Comments on: Dithering http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/blog_mass_destruction/2009/12/04/dithering/ID=9092/ Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:04:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: The Reverend http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/blog_mass_destruction/2009/12/04/dithering/ID=9092/comment-page-1/#comment-11689 The Reverend Sun, 06 Dec 2009 22:53:05 +0000 http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/blog_mass_destruction/?p=9092#comment-11689 If that was what was being suggested, I would be opposed. But it's not. Everything that Obama has done has benefitted private profits over public concerns or needs. He even increased the defense budget. Cap and trade would force us into green industries and jobs. Health care reform is a giveaway to profit makers. Obama is not seeking more centralization of government...he's continuing the corporate industrial complex status quo. That's where we differ. You don't see that that's what is going on. If that was what was being suggested, I would be opposed. But it's not. Everything that Obama has done has benefitted private profits over public concerns or needs. He even increased the defense budget. Cap and trade would force us into green industries and jobs. Health care reform is a giveaway to profit makers.

Obama is not seeking more centralization of government…he's continuing the corporate industrial complex status quo. That's where we differ. You don't see that that's what is going on.

]]> By: Da King http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/blog_mass_destruction/2009/12/04/dithering/ID=9092/comment-page-1/#comment-11682 Da King Sun, 06 Dec 2009 19:25:11 +0000 http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/blog_mass_destruction/?p=9092#comment-11682 Rev, I agree with some of the things you said in your original post. Your portrayal that conservatives alone caused the financial crisis is, of course, beyond ridiculous (Democrats and liberals abetted it every step of the way), but I agree with some of your solutions, such as - breaking up the failed companies instead of bailing them out (Democrats were the ones overwhelmingly for the bailouts), and reversing Gramm-Leach-Bliley (signed by Clinton). You also mentioned regulating commodities traders, but they are already regulated. That is more a matter of enforcement than of new regulation. It's not like what Enron was doing was legal. It's just that they weren't stopped (ditto for many other companies). Another common sense regulation for the housing market is to disallow banks from handing out no-money-down mortgage loans (abandoning the old mortgage standards were pushed by liberals for decades). When people have no-money-down loans, that incentivizes them to walk away as soon as the housing market goes down, because they have nothing invested in their own house. That behavior makes any temporary housing downturn far worse than it would be otherwise. If anything, it was bankers turning away from their former conservative (small 'c') economic principles that are to blame for our financial woes, and it was the government that changed the rules of the game that enabled and pressured the banks to act as they did. The entire mortgage loan game was for banks to make irresponsible mortgage loans and then sell them (mostly via Fannie, Freddie, or the FHA, government enabled) ostensibly to "alleviate" the banks risk. That shell game was bound to fail eventually, and it did. Politicians of both parties pushed the scam in order to say 'look at what good people we politicians are. We are putting more poor folks in their own homes.' Yes, just brilliant, wasn't it ? Until it blew up in our faces. Rather than return to common sense financial principles, our government instead has chosen to continue the financial shell game, on a larger scale than ever. Perhaps there was little choice after the financial meltdown, but our economic recovery, to the extent it has happened (not much) is mostly an illusion. We are living on borrowed and printed money (backed by nothing), hoping things will change for the better. But at the same time, the