You mean the bailout of the auto-industry which was actually under George Bush? Yeah, a lot of conservatives automatically assume that was Obama.
There is very good reason to make this assumption. Not only did Obama approve of TARP, but it was also far more popular among Democrats than Republicans (just look at the congressional votes). The bailout was not a Republican agenda. In fact, to this day I don't know why Bush tried to jam it through in the last days of his presidency -- maybe to attempt to save face?
Remember the "public option"? Oh right, Obama compromised on that, but FOX News has somehow painted the picture in all the sheeple's minds that Obama wouldn't compromise.
His "compromises" were done to appease Blue Dogs, not Republicans -- he couldn't even get his own party on board with the public option. On top of that, it's incredibly misleading to call it compromise to unilaterally write a bill and then pull out only the grossest of offenses. It would be like writing a Declaration of War against the entire world and then later removing 99% of the countries and only going to war against Iraq and then going "see? we compromised". Compromise is hammering out a bipartisan bill in committee, not amending a partisan bill with vote-buying riders.
I might also add that after the resulting abomination of a kludged healthcare bill was eventually finalized, Obama was so concerned with getting votes prior to the midterm election that he (and Pelosi) forced it through as quickly as he could with backdoor deals, knowing that the American populace did not want it, rather than tearing it down and starting from scratch and doing it right. This same need to be political and "achieve his agenda" was the same reason he even spent months languishing over health care instead of focusing on the economy and job creation like he should have in the first place.
You fool yourself by thinking he's not playing the same partisan political game.
Republican leaders have simply decided "my way or the highway" on everything. Democrats under Bush were far more reasonable than the Republicans have been in decades now, which is why Bush was able to "work across the aisle".
It may be worth calling attention to the fact, which seems to slip your mind, that under Clinton's leadership we saw one of the greatest decades of growth this country has ever experienced. And under Bush we saw one of the worst.
You contradicted yourself.
If Clinton's leadership was one of the "greatest decades of growth" under a Republican congress, how would that make the Republicans unreasonable and unwilling to work across the aisle? Especially when Bush with a Democratic Congress (at least 2 of his 8 years) is supposedly the "worst".
The concession of the Public Option was a fairly large bone. It was one of the few things I looked forward to in health care reform
You seem to be confusing compromises he did to appease Blue Dogs vs compromises he did to appease Republicans. He couldn't even get his whole party onboard with the Public Option. In fact, _most_ (if not all) of the Democrat compromising was done to appease divisions in their own party, not Republicans.
Yeah, until you start voting for TEA party candidates because you've never heard of the Know Nothings.
First of all, since when has the "Tea Party" ever fully-capitalized the word "Tea"? It's not like it's an acronym or something. And you're the one harping about reading comprehension?
Secondly, what do the "Know Nothings" (an anti-immigration platform) in any way have to do with the Tea Party (a largely libertarian platform)? The Tea Party isn't a secretive platform either. Your vague correlation between the two leaves much to be desired, even by one familiar with historical events.
When you claim to be all about enforcing the Constitution
Well, Obama claimed to be a constitutional scholar, and yet most of his political agenda is unconstitutional. Government mandated medical insurance for instance -- show me where the government is legally allowed to mandate that in the Constitution. And please don't demonstrate the common general comprehension failure of what "General Welfare" means (especially given the fact you've already painted yourself as a history buff).
I doubt the TEA Party, whose candidates seem to evince a spectacular lack of understanding of the U.S. Constition, either wouldn't exist, or their preferred candidates would be very, very different. When you claim to be all about enforcing the Constitution, and one of your most highly-visible candidates doesn't know where the concept of 'Separation of Church and State' comes from, that's pretty telling.
Umm, _all_ political parties have members with widely differing degrees of intelligence.
Or shall I assume all Dems have the same mental deficiencies as Hank Johnson?
Why don't you pick on Rand Paul or Ken Buck rather than the easy-pickings of Christine O'Donnell (who for very good reason stands no chance at winning the election).
The belief that you can lump-sum an entire political party, all of its candidates, and all of its constituents simply by their dumbest members is ludicrous and wildly naive. You sir are what is wrong with modern-day politics. Instead of seeing past the lunatic fringe and trying to actually understand a major political movement, you instead allow the loudest and stupidest to taint your viewpoint of an entire group of people. Well, as a libertarian, I disagree with you, but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler.
It was originally intended as a retirement program for all (or the vast majority of) workers, not just for those who fell on hard times.
Weren't you even a little embarrassed by being caught red-handed trying to rewrite history with your false claims about the original intent of Social Security? Have you no shame?
Well, I was definitely wrong about that -- but it actually was even more of a disappointment than a revelation. Originally, I saw Social Security as a "Clinton Welfare"-type problem, with hope of being reformed. But since what you say is true, and it was truly meant for _retirement_, I think the entire program should be scrapped -- because it fails poorly at producing any kind of growth, barely keeping up with inflation -- and the paycheck you get in the end isn't even close to a living wage.
The purpose of Social Security is not maximum return on investment. The purpose is security.
I'm not asking for maximum return. I'm asking for _return_. You can't honestly tell me that you believe that throwing money into a void for half a decade before extracting it is better than at least trying to grow it by putting _part_ of it into value based investing -- such as large established companies with dividends.
Social Security is the only thing that has weathered the financial storms unscathed
Unscathed? It's damn near bankrupt. And the only solution given to fix it is to either throw more money at it or raise the retirement age. Which means it's either more of a money sink or even _less_ of an effective program. When you show me even _one_ person that's retired comfortably on his Social Security check alone, then I'll agree with you that it's an effective retirement plan. But right now it's at _best_ a supplement, and a poor one at that.
now it seems that you want to deregulate that too so once again a few asshole can become billionaires while the American public picks up the tab once again after things fall to pieces.
