Obama is Prez

[K-Rock-InC]

all I have to say is Obama can **** up all he wants.
I really don't give a damn anymore.
Cuz he's not Bush.
So I'm okay.
=D

[jaybug]

He can blame it all on Joe Biden, like W. could with Cheney?

[K-Rock-InC]

Eeewww. I don't like that plan. That makes him like Bush.

[DancingTofu]

I'm a strong advocate of political independence.  Classifications and generalisations should not shape political views.  I'll admit--the strong, close-minded political opinions I've observed many of you expressing has greatly diminished my respect for those people.  To discuss economical trends, the fallacies of a particular political platform, the inevitable worthlessness of a bi-partisan republic (democracies are social impossible to maintain, and inevitably become dictatorships or republics--this happened to the U.S. before it even became independent of England.), et cetera, is admirable and respectable.  Exploiting and targeting arbitrary, vague, personal issues of major politicians, simply to express distaste, makes you look immature, judgmental, and unfriendly.

As it is, this topic is well on it's way towards getting locked.  I don't see any benefit anyone can possibly attain from the discussions (which are really just assertions) that I'm seeing right now.

[Prinz Eugen]

I don't see any benefit anyone can possibly attain

What about entertainment as a benefit? As for value, here in the 'Off-topic' zone, wouldn't even zero-value topics still remain permissible? Certainly no different than posting what I had for dinner last night in the "Say Almost anything we want to" thread.
If you're worried about JB or me having been called names, don't worry about that - personally I've got thicker skin than that, and I'd like to say that JB does too.

If personal, member-focused name-calling continues to be a problem here, I certainly appreciate your discretion and discernment as a forum mod. That's not what this thread is about. It's about the continuing consequences of the outcome of the last election: positive, negative, outrageous, and even SILLY stuff too.

But nevertheless also including the sentiment: "We TOLD you stuff like this would happen..." as the Dow blows off another 10%. Is that a valuable critique of the actions of the current administration?
I'd say: YES. IT. IS.

We're swapping news stories and opinions for entertainment and perhaps a degree of commiseration. The next question is, can entertainment alone be of value? (even though I've posited an example that maybe value isn't necessary...)?

I'd say yes again. Look at how much slapstick comedy happens in anime for example, and hordes of folks find that entertaining. President Ford happened to be a klutz at times, but the press of the day ate that up whenever they could show him trip or mis-speak. Look at all the crap Sarah Palin has had to put up with in her private family life.

Jaybug makes an excellent point here:

...after 8 years of whining and whatnot from one side, don't you think it's fair for the other sides to have their fun at back-biting, and whatever? Or are you one of those, I get to make fun at others expense, but that can't do that to me types?

That said, most of what I've been posting has been a 'consistency check' - exactly what JB mentions - we've seen 8 years of sauce for the goose, so what's wrong with some sauce for the gander for a while? The effect of the 'consistency check' is a test: if people are upset with lampooning the current White House occupant, then where were they when jokes of the same degree of lameness were made about G. Bush?

So - MY TURN: I found this news story HILARIOUS, and I'd like to SHARE IT, okay?
Does this make me unfriendly?

[melchizedek]

I think tofu was talking about people making pot shots at Obama.  Which seems odd to me as many many threads had slights towards bush, even this one. 

Does anyone watch the daily show?  This country is all about freedom on the press even if it's just poking fun.  However, think insulting other forum members is a violation of TOU.

[Prinz Eugen]

Does anyone watch the daily show?

What's scary is that there's a significant slice of viewers that watch it like it was as 'real' as The NBC Nightly News.

This country is all about freedom on the press even if it's just poking fun.

Heck, the 1st Amendment covers EVERYONE, not just 'the press.' That's you and me getting to air any opinions on any topic anywhere at anytime.

Like, for example,
{a} The market is up, and
{b} Obama's numbers are down.

Coincidence? Who knows - but in any case {a} and {b} taken separately or together, represent "Good News" to me, and I feel confident in sharing my positive emotions with everyone. :-)
Other folks are certainly free to disagree, or say, 'Darn, I wish more people liked Obama.'

However, insulting other forum members is a violation of TOU.

I think we all are aware of and agree on that, and it seems that most folks aren't picking on individual forum members.

[reppy]

I'm so sick of everyone (Democrat and Repbulican) acting like the stock market is a barometer for how the entire country is going.  Any time a company lays off a ton of employees their stock goes up.  How is that good for America?  It isn't.  But it's good for investors because now it means that more people are competing for the same jobs and will accept lower wages.

I've probably criticized Obama more than anyone I know.  In fact, I didn't vote for him.  Course, I didn't vote for McCain either.  (Does anyone really think we'd be better off?)  Much of my reasoning is because I predicted what his moves would be in the future.  Moves that I was right about and have criticized heavily.  But lets wait more than 3 months before we conclude he's already ruined this country irreparably, k?  He walked into one hell of a cluster.

[Deviant Spider]

NOTE TO ALL OLD FARTS IN THE K-CON FORUM Jaybug and Prinz Eugen
STOP BEING BITTER. NO ONE CARES

Blackstar....thats inapropriate. They obviously enjoy discussing this subject. They have just as much right to be sarcastic and voice thier oppinion too. And I never heard them say something bad to you....