Obama administration is following a path that will only punish the business sector and the American people (ObamaCare, Cap-and-Trade, EFCA, etc), making it more difficult for any private sector recovery to occur, making it more difficult for any job growth to occur, unless that growth is government-supported (more illusion). It's wrongheaded. The Democrats are growing government at an unprecedented rate, which will inevitably require a number of tax increases to support it, hampering economic recovery even further. Maybe we do need a Hiippocratic Oath for government that says 'first do no harm.' The Democrats, and specifically liberal Democrats like Obama, are doing harm, at the very time we can least afford it. And the ONLY reason Obama didn't go for single-payer universal nationalized health care is because HE COULDN'T PASS IT. He couldn't come close to passing it. There is no other reason. Obama is a leftist, but he's trying to ply his trade in a center-right country. That requires a good deal of misdirection. So, as Andrea said, Obama is settling for "a step in the right direction." What direction is the "right direction," according to Obama ? Jeff told you - "socialism." It's just that in America, you can't get there all at once. It must be done incrementally, so the people don't realize what's happening to them until it's too late. As it is, the majority of Americans are dependent on the government already. Obama the leftist is going to add tens of millions more to that dependency if his agenda goes through. There's nothing at all moderate about that. Moderate was Clinton after the GOP took over Congress in 1994. Not surprisingly, that worked, as it worked in the 80's. We created approximately 40 million jobs from 1983-2000, when even a smidgen of conservatism was implemented. So, please don't tell me we have freedom because of liberals. At one time, the progressive movement was a good thing in this country. That time passed long ago. Now, it is every bit the poison that Jeff said it is. Now, it's all about centralized power and centralized control. Those are the very things you complain about in the corporate environment, Rev. Why you would seek to hand those things to the most powerful institution of all, the federal government, is beyond me. Rev,
I agree with some of the things you said in your original post. Your portrayal that conservatives alone caused the financial crisis is, of course, beyond ridiculous (Democrats and liberals abetted it every step of the way), but I agree with some of your solutions, such as – breaking up the failed companies instead of bailing them out (Democrats were the ones overwhelmingly for the bailouts), and reversing Gramm-Leach-Bliley (signed by Clinton). You also mentioned regulating commodities traders, but they are already regulated. That is more a matter of enforcement than of new regulation. It's not like what Enron was doing was legal. It's just that they weren't stopped (ditto for many other companies). Another common sense regulation for the housing market is to disallow banks from handing out no-money-down mortgage loans (abandoning the old mortgage standards were pushed by liberals for decades). When people have no-money-down loans, that incentivizes them to walk away as soon as the housing market goes down, because they have nothing invested in their own house. That behavior makes any temporary housing downturn far worse than it would be otherwise. If anything, it was bankers turning away from their former conservative (small 'c') economic principles that are to blame for our financial woes, and it was the government that changed the rules of the game that enabled and pressured the banks to act as they did. The entire mortgage loan game was for banks to make irresponsible mortgage loans and then sell them (mostly via Fannie, Freddie, or the FHA, government enabled) ostensibly to "alleviate" the banks risk. That shell game was bound to fail eventually, and it did. Politicians of both parties pushed the scam in order to say 'look at what good people we politicians are. We are putting more poor folks in their own homes.' Yes, just brilliant, wasn't it ? Until it blew up in our faces.