You kidding? I was against every bailout and stimulus out there. It's the Dems that shoveled several trillion dollars of our money into the pockets of millionaires these past 2 years. I just want a viable option for my retirement money -- it's absolutely stupid to force safe investments for so long a period. Frankly, if the stock market is in the shitter for 40-50 years straight, we have far larger problems than retiree benefits. "Lifecycle" funds exist for a reason and there's NO reason social security funds couldn't be invested in a similar fashion (riskier funds in youth, safer funds for the elderly -- the young will ride out the rocky years and the elderly will have their money sheltered)
Weren't you even a little embarrassed by being caught red-handed trying to rewrite history with your false claims about the original intent of Social Security? Have you no shame?
I don't understand why you seem to think that my lack of knowledge as to the purpose of Social Security was somehow a conniving, planned attempt to rewrite history. Do you live in a world where you feel everyone with a differing view is out to get you? Have you no shame that you would instantly lump me into a corporation-loving shill simply because I've mentioned I believe a single government program to be woefully ineffective? What's next? Are you going to accuse me of being pro-life, watching Rush, and being a Christian gun nut? Well in that case, I disagree with you, but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler.
Allow me to be equally snide.
If you think Social Security is in _any_ way a sensible investment strategy, you're an idiot.
401ks exist for a reason -- if you want to mandate retirement, force workers to invest a certain percentage of their income into their 401ks. If you want to make it "safer", require that a certain percentage of the 401k be bonds or other safe assets. Relegating 50-60 years of "forced savings" to "TIPS"-based growth is the financial equivalent of having Americans cram 10% of their income under their mattress each year.
There are many other ways to "fix" Social Security. For example, if people making over $100,000 per year contributed at the same rate as poorer people then the problems would be solved for the foreseeable future
Or you could actually reform it to be what it was originally intended to be -- a safety net for those who fall on hard times (rather than the "mandated terribly invested retirement fund" that it is currently treated as). Paying into Social Security and expecting to always get your money back is as stupid as paying into auto insurance and expecting to always get all your premiums repaid in full. It's a _safety net_ (or at least is supposed to be).
I seriously doubt that more than a very tiny fraction of Tea Partiers voted for Obama.
Based on what? Obama's polling numbers showed that he scored huge with the younger crowd and with independents/moderates. That's exactly the Tea Party demographic. It would also explain his rapidly declining approval rating (mirrored with the rise of the Tea Party). I actually know quite a few moderates and/or libertarians who were torn between a "throw-away" vote on Ron Paul or a vote on Obama as a "lesser evil". Heck, I know a few people who voted for Obama simply because Palin was a ditz and they assumed McCain would kick the bucket the first year. I know others (quite a few hardcore Republicans actually) that voted for Obama simply because they hated Bush (and the Neocons) and saw McCain as merely more of the same. I know 1 hard core Ron Paul addict who actually picked Obama over Ron Paul because Obama "stood a chance of winning" and was "promising transparency in government".
Bush even kicked off the spending before leaving office.
True to some extent, and I'll never understand his motives for taking this action. However, the vast majority of Republicans in Congress voted against it whereas the Democratic majority ensured that it passed. It may have been a Bush initiative, but it's only because of the Democratic Congress that it ever saw the light of day. And it still pails in comparison to the spending that has been done since, especially since not all of TARP was even spent.
All of their claims about how it was Democratic policies that caused it ring hollow when they had about a decade of control in Congress, and Presidential control for most of that time, to fix things.
That's not entirely fair since the housing bubble didn't implode until 2007 and the recession/depression didn't start til near-2008. You can claim they caused it or didn't see it coming, but they didn't exactly have much of a chance to "fix it" since it hadn't really happened yet (remember that the last 2 years of Bush's presidency were a Democratic Congress -- at that point he was a lame duck President).
Where do you live that even had Ron Paul on the ticket?
Write-In
Ensuring that everyone will continue to get the Bush tax breaks on the first $200K-$250K would help a lot of people and small businesses, and covers the total income of about 97.5% of all Americans, the ones that are most likely to put that money right back into the economy where it's needed.
I've never understood this view (and totally disagree with Obama). 250k for a _family_ income is outright ridiculous. Many doctors/lawyers can make this coming straight out of college while saddled with ~12 years of crippling medical school debt. New Yorkers and Silicon Valley workers can _easily_ be in that income range and not living the "sweet life". If the objective of this tax increase is to hit millionaires, why not put the bar substantially high at like 500k? At 250k, you not only hit some regular Americans in high cost-of-living areas, but you also hit the _vast majority_ of small business owners (which is the exact job-producing segment they're trying to boost with the latest jobs bill) -- how the hell are these people going to produce jobs when all their extra income vanishes into increased taxes? Eh, I dunno -- I think it's a terrible view to assume that a joint income of 250k is "high on the hog, double rolls royce & limos" when in reality it's far closer to the upper middle class or "the working rich" in quite a few regions -- people that are _trying_ to become millionaires by starting and running their own business.
according to most commentary I've read from economists
Ugh, after the clusterfuck these proclaimed "economists" have blundered us into, I find it really hard to accept any of t
I actually used to like the guy, and was planning to vote for him when I first heard he was going to run for president.
Ironically funny actually (or perhaps tragic?). I actually used to like Obama until I realized he wanted to spend money like a drunken sailor on shore leave. Plenty of wild promises, little implementation details, and little way of paying for it short of diverting war funds or repealing tax cuts. And people wonder why the Tea Party is so up in arms -- I'm willing to bet a good chunk of them voted for Obama expecting something other than the status quo -- like maybe some fiscal accountability (ala transparency).