[Prinz Eugen]

I'm so sick of everyone [...] acting like the stock market is a barometer for how the entire country is going.  Any time a company lays off a ton of employees their stock goes up.  How is that good for America?

The price of a share of stock is essentially ... an opinion. This is why a company can do the same thing today that they did yesterday, and the stock bounces from $2.25 to $12 to $5 in an afternoon - because, say, a bunch of day traders discovered this neat little company and they're out there touting it and shorting it and touting it again. This actually happened at a company I worked at.
The SEC even called our CEO: "What the hell are you guys doing?!?"
Ans: "We make and sell CONNECTORS - I don't know what's going on either!!" answered our CEO.
It was day-traders being silly.

But sometimes the cart gets before the horse: Say if your company invests some of its working capital in stocks because bank interest generally sucks. This is a risky move, because if the stock the company chooses for its OWN value slip - then YOUR company loses money and then they have to chop headcount - all through no fault of your own - because a bunch of people's OPINIONS about several other companies nosedive - and YOU get the ax. (Just happened to me last month, btw...)

Typically what happens when a company lays off people AND the stock rises, it's because the company is signalling that they've figured out a better, more efficient way to do their stuff - with fewer people. This could be a restaurant laying off three of their four dishwasher guys because they made enough money to go out and buy** a commercial-sized dish washing machine - and now they need only one dishwasher guy. If you OWN a piece of that restaurant, you will be expecting better profits, assuming all other factors are equal, meal sales, etc. Money coming in is the same, number of dishes washed is the same, the dishes all come out just as clean or better - and now payroll and health care costs are down. Money coming is is same, money going out is less: that looks like a recipe for improved profits, and so your expectation of the money you have tied up in that restaurant is that they should be making you more money soon. And so the stock price goes up when they lay people off - AS LONG AS the expectations include increased efficiency.

Now ... whether or not those signals are TRUE ... that's a different kettle of fish, dealing with how honest the publicity folks are at the company - or are there a bunch of stockholders on the company board who are edging close enough to retirement that they want to up-spike the stock and cash out at the top before it bounces back to its normal range (example: Enron.)

(** If they buy the machine on CREDIT, that can be an increased risk...)
 

[jaybug]

I saw the whole economy as too much money chasing after too few investments. So what happened was money was trying to find the "next big thing" and who cares what it is, as long as we can get a ridiculous rate of return. This is why the price of everything went up so high, where the fundamentals did not show any hint of inflation. Which led to all kind of economic bubbles, and bursts. Just that when Lehman needed a bailout, because people were using it as a bank, but it was not FDIC insured, and the governemnt said no...bust. Lehman was being a hedge fund, which contrary to nomenclature did not hedge against inflation, but had bought too many implausible securities, now known as "toxic assets" with no money to cover for any eventual loss. See Paul Krugman's Return To Depression Economics. http://www.amazon.com/Return-Depression-Economics-Crisis-2008/dp/0393071014/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237855569&sr=8-1
He may be a self-confessed liberal, but he is an Economist, there doesn't seem to be that much difference as far as the outside real world is concerned, from left and right. We're talking money here people. Money chooses no sides.

Anyway, this just gives me to think that people need more control over their investments such as their 401(k)s. Just allowing mutual fund managers, who are only in it for the rise in share price, and who could care lless about how sound the company is, or if it retains employees, as long as the stock price goes up. Imagine being in a union, and saving for retirement, and the money you invest goes toward company XYZ laying off thousands of workers, to please Wall Street, and you work for XYZ, and you get laid off. Great your retirement portfolio is up, but you need a job.

Basically we had too many people thinking they could get credit card rates of return, for no risk, for the long term. It isn't going to happen, except in drug induced dreams.

I told my mother last Autumn, that this period would be remembered as the Lesser Depression, and so far no one has called it that, but we are functioning in depression era economics, banks fail, and the ones remaining are afraid to lend, which causes more job losses, etc. perpetuating the downward cycle.

The only thing that will stop this, is Americans having faith, blind absolute faith that things are going to get better. No amount of money will stop it otherwise, as people will be afraid that this is just good money after bad being thrown about.

But now we have AIG executives trying to throw their weight, and people are listening to them, instead of telling them to have a nice cup of shut the $%$# up!

[melchizedek]

I know Obama isn't God, so he can't control the stocks.  Yes, some things he does affect them, short term and long term but really a great deal of things are out of his hands.  Seriously, I think it's better this way.  Lots of the more risky investment was done with investors just assuming the government would bail them out if things went toxic. 

I'd just as soon the government focus on protecting us and not pretend that they can keep some from sleeping in the bed they already made for themselves.

[jaybug]

Protect us from ourselves, or from enemies foreign and domestic? I'm with ya brother, just had to give a little poke is all.

Semantics, aren't they amazing? Annoying? Anything you want them to be? lol

[K-Rock-InC]

Wooow... There were some really big paragraphs there... I'd read them. REALLY I would. I mean, I enjoy having political debates in my government class with my classmates and my teacher... But it's late... and reading takes energy... So I'm going to consent to the fact that you all probably make logical points, but that my opinion still stands that Nixon could go back in office as long as he didn't act like Bush.