Rather than return to common sense financial principles, our government instead has chosen to continue the financial shell game, on a larger scale than ever. Perhaps there was little choice after the financial meltdown, but our economic recovery, to the extent it has happened (not much) is mostly an illusion. We are living on borrowed and printed money (backed by nothing), hoping things will change for the better. But at the same time, the Obama administration is following a path that will only punish the business sector and the American people (ObamaCare, Cap-and-Trade, EFCA, etc), making it more difficult for any private sector recovery to occur, making it more difficult for any job growth to occur, unless that growth is government-supported (more illusion). It's wrongheaded. The Democrats are growing government at an unprecedented rate, which will inevitably require a number of tax increases to support it, hampering economic recovery even further. Maybe we do need a Hiippocratic Oath for government that says 'first do no harm.' The Democrats, and specifically liberal Democrats like Obama, are doing harm, at the very time we can least afford it.

And the ONLY reason Obama didn't go for single-payer universal nationalized health care is because HE COULDN'T PASS IT. He couldn't come close to passing it. There is no other reason. Obama is a leftist, but he's trying to ply his trade in a center-right country. That requires a good deal of misdirection. So, as Andrea said, Obama is settling for "a step in the right direction." What direction is the "right direction," according to Obama ? Jeff told you – "socialism." It's just that in America, you can't get there all at once. It must be done incrementally, so the people don't realize what's happening to them until it's too late. As it is, the majority of Americans are dependent on the government already. Obama the leftist is going to add tens of millions more to that dependency if his agenda goes through. There's nothing at all moderate about that. Moderate was Clinton after the GOP took over Congress in 1994. Not surprisingly, that worked, as it worked in the 80's. We created approximately 40 million jobs from 1983-2000, when even a smidgen of conservatism was implemented. So, please don't tell me we have freedom because of liberals. At one time, the progressive movement was a good thing in this country. That time passed long ago. Now, it is every bit the poison that Jeff said it is. Now, it's all about centralized power and centralized control. Those are the very things you complain about in the corporate environment, Rev. Why you would seek to hand those things to the most powerful institution of all, the federal government, is beyond me.

]]> By: The Reverend http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/blog_mass_destruction/2009/12/04/dithering/ID=9092/comment-page-1/#comment-11680 The Reverend Sun, 06 Dec 2009 14:41:54 +0000 http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/blog_mass_destruction/?p=9092#comment-11680 Good stuff from Jacquie. I hope Jeff has his, you know, thinking cap on when he reads her comments. Andrea.....I voted for Obama and encouraged others to do likewise. He, still today, was the best candidate, hands down. At the same time....I expected a bit more of that oratorial leadership he flashed during the campaign. A leader not only gets everyone in the room with him to gather information.....he directs players towards a goal, and a good leader knows how to do it honestly and forcefully. Conservatives and moderates can only relate to authoritarianism...it's all they know. That's why Bush was their hero and master. Obama could have borrowed a bit of that authoritarianism and used it righteously.....but other than on ooccasion, he hasn't. What you're describing, Andrea, is what I called incrementalism. Nothing wrong with that. Even moving a little bit in the right drection is a good thing. But I wouldn't confuse it with "change we can believe in." Obama is a good man who is trying to do what he thinks is right. I'm still a supporter of his. However, when I disagree with what he is doing....I must speak out about it. Good stuff from Jacquie. I hope Jeff has his, you know, thinking cap on when he reads her comments.

Andrea…..I voted for Obama and encouraged others to do likewise. He, still today, was the best candidate, hands down. At the same time….I expected a bit more of that oratorial leadership he flashed during the campaign. A leader not only gets everyone in the room with him to gather information…..he directs players towards a goal, and a good leader knows how to do it honestly and forcefully.

Conservatives and moderates can only relate to authoritarianism…it's all they know. That's why Bush was their hero and master. Obama could have borrowed a bit of that authoritarianism and used it righteously…..but other than on ooccasion, he hasn't.

What you're describing, Andrea, is what I called incrementalism. Nothing wrong with that. Even moving a little bit in the right drection is a good thing. But I wouldn't confuse it with "change we can believe in."

Obama is a good man who is trying to do what he thinks is right. I'm still a supporter of his. However, when I disagree with what he is doing….I must speak out about it.

]]> By: Andrea http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/blog_mass_destruction/2009/12/04/dithering/ID=9092/comment-page-1/#comment-11675 Andrea Sun, 06 Dec 2009 03:07:04 +0000 http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/blog_mass_destruction/?p=9092#comment-11675 What you want is way too political. And I wont blame Obama he tried to do bank regulation, congress is to blame for nothing gettign done . Face it they want their jobs back next election season. This is BIG business dirt. As for health care reform EVERY Democrat needs to support it . If you think we will get some single payer universal plan passed your living in fantasy land. We are fighting against the corporate influence insurance companies. Your accomplish nothing by trying to pass legislation that has no chance of passing. Read Krugman - the health care plan might not be what you or I wanted but step in the door to reform . I believe get your foot in then worry about the rest later. And Krugman would rather see a stronger public option too ... http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/opinion/04krugman.html What you want is way too political. And I wont blame Obama he tried to do bank regulation, congress is to blame for nothing gettign done . Face it they want their jobs back next election season. This is BIG business dirt.
As for health care reform EVERY Democrat needs to support it . If you think we will get some single payer universal plan passed your living in fantasy land. We are fighting against the corporate influence insurance companies. Your accomplish nothing by trying to pass legislation that has no chance of passing.
Read Krugman – the health care plan might not be what you or I wanted but step in the door to reform . I believe get your foot in then worry about the rest later. And Krugman would rather see a stronger public option too …
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/opinion/04krugman.html