So either I don't vote and feel dirty, or I vote Democrat and still feel dirty. I can't win.
Well I voted Ron Paul. And personally, I feel that as long as people continue to have the partisan voting attitude, we'll never make any progress. No vote is a thrown away vote. Tea partiers are proof of that. I'm actually surprised more Dems didn't get behind Ron Paul actually -- he's so anti-war, he's practically an isolationist. And his voting track record matches what he preaches, unlike so many politicians (Obama included).
But he does often make some good points and bring some issues to light in the midst of all his over-the-top, self-righteous crap.
But he "brings things to light" in ways that actually harm the country -- he doesn't use facts -- he uses half-truths and sensationalist crap to mislead people into thinking what he wants them to think. Ultimately, he's a prey on the stupid and weakminded -- he's no different than Fox News or Rush/Coulter/O'Reilly/Hannity. If his facts stood up for themselves, he could present them in fair debate with all sides of an argument laid to bare. He's the intellectual equivalent of a blog linked to a blog linked to a twitter stream that claims it was eventually linked to a reputable news source. _All_ of these biased, spun sources (liberal and conservative alike) should be treated as the lies that they truly are.
That said, when was the last time anything from Al Franken or Arianna Huffington or any of the others made the mainstream news?
Well I get all my news online (don't watch the sensationalist TV news), and I just saw her today on the front page of Yahoo Finance: http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/535439/Obama-Should-Have-Focused-on-Jobs,-Not-Health-Care,-Says-Arianna-Huffington
I was actually particularly amazed at how hypocritical those words were coming out of her mouth considering how just a year ago (http://bigthink.com/ideas/15725), she was saying "The most important thing for Obama is to get healthcare right." In fact, I'm pretty sure the _only_ people talking about the Economy during the 2008 presidential run-up were the "crazy lunatic Paultards", as people like to call us Ron Paul supporters. They're now using that same "crazy lunatic" tag against the Tea Party -- decrying an entire movement by the claimed actions of a few loons.
His agenda is to highlight the bullshit that we're being fed by the mainstream news media, the politicians on both sides, and the crazies on the national stage trying to control the direction of things.
I don't know. That's a tall order to believe. He certain isn't giving any third parties that have upset incumbents any support, relegating them to the lunatic fringe just like big media is. I would imagine that if he wants to end partisanship, that he would be all about third parties. At any rate, on this particular issue I don't agree with you, but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler.
Or perhaps he's more polite with someone who is a senator or presidential candidate than he is with some loudmouth hypocrite?
Well, as I said, I have only that one example in googling transcripts -- but he's done similar with presidential candidates. He certainly didn't pull any punches on McCain (http://crooksandliars.com/2007/04/25/senator-mccain-on-the-daily-show), and he was both a senator _and_ a presidential candidate.
Total fruitcake how? What exactly does he do that is so mockable
Okay, maybe total fruitcake was a bit of an exaggeration. But I'm going to have to leave this one where it is because it's another flame war I'd like to avoid. But to summarize: I believe he makes wild and spectacular claims on subjects he has very little true subject matter expertise in. And I believe he's a bit of a hypocrite. But I'll leave it at that.
What high-profile left-wing loons has he neglected to mock?
The Left definitely has its own brand of "Rush/Coulter/O'Reilly/Hannity". Most of them are internet personalities like Arianna Huffington. Al Franken -- or other Air America personalities. Hell, Michael Moore in particular is a choice target, as frequently as he uses "convenient editing" to try to sell his arguments. Stewart hits Fox News all the time for clipping/splicing footage, yet none of Moore's works gets lambasted for doing the exact same kind of "creative editing"/spin.
That said, I'm not saying that the show doesn't lean towards the left, but that it's not nearly as egregious as you're making it out to be.
Well, as I mentioned before, perhaps I hyperbolize a bit too much -- but my ultimate point is that the show is not "fair/equal/balanced" (the "degree" to which this occurs can be certainly debated). Stewart has an agenda, same as most people. And it shows.
I think you're gonna need some serious evidence to back that up.
Sadly, most of Stewart's interviews don't make it to "transcript" and I don't own a copy of the Daily Show DVDs, or I would get plenty of examples for you (especially leading up to the presidential election last year). But I can at least give you an idea of what I'm talking about. Look here: http://therebeller.blogspot.com/2009/03/jon-stewart-pummels-jim-cramer.html
You'll see Cramer making a comment "We have 17 hours of live TV a day to do. But I--" and then Jon comes in and interrupts him with a gag "STEWART: Maybe you could cut down on that." followed by audience laughter and a Stewart segway into a particularly damning video where Cramer is then forced to backpedal to defend himself. Stewart only does it once in this particular interview, but with other guests I've seen this persist throughout the _entire_ dialogue. They're not allowed to get a coherent thought out and are instead constantly put on the defensive by being forced to address things that _Jon_ wants to speak about. For instance, when the guest brings up government spending and then Jon brings up the Iraq War and _aggressively_ pushes the subject to force the guest to talk about the war instead of the budget. Yet if a Dem is on and brings up spending, does Jon bring up the runaway Social Security budget? Or Medicare? Never.
Compare the tone and topic choice of the Cramer interview to...say the Kerry interview: http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blkerrydailyshow.htm
where Stewart <sarcasm>beats up on him</sarcasm> with such tough questions/issues as "Now how-- how are you holding up?" and "is it hard not to take it personally?" and "Are you the number one most liberal senator in the Senate? JOHN KERRY: No. JON STEWART: Okay." When he asks him if he's ever flip-flopped, where's the prepared video ready to embarrass him? Instead Jon plays the whole issue off as some kind of joke. Then he launches into attacking the Republicans again: " I don't know what compassionate conservative means. Does it mean cutting kids out of after-school programs? Does it mean drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge? Does it mean sending kids to Iraq without body armor that's state of the art?"
etc etc
I hope you see my point -- guests he doesn't agree with he grills, ambushes, cuts off, and throws under the bus -- others that share his viewpoints he merrily converses with, tossing in anti-Republican jibes wherever he gets a chance.
