(06-17-2009 11:28 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-16-2009 04:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Did Alec Baldwin move away as he threatened in 2001? I honestly have no idea, but i remember his saying that he would leave if Bush was president. I suspect that his job kept him here.

No, Baldwin stayed, unfortunately. The thing about rich liberals is that when push comes to shove, being effectively rich is a whole lot dearer to them than being effectively liberal.* But the fact that a celebrity's political pronouncements prove to be ill-considered, insincere, and empty is not surprising. The surprising (and depressing) thing is that people continue to treat the pronouncements of celebrities as meaningful.

*A related phenomenon, discussed in other threads, is that people who advocate tax increases never, and I mean NEVER, voluntarily overpay their own taxes. Why, I don't know.

perhaps they're "social" creatures and just want company. don't want to go it alone.

(06-18-2009 08:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-16-2009 01:37 PM)At Ease Wrote:  Pretty good example for the OP. Higher marks would have come if you kept in your contention from the Spin Room that Obama was after you for being white-skinned and blue-eyed, instead of just successful.
I doubt too many Jews in Nazi Germany would have trouble trying to figure out what to do about their situation.

In the future, if you wish to quote me, kindly quote me correctly.

My reference to "blue-eyed white people" was not about Obama at all. It was a qoute from President Lula da Silva of Brasil. The spin room post in which it appeared was commenting that my intial plan to move to Brasil was still under consideration, but that Lula's racist comment had given me second thoughts.

At this point I see three options:
1. Stay here and subject myself to Obama's socialism;
2. Go to Brasil and subject myself to Lula's racism;
3. Find some third country.

Decision still isn't made or executed. I'm still gathering facts. I will say that, based upon what I know about both men, I'm more comfortable at this point taking chances with Lula's racist war against "blue-eyed white men" than with Obama's socialist war against the successful people in our society. A couple of reasons why I feel that way are (1) Lula is kind of regarded as a bit of a harmless joke by many Brasilians, and (2) Brasil remains the most color-blind society I know anywhere, so that racism in any form has a lot of social intertia to overcome.

As I write this from an internet cafe in Durban, South Africa, I am becoming far more aware that, although I'm retired military and consider myself a patriot, I have experienced a lot of the world and there are many places outside the US where I could live.

At any rate, I do not appreciate your taking something that was about as far from a racist attack against Obama as possible and trying to twist it into something it was and is not. That seems to be one of the in-vogue liberal mantras--if anybody criticizes Obama, characterize it as a racist attack; that shoe doesn't fit this time, and I won't wear it. I feel that an apology is in order, but I have no idea whether you are a big enough person or not to do that, so I'll just not hold my breath.

Here's your statement, my friend. Doesn't quite jive with not being about Obama at all, so I don't believe your words were twisted or that an apology is in order.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:Yeah, all you have to do is kill 300 million or so, and the rest of us could live pretty well on what will be left after Obamanomics gets through with the economy.
Of course, I'm guessing that I'm more likely to be in the 300 million than the remainder, particularly if it's this administration making the call.
They don't seem to be all that happy with blue-eyed white men.

http://www.ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?ti...pid4401006

I will apologize if you felt you were being called a racist. I don't consider you one. You've had numerous conversations on this board with myself and others about this administration without race ever being an issue. My post was simply tongue-in-cheek about combining your previous rhetoric-- what if Obama was both interested in establishing the 4th Reich and killing whitey? How sterling would that be.

Jon Stewart on the subject:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index....itle=Blame

(06-17-2009 09:02 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(06-17-2009 07:16 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Finally, and again, I didn't read every detail... but the article seems to imply that Obama has not yet spent in his first 150 days as much as Bush did in 8 years...

That's not what it says.

Heavy sigh....
The article says...

Quote:What is this fury about? In his scant 145 days in office, the new president has not remotely matched the Bush record in deficit creation.

