Obama's Rhetoric is the Real Catastrophe

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I meant it more from a cost/benefit perspective. I just don't want to see a situation where the government over-extends itself trying to help the immediate problem, and doesn't look at long-term issues. So, for example; if the government is over-extended on the current stimulus package, does that mean higher taxes for people who can't afford them? Does that mean that current benefit programs will get cut down the road? Will we be trading a temporary relief for long-term economic recovery?

I'm no economist, and I obviously don't have the answer to these problems. I understand the other side of the argument, and I'll admit I have a bias towards less government involvement if at all necessary.

I am not an economist either, but, let's use our best judgment to make an informed decision...

Who knows what the future may hold? The best we can do is to have plans for them. The neat thing about plans is that they change, often... And as I have gotten older, hayle, all my plans have totally changed... The issue is the magnitude of the change. Yes, it is huge. Yes, the government may be over-extending itself. IMHO, there is a "silver lining" or pay-off in the end. Not only are we changing in philosophy and action, and this is metamorphosis... We are beginning to molt into our Chrysalis and afterward, we will NEVER be the what we were before. You, yourself might not want to change, but you have to. EVERYTHING must change, so goes the song...

I guess I am not fearful of changing anymore... And who knows, it might get a lot worse... But, what do we do, when we fall/fail? If we don't change, we will die, this country will die. As painful as it is, we have to do it. Maybe the process would be different if McCain won. But even he knows things have to change, too. And what's amazing, is McCain pretty much is serving the role to ask hard questions, respectfully and he is being fair about it, IMO. Which to me, shows his character as a person, a legislature and statesmen. If I was in his position, I would ask the same questions too.

Does President Obama listen to someone like Senator McCain? I don't think the media shows it, but you better believe if Senator McCain had some major issues (BIG issues) with the entire stim package, that piece of legislation would be dead in the water. And when I say major, I mean, major. But Senator McCain was the one to ask the question about the Presidential helicopters. Then, President Obama responded by thanking him first. Then the media presented the cost overruns of something decided by the previous admin...

So, IMHO, it shows us that the United States is governed by 3 equal branches and there is more inclusion in the decisions that will shape US policy in the future. Whereas, before, the registered voters allowed our politicians free reign for so long.

If there is something anyone protest, contact your legislator or Whitehouse office. Start a letter writing campaign, vote your person out of office, etc. Raise funds to make the change more reflective to your ideals... Even serve yourself on a campaign. This is what inclusive politics is all about...

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

But Senator McCain was the one to ask the question about the Presidential helicopters. ...

I guess I looked at that differently. I don't think his motives were in the right place on that issue.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

I guess I looked at that differently. I don't think his motives were in the right place on that issue.

Oh Senator McCain is definitely NOT drinking the President Obama crunk juice, but, all of them are politicians and that is something "they" do...

Aside from that, I just learned that due to too much de-regulation, many of the big banks invested their money in derivatives. Derivatives are very risky investment tools. While you can make a TON of money, which we saw, you can lose it faster... In order to make that kind of money to invest, risky loans were made to people clueless about the printed paper. Then when the balloon was made, if you jumped out quickly, you were probably okay. But if you tried to back out within the last 2 years, you were left holding the bag. It was a shakedown.

Now, while President Bush 2 was not told to correct this kind of investments, President Clinton didn't do it either... And this kind of investment was made on the tail end of President Reagan... So, it took roughly 22 years for us to crash! That's like a Ecstasy-Crystal Meth rush mixed with a little crack. Just nuts. And it unknown if President Obama will smoke that glass pee pee or not...

Folks like money, fast... Instant gratification... We have got to have an "intervention" on this one...

This ain't the Drinky Crow Show...

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

Oh Senator McCain is definitely NOT drinking the President Obama crunk juice, but, all of them are politicians and that is something "they" do...

Aside from that, I just learned that due to too much de-regulation, many of the big banks invested their money in derivatives. Derivatives are very risky investment tools. While you can make a TON of money, which we saw, you can lose it faster... In order to make that kind of money to invest, risky loans were made to people clueless about the printed paper. Then when the balloon was made, if you jumped out quickly, you were probably okay. But if you tried to back out within the last 2 years, you were left holding the bag. It was a shakedown.

Now, while President Bush 2 was not told to correct this kind of investments, President Clinton didn't do it either... And this kind of investment was made on the tail end of President Reagan... So, it took roughly 22 years for us to crash! That's like a Ecstasy-Crystal Meth rush mixed with a little crack. Just nuts. And it unknown if President Obama will smoke that glass pee pee or not...

Folks like money, fast... Instant gratification... We have got to have an "intervention" on this one...

This ain't the Drinky Crow Show...

You're right. That is something they do. However, I certainly don't think he would've done much complaining about the new Marine Ones if HE had been the one using them. I loved Obama's response.