(I still hold the conspirator-ist opinion that the Paris Hilton brainless act was all a ploy to divert our attention away from his secret underground laboratory under the White House to study the affects of bringing back the dead --AKA HITLER-- and mind control via hairstyles whose finds will inevitably bring about the end of the world --AKA 2012-- in a mass of mullet-wearing Communist zombies led by Bush and Zombie!Hitler. But that's just me.)

[jaybug]

Girl, they'd clone Reagan in a heartbeat before Bush. Bush is a liberal to them now. He isn't good enough.  And Hitler was a socialist! This is why socialism scares the bejeezus out of conservatives, you get Hitlers and Stalins that way. No way in hell they'd clone him. Genghis Khan yes, Hitler no.

Heck they probably think Ferengis are the bomb!

[DancingTofu]

Hitler was a totalitarian who took advantage of a socialist external image.  Same thing with Stalin.  Socialism causes things like Canada.  Communism--especially Marxism--creates a weak political infrastructure, which allows a dictator to initiate a scapegoat-based totalitarian isolationism, like North Korea.

My concern isn't that people have a problem with Obama--he's not the great hero that some people try to think he is.  If he's smart and sets himself up with plenty of savvy, unbiased advisory staff, he'll have a strong administration.  Otherwise, he'll be stumbling through the job getting very little done and misrepresenting the greater interests of the American people.  I'd challenge anyone to formulate a strong argument against that, but that's not really my point.

My point is that some people can be strongly influenced.  Others can be easily offended.  Politics and religion in particular can be very reactive subjects for people.  I don't like seeing people throw away friendships and a sense of community just so they can poke at the flawed political platforms that others swear by.


Basically, here's what's wrong with political platforms:
They're like laptops.
A laptop is a tightly packaged, convenient system which will SLOWLY CRIPPLE AND DESTROY YOUR SOUL.
Like a political platform, a laptop that is modern, appealing, and effective now will be worthless in 3 or 4 years.  Like mobile computer technology, political issues change rapidly and somewhat unpredictably.  So trying to stick to a static political system faithfully is never going to work.  That's why I refuse to ever vote for someone who represents a political platform.  It gets them a large following of vultures, idiots, and fools, but it doesn't generate a strong future for our nation, or our world.  One day, I hope that the American people will be willing to recognize that static solutions are never going to last--only a malleable, intuitive administration will be capable of properly addressing the issues of today and the issues of tomorrow.

[Prinz Eugen]

Great stuff, DT! Especially:

They're like laptops.
A laptop is a tightly packaged, convenient system which will SLOWLY CRIPPLE AND DESTROY YOUR SOUL. Like a political platform, a laptop that is modern, appealing, and effective now will be worthless in 3 or 4 years.  Like mobile computer technology, political issues change rapidly and somewhat unpredictably.  So trying to stick to a static political system faithfully is never going to work.  That's why I refuse to ever vote for someone who represents a political platform.  It gets them a large following of vultures, idiots, and fools, but it doesn't generate a strong future for our nation, or our world.  One day, I hope that the American people will be willing to recognize that static solutions are never going to last--only a malleable, intuitive administration will be capable of properly addressing the issues of today and the issues of tomorrow.

But... (repeat quote)

I hope that the American people will be willing to recognize that static solutions are never going to last

This part may be a hard sell, especially where, what, more than 80% of Americans consider themselves religious, and a large swath of that is some form of Christianity.

I think there are a number of religious and cultural attitudes that don't click well with the notion of endless change.** One soundbyte for example, is the phrase 'Git 'er done' - very popular with people whose jobs involve construction or heavy repairs. One of my own personal mottos is that 'A job done right stays done.' If I get a call at my desk after the fact, it's because Part 'A' doesn't fit to Part 'B,' and essentially I made a mistake, or something went wrong on the shop floor that I didn't envision in my head. But if I don't get that call, it's because I did everything right.

People who design and build highways and bridges feel in their labor the notion that, with every individual act - if it is done correctly, then this will be the LAST time it needs to be done - for a lifetime or more. Like welding steel girders together. That sense of finality can be a source of great on-the-job pride.

Many people believe, or feel in their hearts that an ideal, utopian society is indeed static - once this last shopping list of problems is SOLVED then we're DONE. Conversely, an administration that is constantly fiddling with things appears incompetent. Same goes for one company that goes through re-orgs every other year, versus a second company that doesn't. The second company seems to me to have better management - they have a structure that works for today's conditions and the conditions of a few years ago.

As a mechanical engineer, I'm kind of like that myself - change is good and necessary when it is fixing a problem. But I also believe that the more intelligent solution is a system that, when properly adjusted (once!) runs without further constant twiddling. If so, someone needs to invent the Twiddle Detector Overlay Device, which does the twiddling for you. If you invent that device ingeniously, then the system runs itself and you can go back to watching anime and reading manga.

(**Even without selecting a specific religion, the notion of God as a perfect being includes being forever unchanging. Simple reasoning: If God changes, then you get two problems: One, you can define initial State A and then changed State B, and only one of them can be perfect. Any difference between A and B will admit debate over which configuration is better, and also the notion of a third State C which can do or be everything that A and B can - eliminating the need for change in an ideal world.)