Linking to an article that says

Quote:The story of today’s deficits starts in January 2001, as President Bill Clinton was leaving office. The Congressional Budget Office estimated then that the government would run an average annual surplus of more than $800 billion a year from 2009 to 2012. Today, the government is expected to run a $1.2 trillion annual deficit in those years.

You can think of that roughly $2 trillion swing as coming from four broad categories: the business cycle, President George W. Bush’s policies, policies from the Bush years that are scheduled to expire but that Mr. Obama has chosen to extend, and new policies proposed by Mr. Obama.

The first category — the business cycle — accounts for 37 percent of the $2 trillion swing. It’s a reflection of the fact that both the 2001 recession and the current one reduced tax revenue, required more spending on safety-net programs and changed economists’ assumptions about how much in taxes the government would collect in future years.

About 33 percent of the swing stems from new legislation signed by Mr. Bush. That legislation, like his tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, not only continue to cost the government but have also increased interest payments on the national debt.

Mr. Obama’s main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000. Such policies — together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama — account for 20 percent of the swing.

About 7 percent comes from the stimulus bill that Mr. Obama signed in February. And only 3 percent comes from Mr. Obama’s agenda on health care, education, energy and other areas.

If the analysis is extended further into the future, well beyond 2012, the Obama agenda accounts for only a slightly higher share of the projected deficits.

SO we're starting with PROJECTED surpluses... not ones that actually existed... and then comparing 8 years of policies that Bush signed... not just ones he sponsored or supported... and then taking out the 20% that Bush signed that Obama continues... and only talking about what Obama has spent so far... and then talk about IF we continue with his proposals AND use his rosy (as all political propositions are) projections (once again... projections, not reality) of cost savings and effectiveness... the number goes up "slightly"... again, knowing that we took out 20% because he would only continue what Bush did... He's still spending the money...

The bottom line... We have 150 days of Obama's policies to compare against 8 years of Bush's... and the article it links to talks specifically about THOSE TWO NUMBERS.... and then says "it only changes somewhat if we project it forward"... while admitting that it started with a projection... 37% was driven by the economy... 33% by Bush... 20% that Obama supported/continued... Meaning Bush was responsible for 33% over 8 years that Obama MAY have supported as a Senator, but hasn't addressed yet as President... while Obama is already responsible for 10% (7% for stimulus and 3% for reforms) and only marginally more if we optimistically project it forward. Given that his election mantra was "change" and thus far, we haven't changed much... I'm not so optimistic... but even so...

As I said... What we DON'T address is the validity of the original projection or the projection of Obama's expenses/revenues... NOR do we address how much of that 33% that Bush signed that he actually endorsed while Obama (or Biden) didn't... I find it hard to believe that its zero. I seem to recall that when Biden was campaigning on the idea that McCain "supported" Bush 90% of the time,... Biden and/or Obama voted with him more than 75% of the time... and I think the number was actually closer to 85%

in other words, though my words were intentionally brief... yes it pretty much does....

Acording to the article... which is obviously written by a supporter of Obama or a hater of Bush... Bush is responsible for 53%... While Obama is ALREADY responsible for AT THE VERY LEAST 30%... and I'm betting much more by these descriptions of "responsibility". If Bush is responsible for the money spent when signing a bill, then Obama and Biden are equally responsible if they voted for those bills.

(06-18-2009 07:53 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  SO we're starting with PROJECTED surpluses... not ones that actually existed... and then comparing 8 years of policies that Bush signed... not just ones he sponsored or supported... and then taking out the 20% that Bush signed that Obama continues... and only talking about what Obama has spent so far... and then talk about IF we continue with his proposals AND use his rosy (as all political propositions are) projections (once again... projections, not reality) of cost savings and effectiveness... the number goes up "slightly"... again, knowing that we took out 20% because he would only continue what Bush did... He's still spending the money...