]]> By: Jacquie http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/blog_mass_destruction/2009/12/04/dithering/ID=9092/comment-page-1/#comment-11673 Jacquie Sat, 05 Dec 2009 22:58:31 +0000 http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/blog_mass_destruction/?p=9092#comment-11673 Hiring police officers works the same way welfare payments to the working poor do. Some people pay for elaborate home security, but are asked to pay the same amount for police protection (even if they don't need as much, as they've hired private security, guard dogs, etc.) as those who don't lock their doors. That's welfare for those socialist door unlockers, darn it, and I say it stops! Let them pay for their own police protection! This is EXACTLY how programs like welfare for the working poor work. Hiring police officers works the same way welfare payments to the working poor do. Some people pay for elaborate home security, but are asked to pay the same amount for police protection (even if they don't need as much, as they've hired private security, guard dogs, etc.) as those who don't lock their doors. That's welfare for those socialist door unlockers, darn it, and I say it stops! Let them pay for their own police protection! This is EXACTLY how programs like welfare for the working poor work.

]]> By: Jacquie http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/blog_mass_destruction/2009/12/04/dithering/ID=9092/comment-page-1/#comment-11672 Jacquie Sat, 05 Dec 2009 22:49:04 +0000 http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/blog_mass_destruction/?p=9092#comment-11672 Jeff. You seem to be saying if the people collectively choose to have something, it's a service, and if not, it's socialism. Local governments provide roads, so therefore people choose to have them, and that's okay, but any federal actions are socialistic. Are you saying the local government is the people and the federal government is not the people? People do not magically all agree on what should be provided by local governments any more than they agree on what should be provided by federal governments. Property taxes pay for schools and there are plenty of people who are pissed, PISSED, that they have to pay them, and gripe about restrictions on freedom and whatnot. It's exactly the same with roads and even police and, inexplicably, fire departments. There are people that would actually choose to not pay into and use these services. But we, the people, make them anyway. There's no automatic reason why them paying for those services is democracy, but a universal health care plan is socialism. You don't choose to pay for schools any more or less than you can choose to pay for social security. If the elected officials say you must do something, then you have to do it, like it or not, or take the punishment for not. How does the fact that a person lives within a certain distance of your house qualify them to make decisions about your money better than a person that lives further from your house? Cause that's the only real difference between local elected officials and federal elected officials. Where they live. Jeff. You seem to be saying if the people collectively choose to have something, it's a service, and if not, it's socialism. Local governments provide roads, so therefore people choose to have them, and that's okay, but any federal actions are socialistic. Are you saying the local government is the people and the federal government is not the people? People do not magically all agree on what should be provided by local governments any more than they agree on what should be provided by federal governments. Property taxes pay for schools and there are plenty of people who are pissed, PISSED, that they have to pay them, and gripe about restrictions on freedom and whatnot. It's exactly the same with roads and even police and, inexplicably, fire departments. There are people that would actually choose to not pay into and use these services. But we, the people, make them anyway. There's no automatic reason why them paying for those services is democracy, but a universal health care plan is socialism. You don't choose to pay for schools any more or less than you can choose to pay for social security. If the elected officials say you must do something, then you have to do it, like it or not, or take the punishment for not. How does the fact that a person lives within a certain distance of your house qualify them to make decisions about your money better than a person that lives further from your house? Cause that's the only real difference between local elected officials and federal elected officials. Where they live.

