One thing, though, Aragorn:
I firmly believe that with ANY President or Congress…“Right” or “Left”…you would have seen similar amounts of money spent when faced with the same crisis.
I simply don’t think that ANY President would have taken a “Let 'em burn” policy.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Bolt:
This is problem that I have…
Analyzing more what someone else has done than suggesting what should have been done.
When faced with the same daunting financial meltdown…what would the Right have done, and why would it have been so much better? I personally think that ANY President…Right or Left…would have been approaching this financial crisis by spending a lot of money, simply because the crisis had no precedent. (Note: the world in 1929 is not the World of 2009).
What I DO agree on (that has been put forth so far); is:
Tiribulus seems to suggest “he saw it coming” when it was already present.
I have NO defense whatsoever for the wastefulness and spending of the U.S. Government, and will never ever try to. But I also will not accept that somehow it began with this President.
And dhicky…this “Utopia” of the 1700’s and 1955 is leaving out a LOT of harsh realities, one of which are the individual freedoms we all, and many of you, claim to cherish.
Thanks, but no thanks…I think I’ll take living in 2009, problems and all, over the 1700’s.
Tiribulus…thanks for starting another great discussion…
I hope I’ll learn something.
Mufasa
[/quote]
I understand where you are coming from and I can’t disagree. It is not fair to lay the blame at Obama’s feet. His election was more a manifestation of so many things being broken in our country.
I will be the first to admit I have been struggling to wrap my mind around our economic situation. I have no grounding in such things and proposing a way out would be a bit difficult for the likes of me. All of my study has lead me to believe even more in the free market and individual liberty…the problem is returning to such a state now that so many of Pandora’s boxes have been opened.
Maybe your best bet is to start securing your own house, so to speak, and we will see what happens.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
One thing, though, Aragorn:
I firmly believe that with ANY President or Congress…“Right” or “Left”…you would have seen similar amounts of money spent when faced with the same crisis.
I simply don’t think that ANY President would have taken a “Let 'em burn” policy.
Mufasa[/quote]
Sort of agree. I think the best way to do it would have been to have a different party in power in the executive versus legislative branches (ie Republican pres/Democratic Congress or Democratic Pres/Republican Congress), since in my short time on this Earth that seems like the only way to keep government spending under control. Even then its still out of control, but just less so.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
My bad…
MAG-10 wasn’t around in 1700.
Chickens…yes
Midwives…yes (but greater than 50% mortality among women, with untold morbidity)
Automatic weapons and silencers…no
And head injuries are a MAJOR contributor to total medical cost, that few individuals can pay for.
Are you willing to have your family scoop you off the pavement…bring you home…and put a wet rag on what used to be your forehead, in hopes that you’ll get better?
Mufasa[/quote]
I didn’t know we were talking 1700 vs. now. I thought we were just going off of lost liberties. That said, I’m calling bullshit on your 50% mortality rate.
mike
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
My bad…
MAG-10 wasn’t around in 1700.
Chickens…yes
Midwives…yes (but greater than 50% mortality among women, with untold morbidity)
Automatic weapons and silencers…no
And head injuries are a MAJOR contributor to total medical cost, that few individuals can pay for.
Are you willing to have your family scoop you off the pavement…bring you home…and put a wet rag on what used to be your forehead, in hopes that you’ll get better?
Mufasa
I didn’t know we were talking 1700 vs. now. I thought we were just going off of lost liberties. That said, I’m calling bullshit on your 50% mortality rate.
mike[/quote]
x2
[quote]skaz05 wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
My bad…
MAG-10 wasn’t around in 1700.
Chickens…yes
Midwives…yes (but greater than 50% mortality among women, with untold morbidity)
Automatic weapons and silencers…no
And head injuries are a MAJOR contributor to total medical cost, that few individuals can pay for.
Are you willing to have your family scoop you off the pavement…bring you home…and put a wet rag on what used to be your forehead, in hopes that you’ll get better?
Mufasa
I didn’t know we were talking 1700 vs. now. I thought we were just going off of lost liberties. That said, I’m calling bullshit on your 50% mortality rate.
mike
x2[/quote]
Oh yeah, and in 1700 you didn’t have to worry about a judge taking your kids from you for homeschooling.
mike
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
One thing, though, Aragorn:
I firmly believe that with ANY President or Congress…“Right” or “Left”…you would have seen similar amounts of money spent when faced with the same crisis.
I simply don’t think that ANY President would have taken a “Let 'em burn” policy.[/quote]
A fair point, and even many conservative economists thought a government-initiated stimulus was needed. So I think it is fair to say we would have gotten a fairly significant government response regardless of who occupied the White House.
The difference is this - the current administration isn’t terribly interested in a stimulus. If it was, the Recovery Act would have been drafted mechanically as a stimulus - a huge influx of money right now - when the economy is teetering - to act as an adrenaline shot.
That isn’t what was drafted and passed - under the Recovery Act, barely 20% (according to last count) will be allotted for the immediate fiscal year, and all 20% won’t even be spent. That ain’t a stimulus package, even if you think one is a good idea.