The bottom line... We have 150 days of Obama's policies to compare against 8 years of Bush's... and the article it links to talks specifically about THOSE TWO NUMBERS.... and then says "it only changes somewhat if we project it forward"... while admitting that it started with a projection... 37% was driven by the economy... 33% by Bush... 20% that Obama supported/continued... Meaning Bush was responsible for 33% over 8 years that Obama MAY have supported as a Senator, but hasn't addressed yet as President... while Obama is already responsible for 10% (7% for stimulus and 3% for reforms) and only marginally more if we optimistically project it forward. Given that his election mantra was "change" and thus far, we haven't changed much... I'm not so optimistic... but even so...

As I said... What we DON'T address is the validity of the original projection or the projection of Obama's expenses/revenues... NOR do we address how much of that 33% that Bush signed that he actually endorsed while Obama (or Biden) didn't... I find it hard to believe that its zero. I seem to recall that when Biden was campaigning on the idea that McCain "supported" Bush 90% of the time,... Biden and/or Obama voted with him more than 75% of the time... and I think the number was actually closer to 85%

in other words, though my words were intentionally brief... yes it pretty much does....

Acording to the article... which is obviously written by a supporter of Obama or a hater of Bush... Bush is responsible for 53%... While Obama is ALREADY responsible for AT THE VERY LEAST 30%... and I'm betting much more by these descriptions of "responsibility". If Bush is responsible for the money spent when signing a bill, then Obama and Biden are equally responsible if they voted for those bills.

The factor that isn't addressed is the impact of 9/11.

No 9/11, No War on Terror, No Afghanistan or Iraq Wars.

The Wars are good for about $2 Trillion since 2001.

And remember how much unrelated Pork Congress stuck onto the War Appropriations Bills.

That is a hell of a lot of money spent.

(06-18-2009 10:13 AM)kinderowl Wrote:  

(06-17-2009 11:28 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-16-2009 04:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Did Alec Baldwin move away as he threatened in 2001? I honestly have no idea, but i remember his saying that he would leave if Bush was president. I suspect that his job kept him here.

No, Baldwin stayed, unfortunately. The thing about rich liberals is that when push comes to shove, being effectively rich is a whole lot dearer to them than being effectively liberal.* But the fact that a celebrity's political pronouncements prove to be ill-considered, insincere, and empty is not surprising. The surprising (and depressing) thing is that people continue to treat the pronouncements of celebrities as meaningful.

*A related phenomenon, discussed in other threads, is that people who advocate tax increases never, and I mean NEVER, voluntarily overpay their own taxes. Why, I don't know.

perhaps they're "social" creatures and just want company. don't want to go it alone.

Or maybe everyone wants to enforce their version of morality on others, not just the conservatives? Maybe they want the government to be the enforcer "for our own good"?

(Not directed at Kinder):

My favorite baseless canard:

"You can't legislate morality!"

Of course you can, that's about as good a definition of a Law as any - - legislated morality. Whether it's speeding, laws against murder, etc.

Of course what they mean is

"You can't enforce morality!"

as all laws get broken eventually, by people who either don't agree with that version or morality, or who temporarily suspend their agreement for some reason they feel justified.

(06-18-2009 10:04 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(06-18-2009 07:53 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  SO we're starting with PROJECTED surpluses... not ones that actually existed... and then comparing 8 years of policies that Bush signed... not just ones he sponsored or supported... and then taking out the 20% that Bush signed that Obama continues... and only talking about what Obama has spent so far... and then talk about IF we continue with his proposals AND use his rosy (as all political propositions are) projections (once again... projections, not reality) of cost savings and effectiveness... the number goes up "slightly"... again, knowing that we took out 20% because he would only continue what Bush did... He's still spending the money...

