Obama's Rhetoric is the Real Catastrophe

[SWTXBelle]

Perhaps he is referencing Biden's remark that Obama was "clean and well-spoken".

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

change= his party will be in power?

wjat is his mantra? keep your eneimeies close, and those you can't trust at all keep closer (take a look at his cabinet...either he studied Machevelli like a champ or is the dumbest mother f***er ever born.

Seriously.......Joe Biden is openly racist and even suggested better candidates than himself. Why is he where he is? So he can't fuck nothing up. Clinton's in a place where she'll be tried for treason if she runs her mouth off, and Dachele's been laughed out of town. We either have the most self-serving president ever, or we have the dumbest. But Obama reminds me more of van Burren than Polk. He knows what hes doing, and only like 5% of the populace do. And uless he becomes populist, more power to him.

Keep your friends close....

[DrPhil]

"You can choose whether or not to defend your thoughts/opinions/beliefs, but it's actually quite immature to say 'But it's MY OPINION! I have a right to an OPINION!' as some sort of absolute defense to others questioning you." - KSigRC

[DrPhil]

As most of us are not experts regarding this, what are the realistic options on a National level? We know the options on local and individual levels, seeing as though some of us know how to prepare for the future and adjust for difficult times so that really isn't the issue here.

I do not know if there has been a false sense of hope instilled in the population. There has been a lot of big talk that has resulted in an imbalance between optimism and realism. I think people are expecting longterm improvement to come too quickly (beyond Stock Market fluctuations and a few companies hiring). This is another reason why it's difficult to know when and how to assess the effectiveness of policies and programs. You can compliment what sounds like a good approach and criticize what sounds like a bad approach. Too much more than that is presumptuous.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

As most of us are not experts regarding this, what are the realistic options on a National level? We know the options on local and individual levels, seeing as though some of us know how to prepare for the future and adjust for difficult times so that really isn't the issue here.

I do not know if there has been a false sense of hope instilled in the population. There has been a lot of big talk that has resulted in an imbalance between optimism and realism. I think people are expecting longterm improvement to come too quickly (beyond Stock Market fluctuations and a few companies hiring). This is another reason why it's difficult to know when and how to assess the effectiveness of policies and programs. You can compliment what sounds like a good approach and criticize what sounds like a bad approach. Too much more than that is presumptuous.

This is part of my concern; people want the quick fix, and aren't concerned about the longterm. There are people who want stimulus money pumped into companies (whether they are banks, auto manufacturers, etc.), but then what happens next? Is a there management audit, so to speak, to find out the management issues? Do you then examine the company's business practices to make sure they're not getting back into bad habits If we pump money into saving jobs, or offering some sort of financial bridge during unemployment, what are the after-effects? Where is this money coming from, and how does it all balance out? Is it just a Band Aid, or a real solution? And, is the government really the best body to be examining "best practices" for private industry?

It's also a subject where most people can't be objective about it. You have people living in economically-depressed areas who are saying "You can't understand, because you don't have friends losing jobs." Or you have people who have lost their investments because their investment companies have been mismanaged. In those circumstances, it's impossible to take a longview.

Plus I have my own opinion that Presidents have very little impact on the ecomony anyway, either positive or negative...

[RU OX Alum]

We cannot push things onto future generations, that is completely unethical, the problems of today must be dealt with today, regardless any one's positiion on any singular issue. "peace in our time" was deemed morally dispecable (spelling?) during this Federation's revolution, and should be treated the same way now. As difficult as we may find them, we must strive to resolve the problems of our day, and not to delegate them to the citizens of the future. To fail to do so is nothing short of generational tyranny.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

We cannot push things onto future generations, that is completely unethical, the problems of today must be dealt with today, regardless any one's positiion on any singular issue. "peace in our time" was deemed morally dispecable (spelling?) during this Federation's revolution, and should be treated the same way now. As difficult as we may find them, we must strive to resolve the problems of our day, and not to delegate them to the citizens of the future. To fail to do so is nothing short of generational tyranny.

That is interesting take. However, the deficit was levied higher when President Reagan took office, in response to the Iranian Hostage Crisis that President Carter was unable to solve... The first President Bush increased it due to the First Gulf War, although, the Kuwaiti's did pay us back, it still was not enough that we incurred. President Clinton spent quite a bit of taxpayer money at first, we did see our economy flourish and we were left a surplus partly based on the taxes paid...

The second President Bush gave tax-breaks for the richest 1% of the population. Then 9-11 happened, which did cost us... More than we all could imagine. It truly affected World Trade. It wasn't that the twin towers and other buildings fell in its dramatic tragedy, but the months of lost business, Wall Street probably did not re-coup as well as they thought. While Fed Chair worked his magic the cost was only a band-aid, and deflected to future generations... How far into the future is up for contention. But, we are facing past decisions and this is what we are paying for, now...

Lemme, put it like this, basically, a lot of the money is going to California, as well as other states. So many people are upside down underwater in homes they use to own, it was psychotic what was done in many parts in California. But since the economic potential of California's GDP is greater than both war efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, it seems like a wise ROI. California needs major infrastructure upgrades. SoCal has no more water. There is quite a bit of major crop farming that no one can afford to lose, name all fruits, wine grapes, etc., so desalinization is a viable option. IDK? Then sewage needs to be solved because it is 40-50+ y/o lines.

You have Silicon Valley, Cupertino, Napa Valley, Shasta Mountains, Sierra Nevada Mountains, Beach Cities that can crank out significant money makers.

The other thing is most of the big populated States are having similar problems and not putting out similar GDPs. If we can get to our pre-9-11 potential or higher, that is when we will know things are changing. That seems far off right now.

[AGDee]

We all got an email from our Chief Medical Officer today outlining the positives of the stimulus package for us as a health system. These two items in particular give me some sense of security since I do IT for our research division:

1. A major part of the stimulus package is devoted to health information technology. Physicians may be paid as much as $44,000 over the course of 5 years to implement healthcare IT. Again, we are in a very good position since we are developing CarePlus Next Generation and will link it to other physicians in the Health System.

2. NIH funding also received a $10B infusion from the stimulus package. Some of this will be devoted to infrastructure such as new buildings. We hope to compete for this designation since we have run out of research space. We are among the top 6% of institutions receiving NIH funding, so this would be a good investment of taxpayer dollars.

**They have talked that if they can build a new research building, the VP Research wants my boss and I to be in charge of IT for the whole Business Unit, not just our current department. This would be HUGE job security for me. HUGE. So, I guess that's my piece of the stimulus plan...

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by AGDee

We all got an email from our Chief Medical Officer today outlining the positives of the stimulus package for us as a health system. These two items in particular give me some sense of security since I do IT for our research division:

1. A major part of the stimulus package is devoted to health information technology. Physicians may be paid as much as $44,000 over the course of 5 years to implement healthcare IT. Again, we are in a very good position since we are developing CarePlus Next Generation and will link it to other physicians in the Health System.

2. NIH funding also received a $10B infusion from the stimulus package. Some of this will be devoted to infrastructure such as new buildings. We hope to compete for this designation since we have run out of research space. We are among the top 6% of institutions receiving NIH funding, so this would be a good investment of taxpayer dollars.

**They have talked that if they can build a new research building, the VP Research wants my boss and I to be in charge of IT for the whole Business Unit, not just our current department. This would be HUGE job security for me. HUGE. So, I guess that's my piece of the stimulus plan...

That's wonderful to hear. Thanks for sharing.