With all the unadulterated crazy we see from the Tea Party people, and from Republicans trying to harness them, it's obviously going to be a prime target.
And that's the exact argument _always_ used to describe the imbalance of jibes in the Daily Show. And frankly, I think it's complete bullshit. BOTH sides have nutty individuals. For instance, where's all the unadultered crazy from the Green Party? During the "Gore fad" when global warming was a hot button issue, NONE of the loudmouthed loons from that movement got put on TV (it is _just_ as "cult like/extreme" as the Tea Party). And there's plenty of them. Heck, where's the Gore mockery? That guy is damn close to a total fruitcake -- even South Park mocks him.
In other examples, McCain shooting a buddy by accident in the woods gets a hell of alot more screentime and constant replay value than Obama's nutty childhood pastor (which is just as gag worthy), which got maybe 5 minutes of screen time and never mentioned again -- Edward's affair might get a few minutes of on-time gags before getting back to the usual staple ridicules of McCain's age or Bush's laugh or some other BS that. Democrat jabs
I actually do watch the show, although I prefer Colbert, who is far more courteous and fair to his guests.
And people who don't see the "Bill Maher" in Stewart are likely those who agree with his agenda (and as such choose not to see it).
Stewart cuts people off _frequently_ when he doesn't agree with what they're saying, especially when they're trying to make a point. He also frequently diverts away from what they're saying towards sensationalist/emotional content to get a rise out of his audience and make the guest look bad.
When you say the show "has been getting onto the Democrats", you really are completely ignoring degree and frequency. If you think in any way Obama gets the kind of mockery Bush got (down to an actual _voice_ impression -- "heh heh heh"), you're seriously deluded. In 2006-2008, the show was like 80-90% Republican mockery and 10-20% Democrat mockery, and that was with a Democratic majority in Congress. Now the Democrats have control of _all_ branches of government, and the Daily Show _might_ be going with 50/50 mockery of each party. I _guarantee_ Democrats aren't getting 80+% of the mockery these days.
Honestly, if the Tea Party would official expel Palin and Beck, most of my problems with them would evaporate. Most everyone else are mostly rational.
Umm, you realize that if the Tea Party _did_ expel said people 6 months ago, we wouldn't even be talking about the Tea Party right now? They wouldn't have won any election primaries, people would be saying "Rand Paul who?", and the only place libertarianism would have in free government would be eye-rolling in debates as it did in 2008.
Disgusting as they are, the Palins of the the world are serving a purpose in providing a voice for a third party. When a genuine third party forms are can support its own weight (i.e. when we can ditch the Republican moniker), then perhaps there will be a different story.
If you had no wingnuts, what ideological beliefs could people lump their opponents into during political "conversation"? People might actually be forced to think critically -- perish the thought.
If you did watch the shows more often, you'd be aware of the fact that they're both equal opportunity offenders.
They routinely poke fun at both sides.
I've heard this many, many times -- from Democrats -- show me a few Republicans that share this view and maybe I'll pretend you aren't wearing rose-colored glasses. Or perhaps some research/statistics? I _know_ Stewart comes down far harder on his Republican guests than his Democrat guests for one -- the Republican he cuts off, grills, presses on highly controversial topics -- the Democrat guest he jokes with, talks about nonpolitical gossip, etc, etc.
Uhh, most true libertarians/fiscal conversatives _DO_ want to cut all those programs. Defense is more borderline, typically defended as a constitutional requirement of the federal government (unlike those others).
In fact, I'm pretty sure the reason they call them "batshit crazies" is _because_ they want to cut all those programs.
I gave them a fair shake -- bought an entire case of them in fact at Lowes with the intention of replacing all my house light bulbs. But in testing them, I learned that:
- CFL "soft white" is NOT equal to incandescent "soft white"
- After trying 3 different CFL temperature ranges, I've yet to find a single color that doesn't feel "cleanroom artificial"
- The delay factor is a _major_ headache (even the ones that claim to be instant-on are _not_ instant-on)
- Despite claims to the contrary, they fail just as frequently as incandescents -- I've already burned through nearly half the case and it's only been about a year.
I don't know about you guys, but if this incandescent ban is going to make them disappear in the long term, I think I'm going to start stockpiling incandescents.
You are trying to make it seem as if Congress has no power to do anything other than that which is explicitly granted in the Constitution, which is comically untrue.
The founding fathers meant for the general welfare clause to act as a _restriction_ on the government, not a blank check. It's without a doubt one of the widest and most grievous misinterpretations of our laws that continues to be spread about as "truth" today.
Think of it this way. If the founding fathers were truly hand-waving the federal government to do whatever they want, why did they then spend the time and effort to specifically enumerate a list of "granted powers"? These were men longing for independence and freedom, not people aching for massive government interference in their lives. The fact your post got moderated as high as you did is a reflection on the ignorance of the American populace and is an absolute travesty.
I've never seen the governments of any of those countries pushing to regulate what people eat and drink, how much exercise they make, when they go to sleep, or when they die.
Maybe it simply hasn't hit critical mass yet. When funding becomes unsustainable (which may be imminent: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/1/hi/health/8091427.stm), I wouldn't be surprised to see more and more of it.