The bottom line... We have 150 days of Obama's policies to compare against 8 years of Bush's... and the article it links to talks specifically about THOSE TWO NUMBERS.... and then says "it only changes somewhat if we project it forward"... while admitting that it started with a projection... 37% was driven by the economy... 33% by Bush... 20% that Obama supported/continued... Meaning Bush was responsible for 33% over 8 years that Obama MAY have supported as a Senator, but hasn't addressed yet as President... while Obama is already responsible for 10% (7% for stimulus and 3% for reforms) and only marginally more if we optimistically project it forward. Given that his election mantra was "change" and thus far, we haven't changed much... I'm not so optimistic... but even so...

As I said... What we DON'T address is the validity of the original projection or the projection of Obama's expenses/revenues... NOR do we address how much of that 33% that Bush signed that he actually endorsed while Obama (or Biden) didn't... I find it hard to believe that its zero. I seem to recall that when Biden was campaigning on the idea that McCain "supported" Bush 90% of the time,... Biden and/or Obama voted with him more than 75% of the time... and I think the number was actually closer to 85%

in other words, though my words were intentionally brief... yes it pretty much does....

Acording to the article... which is obviously written by a supporter of Obama or a hater of Bush... Bush is responsible for 53%... While Obama is ALREADY responsible for AT THE VERY LEAST 30%... and I'm betting much more by these descriptions of "responsibility". If Bush is responsible for the money spent when signing a bill, then Obama and Biden are equally responsible if they voted for those bills.

The factor that isn't addressed is the impact of 9/11.

No 9/11, No War on Terror, No Afghanistan or Iraq Wars.

The Wars are good for about $2 Trillion since 2001.

And remember how much unrelated Pork Congress stuck onto the War Appropriations Bills.

That is a hell of a lot of money spent.

That was a big part of my point... WMD...

When you write an article that starts with projections and ends with projections, but has reality in the middle, you are going to get a partisan article. A right wing zealot writing the same article would put Obama's 10% spent thus far over 150 days and expand it to 25%/year for 4 years... and would have used less rosy projections for Clinton and more eggregious ones for Obama.... plus attributed more to the economy and less to Bush...

The truth is in there somewhere... but it's not very obvious.

(06-18-2009 10:35 AM)At Ease Wrote:  

(06-18-2009 08:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-16-2009 01:37 PM)At Ease Wrote:  Pretty good example for the OP. Higher marks would have come if you kept in your contention from the Spin Room that Obama was after you for being white-skinned and blue-eyed, instead of just successful.
I doubt too many Jews in Nazi Germany would have trouble trying to figure out what to do about their situation.

In the future, if you wish to quote me, kindly quote me correctly.

My reference to "blue-eyed white people" was not about Obama at all. It was a qoute from President Lula da Silva of Brasil. The spin room post in which it appeared was commenting that my intial plan to move to Brasil was still under consideration, but that Lula's racist comment had given me second thoughts.

At this point I see three options:
1. Stay here and subject myself to Obama's socialism;
2. Go to Brasil and subject myself to Lula's racism;
3. Find some third country.

Decision still isn't made or executed. I'm still gathering facts. I will say that, based upon what I know about both men, I'm more comfortable at this point taking chances with Lula's racist war against "blue-eyed white men" than with Obama's socialist war against the successful people in our society. A couple of reasons why I feel that way are (1) Lula is kind of regarded as a bit of a harmless joke by many Brasilians, and (2) Brasil remains the most color-blind society I know anywhere, so that racism in any form has a lot of social intertia to overcome.

As I write this from an internet cafe in Durban, South Africa, I am becoming far more aware that, although I'm retired military and consider myself a patriot, I have experienced a lot of the world and there are many places outside the US where I could live.

At any rate, I do not appreciate your taking something that was about as far from a racist attack against Obama as possible and trying to twist it into something it was and is not. That seems to be one of the in-vogue liberal mantras--if anybody criticizes Obama, characterize it as a racist attack; that shoe doesn't fit this time, and I won't wear it. I feel that an apology is in order, but I have no idea whether you are a big enough person or not to do that, so I'll just not hold my breath.