PS: I think for 'malleable' you meant a word like 'flexible' or 'agile' - malleable (L. malleus = hammer) means easy for someone ELSE to smush - or 'putty-like' - my biggest criticism of GWB.

[jaybug]

Canada is socialism lite. France is socialist as defined in their constitution. If France needs it, it is taken. Just add bureaucrats.

I do hope that you do vote Charles. Otherwise...you get what you pay for, ya know?

This is why I try real hard not to vote for lawyers, of any persuasion. They know the cost of everything, and the value of nothing. Or is that the Wall Street executive outlook? Ceterus parabum....sigh.

@ Prinz, that's what people expect you built a bridge in 1922, of which there are many in Oregon, and you never think you have to pay for anything more, like a new bridge, they are immortal in salt air, right? We need more freeways, but we can't get the potholes fixed on the ones we have. Oh well, it's the bicyclists fault for not paying any taxes. and so on. Maybe we should quit paving roads and go back to gravel, or macadam and such like the Via Appia towards Rome.

I think we have reached the end point on money, more or less. China now wants to go to something else besides the US dollar, and they don't want to buy more of our Treasury securities. What we have is all we have. There is no more. So what do we want to buy with what we have? Health care? Okay, what goes? Military, yeah right it goes. Or maybe you just want us to have more dead coming back from every future conflict we enter, and don't think it will be all peace and love forever. Space program, nice patent response, but how do you think we got so technically advanced to begin with? Oops there's that laptop thing rearing its' ugly head again. Or disposable diapers, those are a product of the space race. Flick your Bic too, thanks to NASA.

Best I can think of we do is to reduce the number of bureaucrats, and replace them with inspectors, and someone who is authorized to make decisions, and stop with the "we can't do that" stuff.

[melchizedek]

http://vimeo.com/3261363

here is something that I think everyone should watch.

In my opinion, government needs to be slashed to a much leaner machine.  People will be greedy by default and try to take advantage of whatever they can get.  There needs to be a line and consequences for crossing that line.  More and more we've seen laws skirted and big government bailing out instead of enforcing. 

I'm not talking dems vs reps-- they both want to prop up private business that the invisible hand of the free market has deemed fail.  Bush gave a 14 billion bailout to auto makers.  Obama was right there with him saying it was needed.  I didn't think it was needed.  How are we supposed to vote if both parties are the same thing. 

Reminds me of the RATM video, testify---- "Unleash the mutant!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JSBhI_0at0

[reppy]

Typically what happens when a company lays off people AND the stock rises, it's because the company is signalling that they've figured out a better, more efficient way to do their stuff - with fewer people. This could be a restaurant laying off three of their four dishwasher guys because they made enough money to go out and buy** a commercial-sized dish washing machine - and now they need only one dishwasher guy. If you OWN a piece of that restaurant, you will be expecting better profits, assuming all other factors are equal, meal sales, etc. Money coming in is the same, number of dishes washed is the same, the dishes all come out just as clean or better - and now payroll and health care costs are down. Money coming is is same, money going out is less: that looks like a recipe for improved profits, and so your expectation of the money you have tied up in that restaurant is that they should be making you more money soon. And so the stock price goes up when they lay people off - AS LONG AS the expectations include increased efficiency

Your point is well taken and very thoughtful, so thank you.  I may have sounded a little irritated in my post.  Haste does that sometimes.   Anyways, while your example is well taken it kind of assumes the motives of the business in question are pure.  Like, sure, finding a way to slash work force because of some new breakthrough in technology or what have you.  But lets compare that situation vs a billion dollar corporation that closed all its factories in the US and moved them overseas where labor laws are much more lax.  Do you think the stock will rise or fall?  Investors that just want to make a buck and have no ethical qualms about exploited labor will be all over that.  And there's lots of them.  This is what I mean when I say stocks, especially on a day-to-day basis, don't really tell the whole picture.  I'm more interested in things like: is the gap between the rich and poor growing? How many people can afford higher education? What's the infant mortality rate?  To me, these are things that signal a strong country .. not the stock market.  Can we have those statistics going across the bottom of every single newscast on the hour? 

[jaybug]

Look at stock prices, bond prices, commodities prices, and just watch the money flowing back and forth, looking for a quick buck.

I wish I could vote my retirement account's shares, as if I owned a particular stock. Not that I could do much, but at least I get to vote my conscience, instead of merely hanging on for the ride.

[DancingTofu]

I was still 17 as of the last election, but I'm 18 now and plan on doing as much research and discussion as I can before I vote on anything.  If there's one important thing I learned in high school, it's that you should always read the text (and I mean read it; don't just skim it) of every bill you vote on, and discuss expenses, benefits, motives, and practicality with as many people as possible.  My position with elected officials is very similar--as with charities.  If someone stops me on a street corner to tell me about some non-profit organization they work for, I'll listen closely and strongly consider they're argument, then I'll make note of it, go home, and find out more.  No matter how good and charitable an organization is, I'm not going to donate to it if it's sloppy.  Likewise, a politician who's looking to fix America's problems has my support in principle, but will have to present a strong history as a proponent of public education, post-secondary educational funding, sustainable economic policies, and straightforward diplomacy, to name a few.  Additionally, a candidate looking to earn my vote must demonstrate a realistic and intelligent representation of the needs of our nation.