And for some reason we don't hear about the governments of Western Europe telling people "[w]hat [they] can eat, when [they] can eat it, how much [they] can eat, when, where and what kind of exercise [they] will do, when [they] get up, when [they] sleep. and (if all that wasn't frightening enough) Who lives, who dies, and when they die," despite the prevalence of socialized programs, especially socialized medicine.
When did "slowing instead of stopping on right turns" adapt the moniker "california stop"? I was fairly certain this behavior was commonplace pretty much everywhere.
Also, I entirely agree that everyone does it. Coming to a complete stop is stupid and, frankly, less safe than the "rolling stop". Coming to a complete stop causes more traffic ripples via the brake jam effect and increases traffic density due to the fact that barely anyone can make it through the light.
The poster wasn't talking about TARP, he was talking about our misadventure in nation building known as the Iraq war.
The Iraq War is nowhere near the same magnitude in cost as TARP. The Iraq War has cost maybe 600 or 700 billion dollars over the course of SIX years. TARP was 700 billion that was granted in a SINGLE DAY (although in all fairness, only half of it has been spent so far).
Not only did he not veto it, his administration (primarily the Treasury folks, headed by Goldman Sachs alumni Paulsen) basically went to Congress and said "The economy will die within weeks (if not days) if you don't give us this program." So, again, you can fault the Democrats for not having the backbone to tell them to go to hell or even that they had better damn well be reporting back weekly for approval, but placing primary responsibility on them is incorrect.
There were more Democrats backing, pushing for, and VOTING for the bailout than Republicans. Just look at govtrack yourself and count the votes. And I might also add: Obama and the Democrats are using the same exact "the economy will die if we don't pass this by Columbus day" threat now to hurry through Bailout 2.0
Sir, you miss the point of the 10th amendment completely. It is written _specifically_ to focus on state's rights because the PEOPLE (and not the government) should be the ones determining which "brand new required modern day powers" to grant the federal government.
As times change, it should NOT be the federal government deciding which new powers it needs. That is the job of its citizens, and the reason an amendment process exists.
Additionally, as another poster already noted, interstate commerce (which embodies everything you stated) is a power already granted to the federal government.
Slashdot Mirror
There is very good reason to make this assumption. Not only did Obama approve of TARP, but it was also far more popular among Democrats than Republicans (just look at the congressional votes). The bailout was not a Republican agenda. In fact, to this day I don't know why Bush tried to jam it through in the last days of his presidency -- maybe to attempt to save face?
His "compromises" were done to appease Blue Dogs, not Republicans -- he couldn't even get his own party on board with the public option. On top of that, it's incredibly misleading to call it compromise to unilaterally write a bill and then pull out only the grossest of offenses. It would be like writing a Declaration of War against the entire world and then later removing 99% of the countries and only going to war against Iraq and then going "see? we compromised". Compromise is hammering out a bipartisan bill in committee, not amending a partisan bill with vote-buying riders.
I might also add that after the resulting abomination of a kludged healthcare bill was eventually finalized, Obama was so concerned with getting votes prior to the midterm election that he (and Pelosi) forced it through as quickly as he could with backdoor deals, knowing that the American populace did not want it, rather than tearing it down and starting from scratch and doing it right. This same need to be political and "achieve his agenda" was the same reason he even spent months languishing over health care instead of focusing on the economy and job creation like he should have in the first place.
You fool yourself by thinking he's not playing the same partisan political game.
You contradicted yourself.
If Clinton's leadership was one of the "greatest decades of growth" under a Republican congress, how would that make the Republicans unreasonable and unwilling to work across the aisle? Especially when Bush with a Democratic Congress (at least 2 of his 8 years) is supposedly the "worst".
If I had mod points, sir, they'd go to you.
You seem to be confusing compromises he did to appease Blue Dogs vs compromises he did to appease Republicans. He couldn't even get his whole party onboard with the Public Option. In fact, _most_ (if not all) of the Democrat compromising was done to appease divisions in their own party, not Republicans.
First of all, since when has the "Tea Party" ever fully-capitalized the word "Tea"? It's not like it's an acronym or something. And you're the one harping about reading comprehension?
Secondly, what do the "Know Nothings" (an anti-immigration platform) in any way have to do with the Tea Party (a largely libertarian platform)? The Tea Party isn't a secretive platform either. Your vague correlation between the two leaves much to be desired, even by one familiar with historical events.
Well, Obama claimed to be a constitutional scholar, and yet most of his political agenda is unconstitutional. Government mandated medical insurance for instance -- show me where the government is legally allowed to mandate that in the Constitution. And please don't demonstrate the common general comprehension failure of what "General Welfare" means (especially given the fact you've already painted yourself as a history buff).
Umm, _all_ political parties have members with widely differing degrees of intelligence. Or shall I assume all Dems have the same mental deficiencies as Hank Johnson? Why don't you pick on Rand Paul or Ken Buck rather than the easy-pickings of Christine O'Donnell (who for very good reason stands no chance at winning the election).
The belief that you can lump-sum an entire political party, all of its candidates, and all of its constituents simply by their dumbest members is ludicrous and wildly naive. You sir are what is wrong with modern-day politics. Instead of seeing past the lunatic fringe and trying to actually understand a major political movement, you instead allow the loudest and stupidest to taint your viewpoint of an entire group of people. Well, as a libertarian, I disagree with you, but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler.
Well, I was definitely wrong about that -- but it actually was even more of a disappointment than a revelation. Originally, I saw Social Security as a "Clinton Welfare"-type problem, with hope of being reformed. But since what you say is true, and it was truly meant for _retirement_, I think the entire program should be scrapped -- because it fails poorly at producing any kind of growth, barely keeping up with inflation -- and the paycheck you get in the end isn't even close to a living wage.