Here's your statement, my friend. Doesn't quite jive with not being about Obama at all, so I don't believe your words were twisted or that an apology is in order.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:Yeah, all you have to do is kill 300 million or so, and the rest of us could live pretty well on what will be left after Obamanomics gets through with the economy.
Of course, I'm guessing that I'm more likely to be in the 300 million than the remainder, particularly if it's this administration making the call.
They don't seem to be all that happy with blue-eyed white men.

http://www.ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?ti...pid4401006

I will apologize if you felt you were being called a racist. I don't consider you one. You've had numerous conversations on this board with myself and others about this administration without race ever being an issue. My post was simply tongue-in-cheek about combining your previous rhetoric-- what if Obama was both interested in establishing the 4th Reich and killing whitey? How sterling would that be.

Fair enough. I'd actually forgotten writing the post you referenced, and thought you were referencing an earlier one about Lulla. As long as we're clear that you weren't accusing me of racism, I'm fine with it. I retract my protest. I was probably overly sensitive to the comments because racism is one thing that I simply don't tolerate.

As far as the tongue-in-cheek point you were making, I would have to say that I consider it much more of a real threat, and a very ironic outcome.

I'm off in a few minutes to go get drunk with a bunch of Brits to get into the mood for tomorrow afternoon's rugby match. Lions v. South Africa. Funny that it will be on live TV worldwide, and nobody in the US even knows it is happening. Post-Apartheid South Africa is a very interesting country, for sure.

Hambone -- I thought you were saying the article was making a flat comparison between 5 months of Obama to 8 years of Bush. Obviously we're going to spend more in 8 years than in 5 months no matter who is driving.

You make some fair points about projections and Congressional votes. But for as much as Republicans wanted to believe Bush was a fiscal conservative, I heard him announce before he was inaugurated that he intended to end the surplus and return to a deficit. They may as well have elected Keynes himself.

(06-18-2009 10:13 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  My favorite baseless canard:

"You can't legislate morality!"

Of course you can, that's about as good a definition of a Law as any - - legislated morality. Whether it's speeding, laws against murder, etc.

Of course what they mean is

"You can't enforce morality!"

as all laws get broken eventually, by people who either don't agree with that version or morality, or who temporarily suspend their agreement for some reason they feel justified.

Taken literally, you are correct. But "morality legislation" is generally shorthand for laws that can't or won't be enforced consistently and that are prone to have unintended consequences that can be more severe than the original problem, the canonical example being organized crime as a response to Prohibition. Usually these are laws where the perpetrator and "victim" are the same person.

I don't thiink consistancy has much to do with it. I think the original meaning was the codifying of certain religious precepts, such as "Thou shalt not kill", having only one wife, etc. I think we have broadened the scope of morality law beyond what we find in the Bible or other religious sources. Now morality laws include such concepts as "Thou shalt not pollute" and "thou shalt not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, etc.". I think just about all law is morality law, as it is all based on "this action is wrong, therefore we must make it illegal".

I also think that just about all laws have unintended consequences. The aforementioned Prohition is an example - I am sure the backers of that law had no intention of jumpstarting OC. I am sure the backers of increasing cigarette taxes have no intention of starting a black market in untaxed cigarettes. i am sure the backers of certain environmental laws have no intention of putting people out of work. And so on, ad infinitum.

(06-19-2009 02:12 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(06-18-2009 10:13 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  My favorite baseless canard:

"You can't legislate morality!"

Of course you can, that's about as good a definition of a Law as any - - legislated morality. Whether it's speeding, laws against murder, etc.

Of course what they mean is

"You can't enforce morality!"

as all laws get broken eventually, by people who either don't agree with that version or morality, or who temporarily suspend their agreement for some reason they feel justified.

Taken literally, you are correct. But "morality legislation" is generally shorthand for laws that can't or won't be enforced consistently and that are prone to have unintended consequences that can be more severe than the original problem, the canonical example being organized crime as a response to Prohibition. Usually these are laws where the perpetrator and "victim" are the same person.

