmed him by setting a dangerous precedent, he'd never even get through the courtroom doors. And bad Supreme Court decisions have done FAR more real harm to Americans than the Patriot Act ever will. Congress can repeal that or any other act, any time it likes, but we've already been stuck with Roe v. Wade (a God-awfully bad decision) for 35 years.
 MermaidSari
Joined: 2/4/2007
Msg: 67
view profile
History
The latest stimulus 'deal' -- a deal or a steal?
Posted: 3/20/2009 3:50:10 PM

This is the problem.... too much money floating around and too much financial influence to all political parties and then bills and decisions are made because of this influence as opposed to decisions being made in the publics interest.


Dave -- not off topic at all--but one topic. :-) Thanks for posting this. I stand in agreement.

CN--Yes I have. AIG never raised their rates from 21st Century [despite stated hardships] -- so a lot of folks probably haven't given the bail-outs to the giants a lot of thought. I have noted though a lot of banking movement/activity [people being extremely selective with banking and more moving to use the service of credit Unions since the credit crisis and Credit Unions picking up a lot of business]. Bail-outs fail to consider the credit Union's increase in business and far as decreased profits in the banking industry.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 68
view profile
History
The latest stimulus 'deal' -- a deal or a steal?
Posted: 3/23/2009 7:01:46 PM
Mr. Obama has a fine start on a one-term presidency--he's looking more and more like Mr. Carter every day. Let's just hope that before he disappears, he doesn't ruin the United States that well over one million men have died fighting to establish, preserve, and defend. I would have thought we all owed more respect to those countless young men who never came home from Petersburg, Antietam, Gettysburg, Belleau Wood, Omaha Beach, and thousands of places God only knows, than to let America become unrecognizable. They must be turning in their graves.
 OldFolkie
Joined: 6/8/2008
Msg: 69
view profile
History
The latest stimulus 'deal' -- a deal or a steal?
Posted: 3/23/2009 10:13:45 PM
Well, you've managed to trip my trigger once again, Matchlight. I respect and I've defended your right to your opinion. I spent 21 years in uniform, sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of this nation. The million dead you spoke of also took that same oath, and made the ulitimate sacrifice to fulfill that oath.

What I take exception to is your (apparent) assumption that those million dead, and the tens of millions more like me who swore that oath to the Constitution (NOT to political hacks!) somehow approve of your radical Conservative ideology. You are a lawyer, and far better grounded than I am to debate the, as you once said, "quibbles" about what may be Constitutional. I only know that I grew up believing, and served in a military that believed, that this Nation was protecting the principles of democracy and freedom.

I, like at least one-third of U.S. General officers and countless more of the rank and file in uniform at the time, believed that Bush-Cheney were just plain WRONG in invading Iraq. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11, and had ZERO weapons of mass destruction....a fact KNOWN to a Bush administration that chose to ignore that. I'm reminded of that shameful spectacle of Colin Powell, a man I admire, waving his teaspoon at the United Nations to show what a WMD could do. Gen. Powell resigned as a Bush Secretary of State not long after, because he knew he had been lied to and decieved by that administration. We did not invade North Korea, which actually DOES have WMD....but then North Korea, in spite of it's very real and horrific human rights abuses, did not have the oil to fuel Halliburton profits.

Care for a fact or three? Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Iraq_War

You will, of course, say that this reference is merely liberal cant. But I can tell you, that I, like many thousands of other military veterans, are disgusted and ashamed of the actions of the Bush-Cheney administration.

We had the right and the duty to invade Afghanistan, the home of Al-Quaida. We did not have the right, legally, morally, or ethicially to invade Iraq. The diversion of American military resources to an unjust and immoral war in Iraq means that we have not been able to adequately deal with the Taliban and Al-quaida support in Afghanistan. The ever-rising death toll of American and Coalition, not to mention Afghanistani military, police and civilians,...six years after our initial invasion, are overwhelming proof that we have failed in uprooting the Taliban and Al-Quaida in that poor beknighted country.

The deaths of 4000 + young Americans and the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians who have died in some Neo-con pursuit of American hegemony in the MidEast lie squarely on the shoulders on Bush and Cheney (okay, throw in the shoulders of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Limbaugh. In their ideological fervor, they blatently ignored the voices in the Intelligence community who told them that Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11, nor did it have any WMD capability.

Well, I honestly try not to get all hot-under-the-collar with the political debate here, but this time, it was just too much. One-third (the ones that I choose to believe have actual brains) of America's military that oppose our presence in Iraq deserve our respect and deference; far...far...more than your assumption that America's military dead would have approved of the Bush-Cheney immoral war. I can't think of a single one (well...maybe one....a died in the wool redneck) of my former military colleagues, nor can I imagine more than a handful of our military dead, who would have approved of the Bush administration's use of harsh confinement and torture of civilians or paramilitary, in direct contravention of the Geneva conventions (to which the U.S. is a signatory), the policy of Extraordinary Renditon in covert CIA aircraft, the detention of "suspected enemy combatants" (according to whom?) in such resort communities as Abu-Ghraib and Guantanamo.