I'm not asking for maximum return. I'm asking for _return_. You can't honestly tell me that you believe that throwing money into a void for half a decade before extracting it is better than at least trying to grow it by putting _part_ of it into value based investing -- such as large established companies with dividends.
Unscathed? It's damn near bankrupt. And the only solution given to fix it is to either throw more money at it or raise the retirement age. Which means it's either more of a money sink or even _less_ of an effective program. When you show me even _one_ person that's retired comfortably on his Social Security check alone, then I'll agree with you that it's an effective retirement plan. But right now it's at _best_ a supplement, and a poor one at that.
You kidding? I was against every bailout and stimulus out there. It's the Dems that shoveled several trillion dollars of our money into the pockets of millionaires these past 2 years. I just want a viable option for my retirement money -- it's absolutely stupid to force safe investments for so long a period. Frankly, if the stock market is in the shitter for 40-50 years straight, we have far larger problems than retiree benefits. "Lifecycle" funds exist for a reason and there's NO reason social security funds couldn't be invested in a similar fashion (riskier funds in youth, safer funds for the elderly -- the young will ride out the rocky years and the elderly will have their money sheltered)
I don't understand why you seem to think that my lack of knowledge as to the purpose of Social Security was somehow a conniving, planned attempt to rewrite history. Do you live in a world where you feel everyone with a differing view is out to get you? Have you no shame that you would instantly lump me into a corporation-loving shill simply because I've mentioned I believe a single government program to be woefully ineffective? What's next? Are you going to accuse me of being pro-life, watching Rush, and being a Christian gun nut? Well in that case, I disagree with you, but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler.
Allow me to be equally snide. If you think Social Security is in _any_ way a sensible investment strategy, you're an idiot. 401ks exist for a reason -- if you want to mandate retirement, force workers to invest a certain percentage of their income into their 401ks. If you want to make it "safer", require that a certain percentage of the 401k be bonds or other safe assets. Relegating 50-60 years of "forced savings" to "TIPS"-based growth is the financial equivalent of having Americans cram 10% of their income under their mattress each year.
Or you could actually reform it to be what it was originally intended to be -- a safety net for those who fall on hard times (rather than the "mandated terribly invested retirement fund" that it is currently treated as). Paying into Social Security and expecting to always get your money back is as stupid as paying into auto insurance and expecting to always get all your premiums repaid in full. It's a _safety net_ (or at least is supposed to be).
Based on what? Obama's polling numbers showed that he scored huge with the younger crowd and with independents/moderates. That's exactly the Tea Party demographic. It would also explain his rapidly declining approval rating (mirrored with the rise of the Tea Party). I actually know quite a few moderates and/or libertarians who were torn between a "throw-away" vote on Ron Paul or a vote on Obama as a "lesser evil". Heck, I know a few people who voted for Obama simply because Palin was a ditz and they assumed McCain would kick the bucket the first year. I know others (quite a few hardcore Republicans actually) that voted for Obama simply because they hated Bush (and the Neocons) and saw McCain as merely more of the same. I know 1 hard core Ron Paul addict who actually picked Obama over Ron Paul because Obama "stood a chance of winning" and was "promising transparency in government".
True to some extent, and I'll never understand his motives for taking this action. However, the vast majority of Republicans in Congress voted against it whereas the Democratic majority ensured that it passed. It may have been a Bush initiative, but it's only because of the Democratic Congress that it ever saw the light of day. And it still pails in comparison to the spending that has been done since, especially since not all of TARP was even spent.
That's not entirely fair since the housing bubble didn't implode until 2007 and the recession/depression didn't start til near-2008. You can claim they caused it or didn't see it coming, but they didn't exactly have much of a chance to "fix it" since it hadn't really happened yet (remember that the last 2 years of Bush's presidency were a Democratic Congress -- at that point he was a lame duck President).
Write-In
I've never understood this view (and totally disagree with Obama). 250k for a _family_ income is outright ridiculous. Many doctors/lawyers can make this coming straight out of college while saddled with ~12 years of crippling medical school debt. New Yorkers and Silicon Valley workers can _easily_ be in that income range and not living the "sweet life". If the objective of this tax increase is to hit millionaires, why not put the bar substantially high at like 500k? At 250k, you not only hit some regular Americans in high cost-of-living areas, but you also hit the _vast majority_ of small business owners (which is the exact job-producing segment they're trying to boost with the latest jobs bill) -- how the hell are these people going to produce jobs when all their extra income vanishes into increased taxes? Eh, I dunno -- I think it's a terrible view to assume that a joint income of 250k is "high on the hog, double rolls royce & limos" when in reality it's far closer to the upper middle class or "the working rich" in quite a few regions -- people that are _trying_ to become millionaires by starting and running their own business.
Ugh, after the clusterfuck these proclaimed "economists" have blundered us into, I find it really hard to accept any of t
Ironically funny actually (or perhaps tragic?). I actually used to like Obama until I realized he wanted to spend money like a drunken sailor on shore leave. Plenty of wild promises, little implementation details, and little way of paying for it short of diverting war funds or repealing tax cuts. And people wonder why the Tea Party is so up in arms -- I'm willing to bet a good chunk of them voted for Obama expecting something other than the status quo -- like maybe some fiscal accountability (ala transparency).
Well I voted Ron Paul. And personally, I feel that as long as people continue to have the partisan voting attitude, we'll never make any progress. No vote is a thrown away vote. Tea partiers are proof of that. I'm actually surprised more Dems didn't get behind Ron Paul actually -- he's so anti-war, he's practically an isolationist. And his voting track record matches what he preaches, unlike so many politicians (Obama included).