What it comes down to is this: Our voting system was set up by a bunch of sloppy English rebels, and has changed very little since its formation.  It needs to go.  Elections should allow people to vote either "yea", "nay", or "abstain" on EACH candidate individually.  The reason this system will never happen is because it would immensely empower Independants, Greenies, and other third parties, and destroy the bi-partisan system in place.  Effectively, it would destroy the Oligarchy that runs America.


I definitely understand the notion of fixing something just once.  Long-term solutions are better than short-term solutions.  That's just common sense.  For instance, repaving highways once every two years would be far more effective and convenient than filling potholes every few weeks (this is actually the situation on HWY 213--it's obnoxious).  The problem with that approach in politics is that we aren't finding long-term solutions by supporting political platforms--we're dodging issues and letting them pop back up.  Imagine this situation:

A man on a boat notices that he's taking in water at approximately 1 gallon per hour.  He takes a 5 gallon bucket and empties most of the water from the boat, then goes about his business.
Later, he notices that he is taking in 10 gallons of water per hour.  He uses the same method to amend the problem.
The problem continues to expand, later taking in 100 gallons per hour, then 1000.  The man drowns.

This is pretty much the situation with American politics right now.  Our boat is leaking, and if someone doesn't pull the boat ashore and FIX THE FREAKIN' HOLE, we're going to sink.

[Prinz Eugen]

[melchizedek]

Tofu has a good point.  Our system is set up to structurally put 3rd parties at a disadvantage.  When I took political science waay back in the day, the prof talked about how (michigan? maybe) ballots had two votes.  So people could pick their two favorite candidates.   So suppose someone liked the dem, and the green party both could get their vote.  Instead of "well I like green but I know I'd be throwing away my vote if I didn't vote dem"

I've never heard anyone but PS prof talk about this though.

[Prinz Eugen]

Good points by mel & D-Tofu.

I too, voted 3rd party a lot recently, because generally I vote based on my opinions of the ballot measures, issues, and questions at hand first - rarely just on personality, but more often on past records and statements.

The 'immovable object' in this case might be that in order to officially change the way votes are counted or administered I think all the states have to agree to a Constitutional Convention - an even unlikely to happen in any of our lifetimes, imho. You might need a successful foreign incursion, a generally recognized collapse of the Federal system, and the rise of a new confederacy (no I don't mean Civil War or slavery, I just mean 'a bunch of states') - or there may even be several confederacies on the continent - but something like THAT - or even a second kind of or general internecine war or social breakdown. Again, extremely unlikely, imho.

O-S-ama (not O-bambi)  might have been able to pull it off had he selected targets which really fundementally and culturally divided the USA on 9-11, rather than emotionally unifying us. (I don't know what those targets might have been, but that's a whole 'nuther discussion of conjecture / alternate history.)

Several club use a 'preferential voting' system where if [n] candidates are running, each voter gets (n-1)! points to allocate for each candidate. But this requires math, which we don't teach in school anymore because it exposes which students are smart, which are normal, and which might be functionally incompetent and don't belong in 'normal' school, or illegal aliens who don't speak our nation's language. (...not that I have any strong opinions about any of this, no...)

Essentially the ballot says that if 5 people run, you RANK them so your favorite  candidate that gets 4 points, the one that gets 3, then 2 then one and that last guy, who you CAN'T STAND, who gets ZERO. The person with the TOTAL number of points overall WINS.

What might be easier is to say that since 1 + 1 - 1 = 1, then if everyone gets ONE vote you get two positive and one negative vote, So with five candidate, if you don't really care but THIS ONE you really like, then you award +2, ignore the other three, and then you get to nail one guy with a [-1.]

This also allows you to award one point each to two reasonable candidates, (and still THWAP that one guy.)

Lastly, (And I may have mentioned this before, but up through the 1840s the election WINNER became the next president and the OTHER PARTY's candidate became the Vice President; sounds like this might have FORCED both sides to work TOGETHER...

[jaybug]

@ P.E. #2 get V.P. role: yeah, and the veep also more directly ran the senate, as its' president, he got to call on whom would speak. Much more power until Cheney came along.

The best campaign finance reform is to thoughtfully cast ones ballot, and to have most potential voters, vote. That way no matter how much money was thrown, the one whom people thought of as best would win.

Also, we need politicians who will do things that may endanger their re-election. We need them to do more than sweep things under the rug, and to have lobbyists tell them what to do, and stop having lobbyists write the bills that the politicians never read!

I can't remember ever seeing such slip-shod actions done by Washington. "Pass this or America ends!" B.S.

[DancingTofu]

Yeah.  I'm hoping that Obama's apparently haphazard administration will be the one that turns around, does something that all the investors, politicians, and CEO's will be completely opposed to, and actually help the 96% majority that's suffering right now.  If our invasion of Iraq and our efforts against terrorists had been taken seriously, and aimed at PREVENTING a third major World War, rather than funding corrupt foreign businesses owned by shady US politicians, I think that would have accomplished a very profound effect in regards to how major issues are addressed by politicians.