I suspect, Matchlight, that you will say that foreign nationals are not under the protection of the U.S. Bill of Rights or it's Constitution. You may be right...I'm not a constitutional lawyer. But what I do know is that the majority of Americans, and indeed the global population, believes that what Bush-Cheney have done is not only immoral, but has cheapened America's image in this world as the haven of liberty and justice. We have lost the moral high ground. I can only hope that in Obama's eight years as President, he will be able to restore some belief in both our own and the world's belief that America is the bastion and protector of liberty and justice. That belief is why I spent 21 years in uniform.

How long did you serve?

(yes..I'm angry...more, I'm appalled and deeply depressed that so many here in the Califorums seem to embrace Matchlight's neo-con ideology. Is that really what I served so long to defend?)

And yes, I know very well that this is way Off Topic. I just could not keep silent.)
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 70
view profile
History
The latest stimulus 'deal' -- a deal or a steal?
Posted: 3/24/2009 1:34:16 AM
oldfolkie,

First, thanks for your 21 years of service. I don't have any ill will toward you--and from what I've seen you write, I don't doubt your integrity. I don't remember ever taking such a personal tone with you, but maybe I have.

I have no idea how what I wrote had anything to do with the war on jihadism--that is way OT, and I won't go into it here. I'm not sure, either, what you mean by my "neo-con ideology," but I doubt it's complimentary. From what I know of the so-called "neoconservatives," their views and mine aren't very similar.

You have every right to agree with President Obama's views about what kind of country this should be. I hope you're not questioning my right to disagree with everything he stands for, and what he's proposing. Many millions of Americans agree with me that at heart, Mr. Obama's a socialist. A lot of us feel that neither he nor his advisers are very competent, and that what they're proposing will bankrupt the U.S.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 71
view profile
History
The latest stimulus 'deal' -- a deal or a steal?
Posted: 3/24/2009 2:32:16 AM
mz taken,

It sounds like you like the *result* of Roe v. Wade, and you've got every right to your point of view. But for me, the problem is how the Court arrived at that result. And I can tell you most legal analysts believe it just made it up out of thin air. If we want to live under the rule of law (and I sure do) we've got to make sure our laws deserve respect.

Roe's often considered one of the all-time worst of the thousands of decisions the Court's made during its 200 years. Judge Bork's criticism is typical of many others. He said Roe "contained not a single sentence of legal reasoning." The majority decision was written by Justice Harry Blackmun, who'd just joined the Court. There's a rumor that Blackmun's law clerks thought the decision was such a turkey they used to refer to it in whispers as "Harry's Abortion."

Even at the time Roe was decided, abortions were already legal in about 85% of the states. So if it were ever completely overruled, women could still get abortions under state law. And in Casey, a 1992 decision, the Court limited Roe v. Wade in important ways. Time to finish the cleanup.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 72
The latest stimulus 'deal' -- a deal or a steal?
Posted: 3/24/2009 3:44:47 PM
You have every right to agree with President Obama's views about what kind of country this should be. I hope you're not questioning my right to disagree with everything he stands for, and what he's proposing. Many millions of Americans agree with me that at heart, Mr. Obama's a socialist. A lot of us feel that neither he nor his advisers are very competent, and that what they're proposing will bankrupt the U.S.


Hmmm ... I guess it's OK for us all to pull together to sacrifice in order to support our troops and the government that has deployed them in a war that was neither justified nor necessary for our survival. But when it comes to pitching in to pull ourselves out of an economic quagmire that really does threaten our future--one that came as the result of unrestrained speculation in derivatives based on mortagage-backed securities--that's socialism and therefore anathema.

Clue: it's socialism in both cases.

You just prefer one justification for it over the other. Read 1984 again. In it he talks about the perpetual war which justified the curtailing of individual rights.

As far as the opinion that Obama's advisor's aren't all that competent and that their proposals will bankrupt the US, here's another clue. We're already bankrupt. What bankrupted us was unrestrained speculation in derivatives based on mortgage-backed securities, coupled with a 30+year policy of concerted resistance to _any_ measure that might improve our overall prospects for sustainability.

Without a shift in policies toward more sustainable practices, our grandchildren's options will be severely circumscribed regardless of what approach we take. So call it whatever you want to, but start thinking ahead and visualizing what it will be like for them if we don't pull together, restructure our economy, and climb out of this energy-deficit hole we've been deliberately digging since 1972.

Hint: we will not climb out of it by having the people closest to the top scrambling to keep above of the rest of us. We either all get out together, or we all sink together.

When a bankrupt company restructures in order to continue operating while working off the debts that it _can_ repay, neither investors nor top managers get the returns they originally expected. It is really too bad that these leaders chose "redistribution of wealth" to explain what must happen if we are to regain our balance as an economy.