I'm more in line with Optimistic on this one. I don't think representative governments enact law without trying to accomplish a PERCEIVED societal good (i.e., a moral value)

Regarding prohibilition, I'm not sure that I agree with you on a number of counts, although that is obviously the conventional wisdom.

1. Perpetrator and victim are not identical, at least not exclusively (if Prohibition is aimed at eliminating drunken behavior), all you have to do is look at the number of traffic fatalities (nevermind bar-room shootings, stabbings etc) fueled by alcohol consumption. It's always funny what society tolerates, while being outraged by things that are infrequent in nature by comparison.

2. Organized crime was in place prior to Prohibition, it just expanded into a new market. Al Capone and others would've existed with or without Prohibition, and alcohol distribution was far from the only activity they were engaged in.

Note that I'm not arguing for alcohol prohibition as I don't believe drinking alcohol is morally wrong, in and of itself. However, given its addictive nature (for some) and the human cost of over-consumption there are strong moral components/decisions involved in drinking and selling alcohol.

Bottom line is that laws are placed on the books when law-makers see a moral need to do so (i.e., curb pollution or crime, resolve inequities, prevent discrimination, save people from injury or addictive behavior). I don't believe laws are passed, even those I disagree with, without some 'moral' imperative. The government doesn't regulate without a belief that the regulation is necessary (even if it truly is not).

This gets back to my original comment regarding people who advocate tax increases but don't voluntarily pay more tax than they're required to (and in fact, from evidence set forth by Obama's cabinet nominees, Democrats, who theoretically want to increase government revenud through taxation, are no less guilty of avoiding paying taxes they actually DO owe than Republicans).

People who feel that universal health care, and other government programs are necessary, since "Every American has a right to the same level of health care as everyone else" are very willing to fund those programs, providing they can require someone else to pay for their belief system.

Actions like that cost somebody else something. Just like laws that are restrictive in nature, as opposed to 'encouraging' good behavior (restrictions on pornography vs a seatbelt law).

(I just deleted an exposition on what increased taxes would mean to someone like me - - but suffice it to say that it would be at significant cost, and that cost would not be in terms of luxury lost).

In fact, separately speaking, increased taxes could force people at some income levels out of private health plans and force them into government sponsored plans. It could be like our public school system . . . .without the presence of school districts which prevent complete redistribution of funding and resources. Just a random thought.

(06-19-2009 02:04 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  Hambone -- I thought you were saying the article was making a flat comparison between 5 months of Obama to 8 years of Bush. Obviously we're going to spend more in 8 years than in 5 months no matter who is driving.

You make some fair points about projections and Congressional votes. But for as much as Republicans wanted to believe Bush was a fiscal conservative, I heard him announce before he was inaugurated that he intended to end the surplus and return to a deficit. They may as well have elected Keynes himself.

Bush was a waste.
The sooner republicans admit this, the better off they will be.
The 2006 and 2008 elections were not about the public supporting the democrat agenda, they were about being tired of shrub.

(06-20-2009 02:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-19-2009 02:04 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  Hambone -- I thought you were saying the article was making a flat comparison between 5 months of Obama to 8 years of Bush. Obviously we're going to spend more in 8 years than in 5 months no matter who is driving.

You make some fair points about projections and Congressional votes. But for as much as Republicans wanted to believe Bush was a fiscal conservative, I heard him announce before he was inaugurated that he intended to end the surplus and return to a deficit. They may as well have elected Keynes himself.

Bush was a waste.
The sooner republicans admit this, the better off they will be.
The 2006 and 2008 elections were not about the public supporting the democrat agenda, they were about being tired of shrub.

ah, may molly ivins rest in peace.

just for grins, i'll share an article about sotomayor from today's NYT.
http:///www.nytimes.com/2009/06/25/opini...?th&emc=th