Something that really distressed me was when I was reading some responses to a testimony by David Wu.  He took the idea that we keep putting Vulcans in the White House and ran with it, concluding that we don't have Vulcans in the WH, because the REAL Vulcans don't act without a motive, so the politicians we're putting in the White House are more like Klingons, and so forth.  He makes a perfectly legitimate analogy with a perfectly acceptable amount of Pop Culture comedy, and all the responses are super negative, criticizing him...for what?  For phrasing the situation so that it's darkly humourous?  Making it so that the average American actually understands what he's saying?  Nope--they were criticizing him for being different.  Apparently, all senators are supposed to be exactly the same, have no sense of humour or culture, and never make analogies, because those would make them...uh...human?  I sure don't want humans making my laws!

[jaybug]

We had Klingons, now we have Romulans. Note the sense of humor as shown on 60 minutes. BUt I'll stick with what I said earlier, we had Ferengi.

I was listening o the radio today about how Phil Gramm slipped into an 11,000 page omnibus spending bill back in 2000, what led to the unregulation of the derivitives industry, ( say AIG, Lehman, etc.) CLinton signed it, I guess no one read that one either. It may have been NPR today, but Bob Brinker's Money Talk radio program said the same thing earlier, I just wasn't able to listen to all of it then.

I guess best practices would indicate that the individual would be most prudent to maintain a defensive stance as regards anything involving government. Save as much cash as you can, because it will either be taxed to a pittance, swallowed by corporate/speculative greed, or spent on lawyers and/or health insurance costs.

Fully fund Roth IRAs before anything else, like food and rent. Gawd that sucks, but it beats retiring after you are dead, as Social Security will not pay probably until you become age 72 or older. And then less than 1/3 of your estimated needs.

[melchizedek]

David Wu is a congressman not a senetor.  FYI

I met him once and wasn't a big fan.  He made some anti religious comments that ruffled my feathers.

Anyway, we'll see how things pan out.  Wiki's say that changes to monitary system made another depression impossible.

[DancingTofu]

You know, it's absurd that it costs us privileged, 1st-world folks a hundred times more to "survive" than what it costs to make a 3rd-world family comfortable.  It just goes to show how arbitrary value is--the only thing that's anywhere near balanced is life itself, and even that's worth a lot less in some places and a lot more in others.

I was thinking about it the other day.  Living on my personal bare minimums, it would cost me about $2400-$3600 a year to live.  For me to live comfortably but minimalistically would cost about twice that.  What does that money even mean?  It means less than it did a week ago, and that's what concerns me.  The economy is about making numbers bigger, and I haven't heard of anything anyone has come up with to fix it.  It seems like the problems always come back to a minority having control over a majority.  the .25% of the population that determines what things are worth is able to bend everything ridiculously and unnecessarily, milking arbitrary value out of arbitrary value.  We shouldn't look at a TV and think "that's worth $500 dollars."  Instead, the wise consumer's attitude should be, "that's worth 100 loaves of bread."


Regarding Cong/Sen: D'OH!  Goes to show how uninterested I am in electing people I don't know to tell me what I want.

[Prinz Eugen]

Fully fund Roth IRAs before anything else, like food and rent. Gawd that sucks, but it beats retiring after you are dead, as Social Security will not pay probably until you become age 72 or older. And then less than 1/3 of your estimated needs.

I'm fearing they'll go after ANY tax-deferred savings sooner or later. Remember, socialists believe that if you save your own money while some idiots across the tracks don't, then when it's time for you all to retire, why, you need to share. That's what Obama's words redistributive change mean, and how Joe the Plumber caught Obambi with his pants down by springing those deliciously inconvenient questions about motivation, capitalism, and self-created wealth.

I suggest making sure that a significant portion of any savings portfolio is in AFTER-tax dollars, those are a LOT harder to confiscate and redistribute.

[jaybug]

GOLD! Get your where I get mine, at Roslan Capital! lol Do you get your financial advice from convicted felons?

@Tofu, does that include any form of housing costs? My motgage alone is $1,100 per month.

Here's what bugs me. I live within two blocks of a railroad, but there is no way that these clown in charge will allow for commuter rail service, not when they can cut down trees, and put in place something that costs multi-millions. The type of projects that you never really hear the actual cost announced. And they are cutting service when it is needed most! I could understand that were it a private enterprise, but not if it is government funded.

So I guess even if I had the option of commuter rail, I could get to work, but could not get home. Just like when I lived withing 20 minutes walk from here too. 10 minutes to drive 20 minutes to walk and at least 40 minutes to take public mass transit, which would still have had me walking 10 minutes from the nearest stop.

I really believe we have everything we need to have things make sense, but we have so many middle men, and so many bureaucrats that say "I need more money from you", and "we can't do that." Then we have lawyers who solely try to run everything, they know the cost of everything, but have no clue as to the value of anything. Only they are worth anything you see. And so they go forth to do their hired gun thing, and shoot up everyone who stands in their way.