Freedom is not the same thing as self-centeredness. Even Adam Smith referred to the criteria for optimal economic decisions as "enlightenedself self interest." Too many times, and in too many ways, so-called "free market" idealogues have chosen to ignore the "enlightened" component in their calculations of profit. But now it is time for us all to wake up and smell the coffee.

So, propose something workable! But if I hear another chorus of "let the market take care of it," I think I'll scream. If the only thing that could pull us out of the Great Depression was WW II, I would have to say that the market didn't work then, and left to its own devices, it won't work now.

So if you don't think this will work, tell me what will!
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 73
The latest stimulus 'deal' -- a deal or a steal?
Posted: 3/24/2009 3:54:38 PM
It sounds like you like the *result* of Roe v. Wade, and you've got every right to your point of view. But for me, the problem is how the Court arrived at that result. And I can tell you most legal analysts believe it just made it up out of thin air. If we want to live under the rule of law (and I sure do) we've got to make sure our laws deserve respect.


Well, in the absence of consistent guidance from Congress, and in the absence of a clear history of case law, and in a situation in which it became clear that two fundamental rights are in irreconcilable conflict, what the hell were they supposed to do? Abidcate?

We all know that it is a difficult compromise that is far from optimal. However, the bottom line is that women are not slaves. That means that they have ultimate authority over what takes place within their own bodies whether any of the rest of us likes it or not. Yes, children have rights too, which is why there was a conflict! At what point do the rights of an unwanted child take precedence over the rights of an unwilling mother? That is the question that, for better or worse, they settled.

If you have a better basis for settling that conflict, great! Let's hear it! But let us not continue to belabor the false idea that women don't have the right to have systemic violations of their rights as a group adjudicated in the federal courts. Of course they do--whether we like the result, or the reasoning behind it, or not.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 74
view profile
History
The latest stimulus 'deal' -- a deal or a steal?
Posted: 3/24/2009 5:43:36 PM
^^^^^I don't think this is the place to talk about abortion. In any case, you're responding to something other than what I said.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 75
view profile
History
The latest stimulus 'deal' -- a deal or a steal?
Posted: 3/24/2009 10:08:08 PM
Ace,
I don't accept your assertions about the war. Most Americans have always acknowledged the need to unite in time of war, and to speak with one voice in foreign policy even in peacetime. But that unwritten rule has *never* applied to domestic affairs. Any suggestion that it ever should, in America, is hard to take seriously.

I don't know what you mean by an "energy-deficit hole," who you think deliberately dug it, and why, or where 1972 comes in. And you don't say how any of that is relevant to this recession. I'm also not sure what you mean by "sustainability."

Franklin Raines, Rep. Frank, and Sen. Dodd were some of the people most responsible for preventing the irresponsible mortgages that seem to be at the core of this economic mess. Yet the President had Raines working in his campaign, and both Frank are Dodd are still members of Congress. Shame on the voters who put them there, and on both houses of Congress for failing to censure them.

Mr. Obama stated, during the campaign and even before it, that he favored the redistribution of wealth. That disregard for property rights is about as squarely opposed to the ideals on which this country was founded, and to its traditions, as any political idea could be. And it didn't just come to him as a response to this recession, although I think it's characteristic of the economic measures his administration's proposing. That's part of the reason I oppose them.

I believe Mr. Obama--who's openly regretted that the Constitution makes it hard to redistribute wealth--sees in this unusual economic turmoil, and the public fear it's created, a unique chance to do just that. As his Chief of Staff said, this crisis is too good an opportunity to waste. And because Mr. Emmanuel's such a trustworthy man, I take him at his word.

I don't pretend to be an economist, and I'm not about to propose some grand plan of my own. Since when is anyone required to do that in order to oppose an administration's policy, anyway? In general, I favor market-based solutions, and you say you don't.

I'm aware that not so long ago, property rights in the U.S. were as strongly protected as the rights to speak and worship. And money is one form of personal property. For me, this President's disdain for property rights is more than enough reason to oppose his economic policies. He believes all of us have the right to only SOME of the money we've earned, while total strangers have a "right" (where it comes from, God knows) to the rest of it. I also oppose every member of Congress who takes the same position. Mr. Obama doesn't have the power to tax our money away from us and spend it on other people--but they do.

The measures FDR put in place during his first two terms, usually called the "New Deal" for short, were all about central planning. Most of his experts were great admirers of Mussolini's Italy and the Soviet Union, and they wanted to bring the best of those wonderful societies to our shores. The whole point of everything they did was to *prevent* free markets. So if it was only WWII that finally pulled the U.S. out of the Depression, it's evidence eight years of the *New Deal* didn't help anything.
Show ALL Forums  > California  > The latest stimulus 'deal' -- a deal or a steal?