But he "brings things to light" in ways that actually harm the country -- he doesn't use facts -- he uses half-truths and sensationalist crap to mislead people into thinking what he wants them to think. Ultimately, he's a prey on the stupid and weakminded -- he's no different than Fox News or Rush/Coulter/O'Reilly/Hannity. If his facts stood up for themselves, he could present them in fair debate with all sides of an argument laid to bare. He's the intellectual equivalent of a blog linked to a blog linked to a twitter stream that claims it was eventually linked to a reputable news source. _All_ of these biased, spun sources (liberal and conservative alike) should be treated as the lies that they truly are.
Well I get all my news online (don't watch the sensationalist TV news), and I just saw her today on the front page of Yahoo Finance: http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/535439/Obama-Should-Have-Focused-on-Jobs,-Not-Health-Care,-Says-Arianna-Huffington I was actually particularly amazed at how hypocritical those words were coming out of her mouth considering how just a year ago (http://bigthink.com/ideas/15725), she was saying "The most important thing for Obama is to get healthcare right." In fact, I'm pretty sure the _only_ people talking about the Economy during the 2008 presidential run-up were the "crazy lunatic Paultards", as people like to call us Ron Paul supporters. They're now using that same "crazy lunatic" tag against the Tea Party -- decrying an entire movement by the claimed actions of a few loons.
I don't know. That's a tall order to believe. He certain isn't giving any third parties that have upset incumbents any support, relegating them to the lunatic fringe just like big media is. I would imagine that if he wants to end partisanship, that he would be all about third parties. At any rate, on this particular issue I don't agree with you, but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler.
Well, as I said, I have only that one example in googling transcripts -- but he's done similar with presidential candidates. He certainly didn't pull any punches on McCain (http://crooksandliars.com/2007/04/25/senator-mccain-on-the-daily-show), and he was both a senator _and_ a presidential candidate.
Okay, maybe total fruitcake was a bit of an exaggeration. But I'm going to have to leave this one where it is because it's another flame war I'd like to avoid. But to summarize: I believe he makes wild and spectacular claims on subjects he has very little true subject matter expertise in. And I believe he's a bit of a hypocrite. But I'll leave it at that.
The Left definitely has its own brand of "Rush/Coulter/O'Reilly/Hannity". Most of them are internet personalities like Arianna Huffington. Al Franken -- or other Air America personalities. Hell, Michael Moore in particular is a choice target, as frequently as he uses "convenient editing" to try to sell his arguments. Stewart hits Fox News all the time for clipping/splicing footage, yet none of Moore's works gets lambasted for doing the exact same kind of "creative editing"/spin.
Well, as I mentioned before, perhaps I hyperbolize a bit too much -- but my ultimate point is that the show is not "fair/equal/balanced" (the "degree" to which this occurs can be certainly debated). Stewart has an agenda, same as most people. And it shows.
About 4 years running.
Sadly, most of Stewart's interviews don't make it to "transcript" and I don't own a copy of the Daily Show DVDs, or I would get plenty of examples for you (especially leading up to the presidential election last year). But I can at least give you an idea of what I'm talking about. Look here: http://therebeller.blogspot.com/2009/03/jon-stewart-pummels-jim-cramer.html
You'll see Cramer making a comment "We have 17 hours of live TV a day to do. But I--" and then Jon comes in and interrupts him with a gag "STEWART: Maybe you could cut down on that." followed by audience laughter and a Stewart segway into a particularly damning video where Cramer is then forced to backpedal to defend himself. Stewart only does it once in this particular interview, but with other guests I've seen this persist throughout the _entire_ dialogue. They're not allowed to get a coherent thought out and are instead constantly put on the defensive by being forced to address things that _Jon_ wants to speak about. For instance, when the guest brings up government spending and then Jon brings up the Iraq War and _aggressively_ pushes the subject to force the guest to talk about the war instead of the budget. Yet if a Dem is on and brings up spending, does Jon bring up the runaway Social Security budget? Or Medicare? Never.
Compare the tone and topic choice of the Cramer interview to...say the Kerry interview: http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blkerrydailyshow.htm where Stewart <sarcasm>beats up on him</sarcasm> with such tough questions/issues as "Now how-- how are you holding up?" and "is it hard not to take it personally?" and "Are you the number one most liberal senator in the Senate? JOHN KERRY: No. JON STEWART: Okay." When he asks him if he's ever flip-flopped, where's the prepared video ready to embarrass him? Instead Jon plays the whole issue off as some kind of joke. Then he launches into attacking the Republicans again: " I don't know what compassionate conservative means. Does it mean cutting kids out of after-school programs? Does it mean drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge? Does it mean sending kids to Iraq without body armor that's state of the art?"
etc etc
I hope you see my point -- guests he doesn't agree with he grills, ambushes, cuts off, and throws under the bus -- others that share his viewpoints he merrily converses with, tossing in anti-Republican jibes wherever he gets a chance.
And that's the exact argument _always_ used to describe the imbalance of jibes in the Daily Show. And frankly, I think it's complete bullshit. BOTH sides have nutty individuals. For instance, where's all the unadultered crazy from the Green Party? During the "Gore fad" when global warming was a hot button issue, NONE of the loudmouthed loons from that movement got put on TV (it is _just_ as "cult like/extreme" as the Tea Party). And there's plenty of them. Heck, where's the Gore mockery? That guy is damn close to a total fruitcake -- even South Park mocks him.