Oh, I heard an interesting thing on Bill Wattenberg's radio show a few weekends ago. Those hired gun attorneys, say for the Sierra Club, well the bring forth a suit, take it to a reliable judge ( in their view), and get even one part agreed to by that judge, they get paid all the attorney fees, so it doesn't cost them anything, in fact they make money by suing others. And meanwhile they do incredible damage to our ability to get anything done. What a racket as they say.

[reppy]

Fully fund Roth IRAs before anything else, like food and rent. Gawd that sucks, but it beats retiring after you are dead, as Social Security will not pay probably until you become age 72 or older. And then less than 1/3 of your estimated needs.

I'm fearing they'll go after ANY tax-deferred savings sooner or later. Remember, socialists believe that if you save your own money while some idiots across the tracks don't, then when it's time for you all to retire, why, you need to share. That's what Obama's words redistributive change mean, and how Joe the Plumber caught Obambi with his pants down by springing those deliciously inconvenient questions about motivation, capitalism, and self-created wealth.

Your definition of socialism could use some re-defining.

And just a question.. do you consider Joe the Plumber to be serious in any way?  Every time I've heard him try to explain anything that goes beyond plumbing I cringe because he doesn't seem to have any understanding of facts.  He's like Sean Hannity, Jr.  "Socialism bad! Capitalism good! America good! Rah! Liberals are evil!"

[jaybug]

Isn't a dictionary definition of, wait, let me OED this...
Socialism
 1. Freq. with capital initial. A theory or system of social organization based on state or collective ownership and regulation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange for the common benefit of all members of society; advocacy or practice of such a system, esp. as a political movement. Now also: any of various systems of liberal social democracy which retain a commitment to social justice and social reform, or feature some degree of state intervention in the running of the economy.
  The range of application of the term is broad. It is typically understood to involve the elevation of the social position and interests of the working class, esp. through redistribution of land or wealth, nationalization of industry and services, and the creation of workers' cooperatives. It is sometimes used synonymously with (esp. Soviet) Communism, although in some Marxist contexts it is used specifically to denote a transitional stage between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.
  African, champagne, democratic, market, state socialism, etc.: see the first element.

Communism
    1. A theory that advocates the abolition of private ownership, all property being vested in the community, and the organization of labour for the common benefit of all members; a system of social organization in which this theory is put into practice.

Capitalism
    The condition of possessing capital; the position of a capitalist; a system which favours the existence of capitalists.

I copied and pasted, as most forum goers do not have access to the Oxford English Dictionary  on-line.

Joe the Plumber, was a right-wing attempt at gotcha politics the left-leaning media has been doing for decades, I think.

I wonder if I will see a day when it is America that matters, and not the political parties themselves?

[DancingTofu]

There you have it.  Socialism implies a necessary degree of Capitalism, while Capitalism and Communism are exclusive of one another.  I'm sick and tired of Liberals and I've never agreed with Conservatives.  They all whine about taxes, they all take advantage of the wonderful things those taxes pay for, and they all insist on making politics an issue of economics.  People are so caught up in the idea that socialists are bad people--an idea that hasn't ever had even a hint of reality to it.  The cold war was no more about communism than World War II was about the Jews.  Scapegoats.  That's all it is.  A ludicrous system of scapegoats, so that politicians could take advantage of how stupid and gullible the American people are.  It's propaganda and corruption at its finest.  And now, just to maintain this idealistic LIE that the U.S. is, has been, and always will be the latest and greatest, Politicians try to cover up the crap.  They still hide the fact that the USSR had not been Communist since 1919.  They still hide the fact that Cuba is a Socialism, perfectly willing to negotiate diplomatic resolutions with us.  They still hide the fact that China is more Capitalistic than the U.S. ever was.  They use fake connotations because stupid people want someone to blame for their problems. 

It's just as shallow and baseless as when Himmler (that's right, Himmler, not Hitler; Hitler was just another charismatic figurehead.  His most direct role was in his outlining of the "Aryan Master Race".) proposed the notion of blaming and prosecuting the Jews--who ran much of the financial establishments at the time--for Germany's failing economy in the 1920's, when in fact it was because of the unfair resolution of World War I which placed the entire weight of the post-war reconstruction on the shoulders of a destabilized Germany, suffering from high unemployment rates due to the war itself and outrageous inflation rates due to the incompetent post-war government.  Imagine if, just to blame someone for the Great Depression, the U.S. government had found some bold revolutionary in some war-ravaged country with a budding socialist republic and send MILLIONS OF AMERICANS TO DIE just so that they wouldn't have to admit that it was a mistake made by AMERICANS.  Pretty ridiculous, right?  Now imagine if they did it AGAIN.  Now imagine that they used tax-funded resources to train foreign Guerrillas to kill innocent citizens of the USSR in order to weaken concepts of Soviet Nationalism and "diminish communist" morale.  Sounds pretty horrible, right?  Those events would be the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the training of terrorists in Arab nations that were, at the time, under U.S. supervision...especially in Afganistan and Iraq...the training of terrorists including Osama Bin Laden and many other al-Qaeda leaders.

By the way, "Soviet" is a Russian word meaning "Worker's Union."  I just figured I point that out to all you soviet scum.