As far as the issues with the economy...I'm waiting to see how things will work out in the next few years.

[AGDee]

I think friction is important in our branches. I think that friction is what makes the two party system work. Friction doesn't mean 'stalemate' as has occurred at times. Friction means a questioning of methods to achieve a common goal, to me. I think the friction keeps things fairly moderate, which is where we ultimately should be to be a fair representation of the whole country. I believe that some of our best policies, like workfare and the current ADC rules, come from the compromises necessary due to friction. See, I'm not as big of bleeding heart liberal as y'all tend to think I am

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I think friction is important in our branches. I think that friction is what makes the two party system work. Friction doesn't mean 'stalemate' as has occurred at times. Friction means a questioning of methods to achieve a common goal, to me. I think the friction keeps things fairly moderate, which is where we ultimately should be to be a fair representation of the whole country. I believe that some of our best policies, like workfare and the current ADC rules, come from the compromises necessary due to friction. See, I'm not as big of bleeding heart liberal as y'all tend to think I am

Exactly! There's a line somewhere between productive friction and stalemate, and as long as there's some friction, as long as there are those checks and balances, I think things work a lot better.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I think friction is important in our branches. I think that friction is what makes the two party system work. Friction doesn't mean 'stalemate' as has occurred at times. Friction means a questioning of methods to achieve a common goal, to me. I think the friction keeps things fairly moderate, which is where we ultimately should be to be a fair representation of the whole country. I believe that some of our best policies, like workfare and the current ADC rules, come from the compromises necessary due to friction. See, I'm not as big of bleeding heart liberal as y'all tend to think I am

I guess maybe it's a word choice thing. I don't see that as "friction." I simply see it as checks and balances. To me, the word "friction" has a much more negative connotation to it, and implies altercations and the like.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

I am not an economist either, but, let's use our best judgment to make an informed decision...

Who knows what the future may hold? The best we can do is to have plans for them. The neat thing about plans is that they change, often... And as I have gotten older, hayle, all my plans have totally changed... The issue is the magnitude of the change. Yes, it is huge. Yes, the government may be over-extending itself. IMHO, there is a "silver lining" or pay-off in the end. Not only are we changing in philosophy and action, and this is metamorphosis... We are beginning to molt into our Chrysalis and afterward, we will NEVER be the what we were before. You, yourself might not want to change, but you have to. EVERYTHING must change, so goes the song...

I guess I am not fearful of changing anymore... And who knows, it might get a lot worse... But, what do we do, when we fall/fail? If we don't change, we will die, this country will die. As painful as it is, we have to do it. Maybe the process would be different if McCain won. But even he knows things have to change, too. And what's amazing, is McCain pretty much is serving the role to ask hard questions, respectfully and he is being fair about it, IMO. Which to me, shows his character as a person, a legislature and statesmen. If I was in his position, I would ask the same questions too.

Does President Obama listen to someone like Senator McCain? I don't think the media shows it, but you better believe if Senator McCain had some major issues (BIG issues) with the entire stim package, that piece of legislation would be dead in the water. And when I say major, I mean, major. But Senator McCain was the one to ask the question about the Presidential helicopters. Then, President Obama responded by thanking him first. Then the media presented the cost overruns of something decided by the previous admin...

So, IMHO, it shows us that the United States is governed by 3 equal branches and there is more inclusion in the decisions that will shape US policy in the future. Whereas, before, the registered voters allowed our politicians free reign for so long.

If there is something anyone protest, contact your legislator or Whitehouse office. Start a letter writing campaign, vote your person out of office, etc. Raise funds to make the change more reflective to your ideals... Even serve yourself on a campaign. This is what inclusive politics is all about...

I agree with a large part of this. I mean, although I think friction between the branches is necessary to effective governance (checks and balances and all that), it's also gratifying when people can reach across party lines when necessary. It's one of the reasons I have a lot of respect for someone like Senator Kennedy, who is able to work with Republicans on a whole host of issues.

It's also good to see you understand the McCain questions. I think it's too easy for people to play partisan politics, and not recognize that there are questions to be asked about the stimulus plan, questions to be asked about the long term plans with respect to economic recovery. I do think that a certain measure of both McCain's question and Obama's response were about the show, about the politics of the situation. At the end of the day, I think we all recognize there was a bit of political theatre to both of their statements.

I do agree, though, that getting involved is extremely worthwhile. I've supported candidates on the local level (although CT and MA aren't the most Republican-friendly states), and I fully expect to support my candidate of choice when/if he runs for President in 2012.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I agree with a large part of this. I mean, although I think friction between the branches is necessary to effective governance (checks and balances and all that), .

I personally think friction between the branches can sometimes hinder effective governance. I think you can maintain checks and balances without friction.