Secondly, definitionally, you don’t need a stimulus package if the economy is humming along nicely, but by Obama’s own numbers, the economy was to be going at 3% after the immediate year. An economy growing at 3% doesn’t need a stimulus, but around 80% of the Recovery Act is paid out when the economy is doing fine, and that is according to Obama’s own numbers, not someone else.
So, I don’t mind that concept that a bunch of money was going to paid out - inevitable. What we see here is the most cynical form of politics: using an emergency to pass legislation that has a different agenda, all the while advertising it as something to deal with the emergency.
This is bad news because it is cynical, deceitful politics and, at its base, it is lousy governing: the complete lack of stewardship over our economy coupled with the unsustainability of the administration’s ideas are signs of a very severe problem in need of correction.
If Obama had campaigned on the policy choices that he has made in his brief tenure as President, I’d guarantee you a year’s supply of Surge that he would not have been elected.
[quote]JD430 wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Bolt:
This is problem that I have…
Analyzing more what someone else has done than suggesting what should have been done.
When faced with the same daunting financial meltdown…what would the Right have done, and why would it have been so much better? I personally think that ANY President…Right or Left…would have been approaching this financial crisis by spending a lot of money, simply because the crisis had no precedent. (Note: the world in 1929 is not the World of 2009).
What I DO agree on (that has been put forth so far); is:
Tiribulus seems to suggest “he saw it coming” when it was already present.
I have NO defense whatsoever for the wastefulness and spending of the U.S. Government, and will never ever try to. But I also will not accept that somehow it began with this President.
And dhicky…this “Utopia” of the 1700’s and 1955 is leaving out a LOT of harsh realities, one of which are the individual freedoms we all, and many of you, claim to cherish.
Thanks, but no thanks…I think I’ll take living in 2009, problems and all, over the 1700’s.
Tiribulus…thanks for starting another great discussion…
I hope I’ll learn something.
Mufasa
I understand where you are coming from and I can’t disagree. It is not fair to lay the blame at Obama’s feet. His election was more a manifestation of so many things being broken in our country.
I will be the first to admit I have been struggling to wrap my mind around our economic situation. I have no grounding in such things and proposing a way out would be a bit difficult for the likes of me. All of my study has lead me to believe even more in the free market and individual liberty…the problem is returning to such a state now that so many of Pandora’s boxes have been opened.
Maybe your best bet is to start securing your own house, so to speak, and we will see what happens. [/quote]
JD430:
Another set of positions I can agree with.
Personal responsibility is certainly missing in our Country.
Mufasa
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
My bad…
MAG-10 wasn’t around in 1700.
Chickens…yes
Midwives…yes (but greater than 50% mortality among women, with untold morbidity)
Automatic weapons and silencers…no
And head injuries are a MAJOR contributor to total medical cost, that few individuals can pay for.
Are you willing to have your family scoop you off the pavement…bring you home…and put a wet rag on what used to be your forehead, in hopes that you’ll get better?
Mufasa
I didn’t know we were talking 1700 vs. now. I thought we were just going off of lost liberties. That said, I’m calling bullshit on your 50% mortality rate.
mike[/quote]
You don’t even have to go back that far.
Read accounts of women crossing the plains on the trek Westward.
You only have to spend a short time in an L&D to realize how much can go wrong before, during and after a delivery…then the 50% mortality rate is very believable. And all you need to do is go to a third World country and you’ll see the morbidity.
Believe whatever you wish.
Mufasa
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
skaz05 wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
My bad…
MAG-10 wasn’t around in 1700.
Chickens…yes
Midwives…yes (but greater than 50% mortality among women, with untold morbidity)
Automatic weapons and silencers…no
And head injuries are a MAJOR contributor to total medical cost, that few individuals can pay for.
Are you willing to have your family scoop you off the pavement…bring you home…and put a wet rag on what used to be your forehead, in hopes that you’ll get better?
Mufasa
I didn’t know we were talking 1700 vs. now. I thought we were just going off of lost liberties. That said, I’m calling bullshit on your 50% mortality rate.
mike
x2
Oh yeah, and in 1700 you didn’t have to worry about a judge taking your kids from you for homeschooling.
mike[/quote]
There was no Public Schooling per se.
(That may not be a bad thing!)
Mufasa
[quote]skaz05 wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
My bad…
MAG-10 wasn’t around in 1700.
Chickens…yes
Midwives…yes (but greater than 50% mortality among women, with untold morbidity)
Automatic weapons and silencers…no
And head injuries are a MAJOR contributor to total medical cost, that few individuals can pay for.
Are you willing to have your family scoop you off the pavement…bring you home…and put a wet rag on what used to be your forehead, in hopes that you’ll get better?
Mufasa
I didn’t know we were talking 1700 vs. now. I thought we were just going off of lost liberties. That said, I’m calling bullshit on your 50% mortality rate.
mike
x2[/quote]
Believe what you wish…
…X2…
Mufasa
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
One thing, though, Aragorn:
I firmly believe that with ANY President or Congress…“Right” or “Left”…you would have seen similar amounts of money spent when faced with the same crisis.