[jaybug]

I thought soviet meant deputy. huh. from the oed.com    1. a. In the U.S.S.R.: one of a number of elected councils which operate at all levels of government, having legislative and executive functions.

I won't disagree with most of what you said, except that Iraq was soviet, Iran was US during the cold war, up until the Shah's downfall. During the Iran/Iraq was in the 80s, when I was in the Persian Gulf as part of the US protecting American vessels, those two nations sunk 7 tankers the week's worth of time I was in there. I didn't see anything, but I was told we were overflown by an Iranian Lockheed P-3 sub hunter, and an Iraqi Mirage fighter. They didn't shoot us, we didn't shoot them, but man we were so on edge, we were really wishing we could, because it is the most difficult thing to be ready to shoot, and then to not.

I read in the Stars and Stripes newspaper, that Saddam was a bad man, and not one to be trusted, or become a friend. But that we were giving him intelligence of Iranian force locations, as we still had a mad on towards Iran, from the embassy hostage takings a few years earlier.

When I came back to the US after my west pac tours, I was amazed at how little any  of this information was being disseminated by US news carriers. So I really look at what the Stars and Stripes did for coverage, that wasn't covered back home.

It isn't so much what is in the news, as to what the news people decided was unimportant that bothers me. The New York Times motto used to be ALL THE NEWS THAT's FIT TO PRINT. Now I couldn't tell you what it should be, as it appears to be more agenda driven, than just news reporting, of all the news. Do you think people would trust the papers more if they were given all the news there is, instead of just a smattering of news?

Speaking of the Shah of Iran, we picked him, and Ferdinand Marcos of the Phillipines, because they were similar in appearance to John and Jackie Kennedy. Seriously, the thought was that the people would love them because they were young attractive couples. The criteria were: is the first couple attractive, and will they fight communism.

During WWII there was almost no heroin in the US. There had been some coming in during the 30s, more so than the 40s. The reason heroin picked up in the 50s was due to CIA policy agreement with the Mafia to fight communism. They would fight communism, we would look a bit away with their money gathering schemes of importing heroin to the US. See the book, the Politics of Heroin, subtitled CIA complicity in the Global Drug Trade. Only a few pages and words have been blacked out by CIA orders, but they allowed that through.

[K-Rock-InC]

There's lots of smart-icle people here... Maybe someone can explain to me what a Dow Jones or whatever it's called is.

Off topic, but meh.

[DancingTofu]

The Dow Jones industrial average is a simplification of the trade value of industrial stocks as a whole, designed to indicate general economic trends and changes so that investors can invest more wisely.


My bad on the Iraq/Iran thing.   I knew that one was being controlled by the USSR and the other by the US--guess I remembered the rest backwards.

Soviet or "sovet" in Russian (сове́т) literally means "council."  It was adopted by the Soviet Union as a term to represent a number of local-level government bodies later.

[superjaz]

still when i see the title of this thread i see
obama liks pretz

[DancingTofu]

I thought Bush was the one with the Pretzels?

[jaybug]

http://www.dowjones.com/TheCompany/History/History.htm

The Dow Industrial Average, as reported nightly on every TV news in America, is a composite graph of 30 corporations stock value.

Dang I don't have enough time.

Stocks cost so much at any given time. Well take all the value of all the companies yuo are averaging, by stock prices, and you get a number. If it goes up, TV talking heads say Wall Street Went Up. Wheeee.

It's just as Tofu said, an overall picture.

@ Tofu, my ex-wife never taught me an awful lot it seems.
Also, I think it has been reported a lot by the media as you had previously stated. I don't think they do much ...whatever is proper to make creditable news. Like know their science or history, etc. etc.etc.
Or maybe it is just another attempt to blacken the eyes of the Bush administration. You see, if you keep telling a lie, it eventually becomes the truth. Umm, didn't Uncle Joe say that?

[Washougal_Otaku]

Hmm... I wonder...

...if I grilled President Obama, would he taste like salisbury steak, or would he be more like a t-bone steak?

[DancingTofu]

Whenever people talk about grilling politicians, I think of waterboarding.  Weird.

[Washougal_Otaku]

Hey!  That's a good idea!  While President Obama is vacationing in his birthstate of Hawai'i, I can be like a shark and eat him while he's waterboarding!

[DancingTofu]

Waterboarding =/= surfing...

[Washougal_Otaku]

 

[DancingTofu]

It's a form of torture currently legal in the US.

[Washougal_Otaku]

You mean the type where they drip water on your forehead or where they make you think you're drowning?

Either way, Obama will be a tasty meal.  It's just a matter of how to prepare him...

[DancingTofu]

The one where it feels like drowning.

[jaybug]

Obama would taste like pork. Literally and figuritively. You would be asking, where's the beef? And all there would be would be pork. Maybe it would have a slight barrel taste to it or not, dunno.

REad today that burning wood is not a good energy choice in the guest viewpoint in the local paper down here. It releases toxins, and other bad things happen, like it really isn't renewable. Hmm, I guess we should save all the woodland creatures by removing all dead trees so they aren't exposed to those poisons, and to ban forest fires from happening.

Personally I think it would be easier to ban humans, by raising taxes or something like that. They have a good start on that down here.