]]> By: The Reverend http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/blog_mass_destruction/2009/12/04/dithering/ID=9092/comment-page-1/#comment-11670 The Reverend Sat, 05 Dec 2009 20:22:27 +0000 http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/blog_mass_destruction/?p=9092#comment-11670 "....central government control of an economy, collectivism, in each and all its insidious forms,.." When I see threats of this, I'll worry. The threats to Americans come from the oligarchs. The big corporate interests in America own our government. Fox enthusiasts point to the government and say they are the ones effing everything up...but it's really the big corporate folks who pay representatives to do what they want, that's the problem. Everyone knows it, too. It's all legal......it's just how America rolls. Going on and on about some wild-eyed theory of socialistic takeover by Obama as he works to turn us all into welfare recipients....is ridiculous. We've long ago been taken over by monopolistic minded corporate insiders whose lawyers write our laws. Obama was FOR amnesty for monopolistic tel-cos who helped spy on us illegally. Obama did not challenge the banks, instead, he deferred to them. Obama made backroom deals with big pharma and is rooting for a reform bill which will primarily benefit health insurers and big pharma. He is juicing the military industrial complex with his escalation in Afghanistan. If that's socialism....conservatives sure are for a lot of it. "….central government control of an economy, collectivism, in each and all its insidious forms,.."

When I see threats of this, I'll worry. The threats to Americans come from the oligarchs. The big corporate interests in America own our government. Fox enthusiasts point to the government and say they are the ones effing everything up…but it's really the big corporate folks who pay representatives to do what they want, that's the problem. Everyone knows it, too. It's all legal……it's just how America rolls.

Going on and on about some wild-eyed theory of socialistic takeover by Obama as he works to turn us all into welfare recipients….is ridiculous. We've long ago been taken over by monopolistic minded corporate insiders whose lawyers write our laws.

Obama was FOR amnesty for monopolistic tel-cos who helped spy on us illegally. Obama did not challenge the banks, instead, he deferred to them. Obama made backroom deals with big pharma and is rooting for a reform bill which will primarily benefit health insurers and big pharma. He is juicing the military industrial complex with his escalation in Afghanistan.

If that's socialism….conservatives sure are for a lot of it.

]]> By: Jeff http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/blog_mass_destruction/2009/12/04/dithering/ID=9092/comment-page-1/#comment-11668 Jeff Sat, 05 Dec 2009 19:37:06 +0000 http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/blog_mass_destruction/?p=9092#comment-11668 Second….it is undeniably true that much of American society is socialized. Schools, roadways…..on and on. So, what wingers are suggesting is that the 'spirit' of Americans has been poisoned these last,….oh, I don't know….100 years or so? Do wingers really believe that? More rubbish, schools, roadways, fire and police protection are not socialism and you freaking know it, what they are, are services provided for the people by the local government (who are the people). Services that the people can decide if they want or not. But what we can not choose if we pay into Social Security or medicare, or the new health insurance crap, we can not choose to use our property any way we want without permission from the intrusive federal government. The constitution was written to protect the people from an over reaching federal government, and allow the people to choose the services they ask of "government" not the other way around. What is socialism is Welfare, the enslavement of people, by a government bureaucracy that we the people no longer control, redistribution of wealth where one party has their wealth confiscated and given to another, hiring a police officer is not welfare. In order to have a free market capitalist society, certain things are necessary. 1. We need laws, and people to enforce those laws equally. 2. We need education, without a literate informed population, the government can assert unconstitutional control. A literate informed population can govern itself, can solve its own problems and still remain free. 3. We need a small un-intrusive federal government. All these are currently lacking and we the people are paying the price in high taxes, ridiculous spending, a near future of inflation and economic collapse. Second….it is undeniably true that much of American society is socialized. Schools, roadways…..on and on. So, what wingers are suggesting is that the 'spirit' of Americans has been poisoned these last,….oh, I don't know….100 years or so? Do wingers really believe that?

More rubbish, schools, roadways, fire and police protection are not socialism and you freaking know it, what they are, are services provided for the people by the local government (who are the people). Services that the people can decide if they want or not. But what we can not choose if we pay into Social Security or medicare, or the new health insurance crap, we can not choose to use our property any way we want without permission from the intrusive federal government. The constitution was written to protect the people from an over reaching federal government, and allow the people to choose the services they ask of "government" not the other way around.