In other examples, McCain shooting a buddy by accident in the woods gets a hell of alot more screentime and constant replay value than Obama's nutty childhood pastor (which is just as gag worthy), which got maybe 5 minutes of screen time and never mentioned again -- Edward's affair might get a few minutes of on-time gags before getting back to the usual staple ridicules of McCain's age or Bush's laugh or some other BS that. Democrat jabs
I actually do watch the show, although I prefer Colbert, who is far more courteous and fair to his guests. And people who don't see the "Bill Maher" in Stewart are likely those who agree with his agenda (and as such choose not to see it). Stewart cuts people off _frequently_ when he doesn't agree with what they're saying, especially when they're trying to make a point. He also frequently diverts away from what they're saying towards sensationalist/emotional content to get a rise out of his audience and make the guest look bad.
When you say the show "has been getting onto the Democrats", you really are completely ignoring degree and frequency. If you think in any way Obama gets the kind of mockery Bush got (down to an actual _voice_ impression -- "heh heh heh"), you're seriously deluded. In 2006-2008, the show was like 80-90% Republican mockery and 10-20% Democrat mockery, and that was with a Democratic majority in Congress. Now the Democrats have control of _all_ branches of government, and the Daily Show _might_ be going with 50/50 mockery of each party. I _guarantee_ Democrats aren't getting 80+% of the mockery these days.
Umm, you realize that if the Tea Party _did_ expel said people 6 months ago, we wouldn't even be talking about the Tea Party right now? They wouldn't have won any election primaries, people would be saying "Rand Paul who?", and the only place libertarianism would have in free government would be eye-rolling in debates as it did in 2008.
Disgusting as they are, the Palins of the the world are serving a purpose in providing a voice for a third party. When a genuine third party forms are can support its own weight (i.e. when we can ditch the Republican moniker), then perhaps there will be a different story.
If you had no wingnuts, what ideological beliefs could people lump their opponents into during political "conversation"? People might actually be forced to think critically -- perish the thought.
I've heard this many, many times -- from Democrats -- show me a few Republicans that share this view and maybe I'll pretend you aren't wearing rose-colored glasses. Or perhaps some research/statistics? I _know_ Stewart comes down far harder on his Republican guests than his Democrat guests for one -- the Republican he cuts off, grills, presses on highly controversial topics -- the Democrat guest he jokes with, talks about nonpolitical gossip, etc, etc.
In fact, I'm pretty sure the reason they call them "batshit crazies" is _because_ they want to cut all those programs.
- CFL "soft white" is NOT equal to incandescent "soft white"
- After trying 3 different CFL temperature ranges, I've yet to find a single color that doesn't feel "cleanroom artificial"
- The delay factor is a _major_ headache (even the ones that claim to be instant-on are _not_ instant-on)
- Despite claims to the contrary, they fail just as frequently as incandescents -- I've already burned through nearly half the case and it's only been about a year.
I don't know about you guys, but if this incandescent ban is going to make them disappear in the long term, I think I'm going to start stockpiling incandescents.
So adopt stricter laws in the US and let people drive whatever speed they want.
You are trying to make it seem as if Congress has no power to do anything other than that which is explicitly granted in the Constitution, which is comically untrue.
Incorrect. It is _absolutely_ true. Look up any quotes from the founding fathers. Many of them are listed here: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080817135306AAhmfqX
The founding fathers meant for the general welfare clause to act as a _restriction_ on the government, not a blank check. It's without a doubt one of the widest and most grievous misinterpretations of our laws that continues to be spread about as "truth" today.
Think of it this way. If the founding fathers were truly hand-waving the federal government to do whatever they want, why did they then spend the time and effort to specifically enumerate a list of "granted powers"? These were men longing for independence and freedom, not people aching for massive government interference in their lives. The fact your post got moderated as high as you did is a reflection on the ignorance of the American populace and is an absolute travesty.
I've never seen the governments of any of those countries pushing to regulate what people eat and drink, how much exercise they make, when they go to sleep, or when they die.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/27/nhs127.xml
Maybe it simply hasn't hit critical mass yet. When funding becomes unsustainable (which may be imminent: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/1/hi/health/8091427.stm), I wouldn't be surprised to see more and more of it.
And for some reason we don't hear about the governments of Western Europe telling people "[w]hat [they] can eat, when [they] can eat it, how much [they] can eat, when, where and what kind of exercise [they] will do, when [they] get up, when [they] sleep. and (if all that wasn't frightening enough) Who lives, who dies, and when they die," despite the prevalence of socialized programs, especially socialized medicine.
Oh?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/27/nhs127.xml
Also, I entirely agree that everyone does it. Coming to a complete stop is stupid and, frankly, less safe than the "rolling stop". Coming to a complete stop causes more traffic ripples via the brake jam effect and increases traffic density due to the fact that barely anyone can make it through the light.
The poster wasn't talking about TARP, he was talking about our misadventure in nation building known as the Iraq war.
The Iraq War is nowhere near the same magnitude in cost as TARP. The Iraq War has cost maybe 600 or 700 billion dollars over the course of SIX years. TARP was 700 billion that was granted in a SINGLE DAY (although in all fairness, only half of it has been spent so far).
Not only did he not veto it, his administration (primarily the Treasury folks, headed by Goldman Sachs alumni Paulsen) basically went to Congress and said "The economy will die within weeks (if not days) if you don't give us this program." So, again, you can fault the Democrats for not having the backbone to tell them to go to hell or even that they had better damn well be reporting back weekly for approval, but placing primary responsibility on them is incorrect.
There were more Democrats backing, pushing for, and VOTING for the bailout than Republicans. Just look at govtrack yourself and count the votes. And I might also add: Obama and the Democrats are using the same exact "the economy will die if we don't pass this by Columbus day" threat now to hurry through Bailout 2.0
As times change, it should NOT be the federal government deciding which new powers it needs. That is the job of its citizens, and the reason an amendment process exists.
Additionally, as another poster already noted, interstate commerce (which embodies everything you stated) is a power already granted to the federal government.