I simply don’t think that ANY President would have taken a “Let 'em burn” policy.
A fair point, and even many conservative economists thought a government-initiated stimulus was needed. So I think it is fair to say we would have gotten a fairly significant government response regardless of who occupied the White House.
The difference is this - the current administration isn’t terribly interested in a stimulus. If it was, the Recovery Act would have been drafted mechanically as a stimulus - a huge influx of money right now - when the economy is teetering - to act as an adrenaline shot.
That isn’t what was drafted and passed - under the Recovery Act, barely 20% (according to last count) will be allotted for the immediate fiscal year, and all 20% won’t even be spent. That ain’t a stimulus package, even if you think one is a good idea.
Secondly, definitionally, you don’t need a stimulus package if the economy is humming along nicely, but by Obama’s own numbers, the economy was to be going at 3% after the immediate year. An economy growing at 3% doesn’t need a stimulus, but around 80% of the Recovery Act is paid out when the economy is doing fine, and that is according to Obama’s own numbers, not someone else.
So, I don’t mind that concept that a bunch of money was going to paid out - inevitable. What we see here is the most cynical form of politics: using an emergency to pass legislation that has a different agenda, all the while advertising it as something to deal with the emergency.
This is bad news because it is cynical, deceitful politics and, at its base, it is lousy governing: the complete lack of stewardship over our economy coupled with the unsustainability of the administration’s ideas are signs of a very severe problem in need of correction.
If Obama had campaigned on the policy choices that he has made in his brief tenure as President, I’d guarantee you a year’s supply of Surge that he would not have been elected.[/quote]
Great points, Bolt…
But one thing I bet you can also almost guarantee…that when this Act was being drafted, there were PLENTY of Senators and Representatives…Right and Left…pushing their way up to the Trough for their piece.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Great points, Bolt…
But one thing I bet you can also almost guarantee…that when this Act was being drafted, there were PLENTY of Senators and Representatives…Right and Left…pushing their way up to the Trough for their piece.[/quote]
Actually not - the GOP was frozen outside of the drafting of it, which is why all House GOPers (and some Democrats) voted against it.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
But one thing I bet you can also almost guarantee…that when this Act was being drafted, there were PLENTY of Senators and Representatives…Right and Left…pushing their way up to the Trough for their piece.[/quote]
And I do get your point - that both parties are guilty of the same sins. But that only travels so far - the current state of affairs is unprecedented, and can’t be washed away with a “I guess everyone does it.”
That fails to acknowledge not only the staggering difference in degree - Obama make Bush look like a fiscal conservative by comparison - but by qualitative differences and the fact that there is no plan to step back from the brink - i.e., the fiscal changes are expected to be permanent policy shifts.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Great points, Bolt…
But one thing I bet you can also almost guarantee…that when this Act was being drafted, there were PLENTY of Senators and Representatives…Right and Left…pushing their way up to the Trough for their piece.
Actually not - the GOP was frozen outside of the drafting of it, which is why all House GOPers (and some Democrats) voted against it.[/quote]
Ah…but “Red” States ended up with as much of the “Pork” (if not more, in some cases) as the “Blue” ones, correct?
Egos may have been bruised by not being involved in the drafting; but all States ended up with a huge chunk of stimulus Dollars.
Mufasa
What a mess, Bolt…
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Ah…but “Red” States ended up with as much of the “Pork” (if not more, in some cases) as the “Blue” ones, correct?
[/quote]
why wouldn’t they? their constituents will be paying the bill.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Ah…but “Red” States ended up with as much of the “Pork” (if not more, in some cases) as the “Blue” ones, correct?
why wouldn’t they? their constituents will be paying the bill.[/quote]
The point is that hypocrisy and demagoguery are a trait in abundance at BOTH ends of the political spectrum…
Mufasa
I am ANYTHING but surprised by developments. I cant help but chuckle at all of those who thought SupaStar Obama would somehow deliver you from the clusterfuck the States have buried themselves into. Ive nothing against the man, in fact I find him a very learned and respectable fellow.
Having said that, those of you who believed he somehow WOULDNT work in the interests of so-called "Big Govwernment" are, well, very fucking clueless as to the inner workings of USA government. It wouldnt matter WHO is in power; the so-called right, the so-called left, the ones who pull the strings remain largely INDEPENDENT of those alliances, my friends.
The economic custerfuck that much of the world is now plunged in is only the beginning of much more dire things to come. Those expecting a quick rebound are delusional at best. There may likely be some minor rebound moments, but by and large, the party is over, my friends.
And when the oil topping point becomes common knowledge, the panic and devastation to world markets it causes will dwarf the current state of affairs. Mark my words. We are in a world of shit in ways most of you likely haven`t the slightest clue as of yet.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
As for anyone on an anti-gun stance, that column describes the exact scenario we “yokels” are so hellbent on keeping as much firepower as we can. I don’t want to drag this into a gun thread (gag!) but the 2nd amendment IS the final check on shit like that. [/quote]
The last line of Suzanne Hupp’s testimony explains why we need the 2nd amendment.