What is socialism is Welfare, the enslavement of people, by a government bureaucracy that we the people no longer control, redistribution of wealth where one party has their wealth confiscated and given to another, hiring a police officer is not welfare.

In order to have a free market capitalist society, certain things are necessary.
1. We need laws, and people to enforce those laws equally.
2. We need education, without a literate informed population, the government can assert unconstitutional control. A literate informed population can govern itself, can solve its own problems and still remain free.
3. We need a small un-intrusive federal government.

All these are currently lacking and we the people are paying the price in high taxes, ridiculous spending, a near future of inflation and economic collapse.

]]> By: Jeff http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/blog_mass_destruction/2009/12/04/dithering/ID=9092/comment-page-1/#comment-11667 Jeff Sat, 05 Dec 2009 19:22:07 +0000 http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/blog_mass_destruction/?p=9092#comment-11667 There is no human spirit, that desires freedom and independence and fears oppression and tyranny? What rubbish, if that is the case, I guess you would feel it is ok to bring back slavery? Socialism, in the form of welfare, central government control of an economy, collectivism, in each and all its insidious forms, is a poison, it poisons a innovation and invention, poisons individual growth and the search for improvement and excellence, and it is the end of personal freedom and subsequently poisons a nation, the Soviets fell, China has embrace market forces, Eastern Europe is growing faster due to Capitalism lower tax rates, market forces, yet we are moving to the left, too many ignore the lessons of history, how many freedoms have we lost because of liberal socialist progressive policy over the last 70 yrs. Progressive Democrats had over 60 yrs of uninterrupted control of congress, yet they have done nothing to end the poverty and suffering of so many, how can that be? Because socialistic liberalism creates more suffering, does not end it, but it does enslave a specific class of people to the government. A class of people who have been suckered into voting for the same Democrats that enslave them. Do you agree with JKF and Martin Luther King? There is no human spirit, that desires freedom and independence and fears oppression and tyranny?

What rubbish, if that is the case, I guess you would feel it is ok to bring back slavery?

Socialism, in the form of welfare, central government control of an economy, collectivism, in each and all its insidious forms, is a poison, it poisons a innovation and invention, poisons individual growth and the search for improvement and excellence, and it is the end of personal freedom and subsequently poisons a nation, the Soviets fell, China has embrace market forces, Eastern Europe is growing faster due to Capitalism lower tax rates, market forces, yet we are moving to the left, too many ignore the lessons of history, how many freedoms have we lost because of liberal socialist progressive policy over the last 70 yrs. Progressive Democrats had over 60 yrs of uninterrupted control of congress, yet they have done nothing to end the poverty and suffering of so many, how can that be? Because socialistic liberalism creates more suffering, does not end it, but it does enslave a specific class of people to the government. A class of people who have been suckered into voting for the same Democrats that enslave them.

Do you agree with JKF and Martin Luther King?

]]> By: The Reverend http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/blog_mass_destruction/2009/12/04/dithering/ID=9092/comment-page-1/#comment-11658 The Reverend Sat, 05 Dec 2009 13:47:41 +0000 http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/blog_mass_destruction/?p=9092#comment-11658 Consider this total piece of rubbish.....as one example.... "Any amount of Socialism is a poison to the human spirit." First of all....there is no such thing as a human "spirit". When superstitious folks can marshal evidence proving that there is.....we'll discuss it further. Second....it is undeniably true that much of American society is socialized. Schools, roadways.....on and on. So, what wingers are suggesting is that the 'spirit' of Americans has been poisoned these last,....oh, I don't know....100 years or so? Do wingers really believe that? Consider this total piece of rubbish…..as one example….

"Any amount of Socialism is a poison to the human spirit."

First of all….there is no such thing as a human "spirit". When superstitious folks can marshal evidence proving that there is…..we'll discuss it further.

Second….it is undeniably true that much of American society is socialized. Schools, roadways…..on and on. So, what wingers are suggesting is that the 'spirit' of Americans has been poisoned these last,….oh, I don't know….100 years or so? Do wingers really believe that?

]]>